By Dana Drugmand
A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a climate lawsuit brought by an environmental organization and two children against the federal government. The lawsuit, Clean Air Council v. United States, claimed that Trump administration rollbacks of environmental regulations and other “anti-science” decisions violate Constitutional rights and the public trust.
In dismissing the claims on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond scoffed at what he interpreted as a request that he “supervise any actions the President and his appointees take that might touch on ‘the environment.’”
Beyond ruling on this case, however, Diamond went further to rebuke U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States that the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate. When Aiken ordered that lawsuit to trial in 2016, she said “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” becoming the first U.S. judge to recognize that right.
Diamond said that ruling is at odds with previous court decisions and “the Juliana Court certainly contravened or ignored longstanding authority.”
He also took issue with what guaranteeing a stable climate would entail,, calling it “without apparent limit.”
In dismissing the case before him, Diamond said the Pennsylvania plaintiffs, who filed the suit in 2017, lacked standing. The two boys said their serious allergies and asthma were directly linked to the impacts of climate change, but Diamond said they failed to directly tie their injuries to government actions. Diamond said he interpreted this case as a political dispute. “Plaintiffs’ disagreement with Defendants is a policy debate best left to the political process,” he wrote.
Full story here
The ruling is here
h/t to reader Thomas Borecki
Link to ruling does not work.
that judge it a good one, not a political one.
(Aiken is a piece of sh
The judge didn’t dismiss a case, he dismissed a PR stunt.
The way we address issues of governance is to elect representatives who will make laws. We elect the head of the executive branch, which is charged with implementing the laws. If these kids want to form a supervisory function over the federal government, a process exists for putting one in place — an amendment to the Constitution.
2004 Bush 43 nominee to district court.
Subsequently nominated to 3rd circuit, but apparantly withdrawn
WUWT Readers and Anthony. Scott Adams has put out a challenge for the best 5 arguments Pro and Con regarding Climate Change. Would you muster your resources and take on the challenge? Here is an example and please challenge other bloggers to do the same.
Response to Scott Adams; The CO2isLife Top 5 Skeptical Arguments
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/02/21/response-to-scott-adams-the-co2islife-top-5-skeptical-arguments/
We can then create a top 5 of the top 5 list
The truth (and courts) eventually get their pants on and catch up to the lies that run far in advance of them.
“Beyond ruling on this case, however, Diamond went further to rebuke U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States that the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate”
Censure Judge Aiken. She is clearly not suitable for the position. It’s not a bad decision but one not rooted in the rule of law.
“the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,”
Said Judge Aiken. Wow. That is weapons-grade stupidity right there. She should be disbarred forthwith.
The funny thing is, I’ve done computerized searches through the U.S. Constitution and I cannot find any instance of the word “environment” or the word “climate.”
There is one single use of the word “science” in the Constitution, and it is this:
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Further, one does not find the words “sustain”, “sustaining” or “livable” anywhere in the Constitution.
Feel free to confirm the above via the downloadable PDF copy of the Constitution at https://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond was right to rebuke U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States . . . she apparently didn’t even bother to read and understand the U.S. Constitution in making her ruling.
The courts have been pretty consistent in ruling that climate change policies are a matter of public policy and not something to be decided by the courts.
” livable climate” ,by whose standards..??
populations of jungle/prairie/desert /mountains/costliness just might have diff ones..
“the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,”
Do Carbon Based Life Forms have a ‘right’ to Carbon?
The argument for a linkage between increased CO2 and subsequent warming and allergies and asthma would be increased pollen counts. Isn’t ‘greening’ a net benefit to society, and shouldn’t we be doing more of it?
Nice to see some criticism of Judges who seem incapable of maintaining even basic standards.
And another one bites the dust. At what point do these nuisance lawsuits over CC enter SLAPP like territory?
Sorry, but how exactly is it anti-science?
Reuters reported the decision yesterday. I made a note on Judge Diamond’s comment. Which stated that the issue was “best left to the political process. Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch. ”
And this is what the radical left is trying to do.
It amazes me that if you look at a graph of the global temperature from the Carboniferous period to today the average temperature is around 18 to 20 degrees C. Today and for the last several thousand years we are around 13 to 15 degrees C. Thus, we are presently in an exceptionally COLD period of weather based upon the normal temperature of the globe. Further, for about 200 million years of that 600 million years, the CO2 level was 10 to 20 times greater than it is today. for much of the past the global temperature was about 25 degrees C. That is a rather comfortable temperature which should be helpful for providing an excess of food for the animal/human population of the globe. Yet we are worried about disastrous irreversible climate change. That just does not compute and is illogical. Why is the normal temperature considered disastrous? What prevented the temperature from exceeding 25 degrees C throughout the entirety of that 600 million years?
The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. This protection should be extended to include the (mis)use of children in courts of law.
Judge Diamond was nominated for the US Court of Appeals.
What happened to that nomination?
Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch
Shame more judges don’t realize the boundaries between the branches of government like this judge does.