Judge tosses kids climate case in Pennsylvania


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

Advertisements

104 thoughts on “Judge tosses kids climate case in Pennsylvania

    • It worked for me. I think it’s a pdf of the ruling.

      I would like to know how Aiken completely missed the establishment, some time ago, of the federally-run Environmental Protection Agency, because she failed to refer to it in her ruling. If she ignored that agency, she fails badly as a judge.

      • Well she still nailed it.

        ‘Plaintiffs’ anticipated injuries are not imminent or certain. They allege that the harms they
        have suffered “have been exacerbated and will continue to worsen as climate change becomes
        more severe.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 9.) At this early stage, I must credit those allegations. See Fowler,
        578 F.3d at 210. Accordingly, I must also accept that: (1) Defendants are attempting to rescind
        regulations and statutes intended to limit levels of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) if their attempt is
        successful, this, in turn, will cause unnamed third parties to increase their pollution of the air; (3)
        this, in turn, will necessarily include increase greenhouse gas emissions; (4) this, in turn, will cause
        further climate change; and (5) this, in turn, will aggravate S.B. and B.B.’s allergy and asthma
        symptoms. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 141, 143, 166.)
        Such an attenuated, contingent chain of events does not make out “certainly impending”
        injury. Rather, it is at best, a less than certain prediction. See, e.g., Clapper, 568 U.S. at 410
        (“[R]eli[ance] on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities[] does not satisfy the requirement that
        threatened injury must be certainly impending.”); Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488,
        496 (2013) (rejecting standing theory based on a speculative chain of possibilities).
        In these circumstances, Plaintiffs have not made out any injury in fact.’

        • And again;

          ‘Moreover, the “right” the Juliana Court recognized is without apparent limit. Although
          the Court stated that it wished to avoid the “constitutionalization of all environmental claims,” it
          did not explain how it would do so. Id. at 1250. Similarly, although Plaintiffs ask me to recognize
          a similar constitutional right, they do not define its scope. Given the actions they ask me to
          address—including altering agency web pages, approving hiring decisions, and ratifying the
          President’s cabinet appointments—it appears that the scope of the “fundamental” right Plaintiffs
          invoke has no clear limit. This, as much as anything, underscores that Plaintiffs do not seek the
          Court’s assistance in adjudicating a legal dispute. Rather, Plaintiffs disagreement with Defendants
          is a policy debate best left to the political process’

          • This should be read in the light of a NSW judge disallowing a coking coal licence because of implicit global warming.

            In the US decision above the judge carefully points out the clash this then causes between the sovereign rights afforded by the political process and the separation of powers whereby the courts cannot interfere with this right.

            ‘Once again, I decline to arrogate to the Courts the authority to direct national environmental
            policy. Accordingly, I will grant Defendants’ Motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ public trust claim
            (“Second Cause of Action”) on this alternative ground. (Am. Compl. 62–63); Fed. R. Civ. P.
            12(b)(6).’

    • I want to down-vote this comment to the cellar.
      It is an excellent example illustrating my desire for WUWT to provide up/down votes for comments.
      Reddit does it, and it effectively weeds out the stupid.
      Why does WUWT make me weed through tons of ignorant to find the good comments?

      (I notice you have used TWO different names on the same IP address, please chose one and drop the other) MOD

      • Would it be more intelligent, if DonM said Aikens is a … sh-for brains Judge? Based on this one “decision” (detached from any rational reasoning) I would conclude Aiken is not intellectually, or emotionally, capable of her Judgeship. Sometimes a shorthand description of people in positions for which they are unqualified … is justified.

      • Cynthia, we had the up/down vote set up last year, but the Plug In crashed and screwed up the site. Oh I see that you have only 5 comments, thus you never saw it when it was installed.

      • I agree with DonM’s simple observation.

        I already had his opinion of Aiken from when she found for the Plaintiffs, her absurd decisions.

      • Creating law is the job of Congress. Judges have to interpret it and their interpretations have the effect of creating law that was not envisioned by Congress. There is a breed called activist judges.

        Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law.

        Accusing a suspected activist judge of being a POS is a bit harsh maybe … or maybe not. It’s hard in our democratic system to undo the damage they do, so I can understand why some people might not like them.

        Anyway, if you voted the comment into the cellar, I would vote it back out again.

        • This is an example of a good comment that I would not down vote.
          It mentions purpose of congress, purpose of judges, deviation of activist judges from their purpose, damage done to our system.
          This good comment is quite different from saying ‘good judge’, ‘bad judge’, ‘showtime judge’, with no supporting remarks about why.
          FYI – I do agree the judge is probably a POS, but it adds nothing to call out “YEAH, POS, YEAH”

          • Unlike your original comment:

            “Cynthia Maher February 22, 2019 at 9:18 am
            I want to down-vote this comment to the cellar.
            It is an excellent example illustrating my desire for WUWT to provide up/down votes for comments.
            Reddit does it, and it effectively weeds out the stupid.
            Why does WUWT make me weed through tons of ignorant to find the good comments?”

            ?

            It’s all emotional tirade and a boundless question.

            “Reddit does it, and it effectively weeds out the stupid.”

            Maybe.
            First they have to weed out the bots that upvote/downvote items and people based upon their owner’s wishes; often failing to weed out all bots.

            Consensus is never a good reason to choose.

          • And some would say that your officious comments add nothing Cynthia. I still defend you right to go on here and vent them which, it seems to me, is what DonM was doing. Live and let live and by all means express you opinion.

          • Thank you, Bill Powers for calling my comments “officious”.
            I had to look that up.
            I will have to think about whether my comments were assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, especially with regard to petty or trivial matters.

          • “Consensus is never a good reason to choose.”

            Yeah, why would you want someone else to decide what you should read? Some of those down-voted posts might be good ones. How do you know one way or another if you don’t read them?

            I believe the up and down votes of the previous implementation of the commet software did not physically move the post up or down, it just marked how many up and down votes were cast for that particular post. At least it didn’t move the posts for me.

          • I wonder what you’d think of this comment Cynthia? I post this for no other reason than for expanding ideas, and Cory does this, even though I got into an argument with them through the week. Please note I use my full name here, always have and I have published as a skeptic a few times.

            ‘The “clean energy revolution” doesn’t threaten big oil – it secures it. It doesn’t weaken capitalism. It strengthens it. It doesn’t inspire resistance – it quells it – into oblivion.’ Cory Morningstar with Forrest Palmer.

            THE MANUFACTURING OF GRETA THUNBERG – FOR CONSENT: “THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH” BEHIND YOUTH COOPTATION
            Wrong Kind of Green Jan 21, 2019 350.org / 1Sky, Avaaz, B Team [Managed by Purpose – the PR Arm of Avaaz], Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism, Purpose [Public Relations Arm of Avaaz], Social Engineering, United Nations, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

            January 21, 2019
            By Cory Morningstar with Forrest Palmer

            http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/21/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-inconvenient-truth-behind-youth-cooptation/?fbclid=IwAR1t_gt3uTAfzvy0OrkV0evg_4qU-HuUmbWneiL-wWWeVEiI86TBiIRdPdA​

      • Because being offended at free speech is exactly why it was protected. Forces you out of your comfort zone.

        If you do not like a post challenge it on the merits or lack thereof; debate the person.

      • Alright mystery-poster poseur … how about THIS for intellectual discussion …

        http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/blog/oregon-activist-judge-ann-aiken-strikes-again-in-class-action-lawsuit-over-climate-change.html

        In her ruling, the shit-for-brains extremist Judge wrote: the defendants … have so profoundly damaged our ‘home planet’ that they threaten the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.. That … is an INSANE ruling by a Judge, who is obligated to rule on THE LAW and actual EVIDENCE … not political opinion.

        • It still does not explain, Kenji, why Aiken ignored the EPA as a government body whose job is to monitor precisely the things that these two kids had included in their complaint. That is a deficit on her part, and I seriously question how their allergies have anything to do with climate change. I would want to see verification and recommend that they and their parents move to an area that is less polluted, if theirs IS polluted.

          And furthermore, in this sentence: “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.”

          Their claim is unsubstantiated by a lack of physical evidence supporting their claim. It’s baloney. The response that it was a political claim is correct.

          Gee, I could claim that floral perfume is a pollutant and flowers should be banned from everywhere, because they make me sneeze. But since they are everywhere and provide food to pollinating insects as well as other critters after the blossoms are gone (think apples, pears, seeds), then eliminating them from the environment just because I sneeze occasionally is easily proven to be more harmful to the environment and to people in general (loss of food resources) than their pollen and scents are to me.

          • Ah, but flowers are “natural”. Our society has succeeded in demonizing virtually every human endeavor. The massive government $$ financial windfall arising from suing the tobacco companies for “hiding” the danger of smoking and the addiction of cigarette smoking … while simultaneously ignoring personal responsibility has motivated a cascade of frivolous lawsuits against … ewwwww! … corporations. Any manmade product is now “fair game” … science be damnned. So … ban … natural flowers? No. Attack perfume manufacturers? Hells yeah!!! Go GET the perfume manufacturers! BAN perfume! Better yet, TAX perfume!!

      • There can be two different users in the same household. My husband and I both contribute to a particular blog and we obviously share the same IP address. That being said, mods need to be sure this is the case.

        • In this house, I am the only user on WUWT.
          It is My User Error that I Posted Once with my Last Name Included.
          Unlike others, who feel completely safe, I like to hide my identity and location just a little bit.
          It’s probably hopeless anyway; google and amazon know me well.

          • “It is My User Error that I Posted Once with my Last Name Included.”

            The mods just want you to use one user name. They don’t care what it is as long as you use the same one every time. Not long ago I mistryped my email address a couple of times while posting and the Mods called that to my attention the same way they did you.

      • MOD
        I’m not sure how to fix the name attached to this post.
        It is My User Error that I Posted Once with my Last Name Included.
        Unlike others, who feel completely safe, I like to hide my identity and location just a little bit.
        It’s probably hopeless anyway; google and amazon know me well.

        • However, I suspect she doesn’t really care … as she will receive high praise from her supporters on the eco-left who will cite her decision over and over in the coming years as only having been overturned by a “right wing Judge” who “doesn’t care about the chillllldren”. Don’t weep for Judge shit-for-brains … she will be celebrated on the DC cocktail party circuit.

  1. 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.

    • um… I think the constitution has already established a method of ‘supervisory function over the federal government’ via checks and balances, oversight committees, and the such.
      Are you proposing yet another taxpayer funded group of watchers to watch the watchers watch?
      Title it “The Department of Federal Redundancy Department”.

      • I’m not following … Steve O didn’t suggest any such thing. He referenced our current institutions functioning as designed.

      • I propose a new agency whose function is F.E.R.N. (Federal Enforcement of Ridiculous Nonsense). Oh wait… we already have several such agencies….

      • We agree with each 100%. The form of our government is defined by the Constitution, and it is sufficient. But for those who disagree, and who believe we need one more level of checks and balances, a Constitutional amendment would be the means to make such a change.

  2. 2004 Bush 43 nominee to district court.

    Subsequently nominated to 3rd circuit, but apparantly withdrawn

  3. 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

      • Delighted to see this here.
        Personally, I am persuaded by data, patterns of data, and my expectation that the patterns will continue.
        However, Scott Adams says the non-scientific public and politicians respond to persuasive arguments that include Fear, Emotion, Irrationality, and Prediction of Bad Outcomes.
        I think the following arguments (from Tony Heller) may successfully thread the needle between truthful persuasion and the persuasion that Scott Adams is looking for.
        1. Climate alarmism is based mainly around fear of extreme weather. This concept is deeply rooted in human nature, and has its roots in ancient stories of giant floods, famines and plagues – caused (of course) by man’s sins. Climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, and pushing the same idea of extreme weather and floods caused by mankind’s carbon sins.
        2. Climate alarmism is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. People may not see any evidence of catastrophic climate change or sea level rise, but their opinion is irrelevant because 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global warming. Only a small handful of people whom the press and politicians quote over and over again are allowed to state an opinion, and they are claimed to represent 97% of the world’s millions of scientists.
        3. Academics have been making apocalyptic predictions for decades. All have failed miserably, yet they keep repeating the same misinformation over and over again. Had their forecasts been correct, we wouldn’t be here now to have this discussion.
        4. Climate alarmism is completely dependent on graphs and useless climate models generated by a small handful of people. The graphs are generated through scientifically corrupt processes of data tampering and hiding data.
        5. The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable, dangerous and useless. They were made without consulting engineers, and have zero chance of success. A robust discussion about our energy future is needed, but that discussion is censored in favor of propaganda.

        (I notice you have used TWO different names on the same IP address, please chose one and drop the other) MOD

        • 5.) needs to be they were made “without consulting other disciplines which the solutions directly fall under”.

          It isn’t just engineers it is also economics and physics, things that most climate scientists have no qualifications in.

          I would throw 4 and instead go with
          4.) It has become obvious the world is unlikely to meet emission control because of country sovereignty conflicting with socialistic aspirations of the proposed solution. At COP24 all human rights and equality features were removed from the rule book, the only reference to human right and equality now is as a preamble. Climate discussion needs to move on to plans which are built around the concept of sovereign countries working together which means many of the NGO’s and Human rights groups have no role and are simply creating noise.

        • Cynthia, you indicated you are new to this subject, and that you are persuaded by data.

          Accordingly I would suggest an item 2a with respect to “… because 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global warming. “. Look up the Doran and Zimmerman study which is the only “semi-rational” source of that belief. To shortcut a LOT of problems with that study, the two most important are:

          1. After sending surveys out to about 10,000 “earth scientists”, they repeatedly culled down responses until they were left with only 79; selected because they had recently published in a climate science journal. The survey results summarized answers to only two questions:

          Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

          Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

          Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

          (h/t Dave Burton)

          Notice no “climate scientist” indicated that a rise in temperature would be harmful, nevermind “catastrophic”. I think it is important that rational people step up and challenge that false meme every time it is raised. Otherwise certain judges may be mislead.

          • I attended the Heartland Institute conference on climate change in Las Vegas a few years ago. Lord Moncton asked in an after dinner speech for a show of hands from everybody who thought the global temperature was rising. Every one of the 600 participants raised their hands. However, all of them believed that all models trying to predict future warming showed way too much warming.

    • don’t bother … Adams is just trolling … he is very bright and yet seems to claim too many arguments are obtuse (when they are clearly not) … its just clickbait …

  4. The truth (and courts) eventually get their pants on and catch up to the lies that run far in advance of them.

  5. “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.

    • I agree. There is NOTHING in Judge Diamond’s ruling that Judge Aiken DID NOT KNOW. She deliberately and openly flouted the law.

  6. “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.

  7. 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.

    • Then I guess you better look up imminent domain and commerce clause to find out how things really work behind the curtain of the all powerful Oz. Then look up who engineered life time appointments for the SCOTUS and the attempts to pack the Court when the votes did not turn out as needed.

      • Uhhh, ResourceGuy, the above article specifically states: ” . . . Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States that the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate . . .”

        We are talking about the Constitution here, not other Governmental regulations or statutes.

        And your reply contains a classic sophomoric attempt at deflection.

      • “ResourceGuy February 22, 2019 at 9:53 am
        Then I guess you better look up imminent domain and commerce clause to find out how things really work behind the curtain of the all powerful Oz.”

        “Imminent domain”?
        Where is that found?
        Or do you mean ’eminent domain’? Words that are not found in the Constitution or amendments.

        The Fifth Amendment, originally proposed as ‘Article the Seventh’ does have:

        Amendment V
        No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

        Which provides jurisprudence the concepts of ’eminent domain’.

        “ResourceGuy February 22, 2019 at 9:53 am

        Then look up who engineered life time appointments for the SCOTUS and the attempts to pack the Court when the votes did not turn out as needed.”

        Apparently, you have not read America’s Constitution.
        SCOTUS justices serve under:

        Article III.
        Section. 1.

        The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

        I bolded the words pertinent to your specious claim.
        Federal judges serve until they retire, resign or are impeached; i.e. lifetime.

        Many Presidents have desired or sought to pack the Supreme Court. There are a number of Democrats currently considering how they can “pack” the Supreme Court, in response to President Trump’s slight conservative judge majority.

    • Heck, how many references to education, or housing or urban development or so many of these bureaucracies we are stuck with.

      • Uhhh, Dan Sudlik, the above article specifically states: ” . . . Judge Ann Aiken for her ruling in Juliana v. United States that the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate . . .”

        We are talking about the Constitution here, not other Governmental regulations or statutes.

        • I was talking about the Constitution, a document of limiting government powers to those listed. Read amendments nine and ten. Education, environment, housing and urban development aren’t listed in the Constitution.

          • The Constitution clearly states how laws are created, when bills are passed by Congress and signed by the President. Both the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act were laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Therefore the government can pass laws regarding the environment. Ditto for the other concerns you have.

          • The Constitution provides for making laws. The laws that were created to protect the environment do not bestow “rights” on/to/for anyone.

          • David, the government can’t just create any law it wants willy nilly. Laws need to fall within the parameters outlined in the constitution per the 9th and 10th amendments:

            9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
            10th:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

      • The only place that I can think of that could even possibly be stretched to be considered applicable is in the preamble: “promote the general Welfare” but the preamble is not law but a statement of intent An explanation of the reason for the Constitution. And besides this layman reckons someone would have to define in law what constitutes “a livable climate” .

        • the US Constitution creates NO RIGHTS … never has … it assumes all rights are natural and directs the Government not to infringe up them … there is no natural right to live a healthy life … sure there may be a desire to do so … but its not a right either Constitutionally or naturally … its an OUTCOME … not a right

          • Kaiser, your statement “the US Constitution creates NO RIGHTS . . . never has . . . it assumes all rights are natural and directs the Government not to infringe” upon them. That’s a sometimes-heard argument, but it is clearly wrong.

            Here are examples of specific things just in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution that are not today, and never were, assumed to be natural (aka “God-given”):
            — 1st Amendment: freedom of the press
            — 5th Amendment: being held to answer for a capital crime only upon indictment of a Grand Jury
            –10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
            (Hint: obviously, the existence of the concepts of a press, a Grand Jury, a nation, a Constitution, and States are not natural, all being an invention of civilized man.)

          • Gorden, despite its common name, the 1st 10 Amendments were not intended to confer “rights”. It was solely a document that further enumerated what a proposed FEDERAL (as contrasted to a State) could NOT do. E.g. it could NOT establish a state religion.
            Even ‘Constitutional Scholar’ Obama pointed out that in essence it is a “negative” document.

          • George Daddis, your reply to me indicates you have been able to divine the intent of the framers of the US Constitution, including its Bill of Rights. Congratulations on that accomplishment.

            So, with that out of the way, would you please address the three specific instances in the Bill of Rights that I stated clearly showed a POSITIVE action to confer rights that did not previously exist, either from nature or from established law.

          • Gordon, your examples are points where the rights of the citizen are or are not infringed “constitutionally.” Everyone has the natural right to say and publish (eg. freedom of the press) anything they please. Restrictions may be made by statute, but the statutes must pass the First Amendment tests now laid out by the Court. Everyone has the natural right to go about their daily lives without being dragged into court and put on trial for their lives, but if a grand jury delivers an indictment the government may “violate” that right. And finally, everyone has the natural right to do whatever they please without ‘let or hindrance’, save for the rights the states and the federal government are permitted to regulate by the Constitution.

            In essence, the Constitution is a guide to when, what, and how the various agencies of the Federal, State, and local govts may restrict the rights of a citizen.

        • rah: “And besides this layman reckons someone would have to define in law what constitutes “a livable climate” .

          Since we have people living above the Arctic circle, in the Muddle East, the Amazon jungles, the Himalayas, Norway, and Italy, just to point out a few diverse climates that are livable, I believe that pretty much any of the climates on Earth are livable.

          That sure would be a strangely worded law should anyone attempt to write it.

        • I hate throwing sand in the gears. There is another place “general welfare” is found, and it is specific “of the United States

          Section. 8.
          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

          I’m just showing the reference don’t shoot.

          michael

    • 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.”

      Have you searched the penumbra and emanations? apparently that where all the unlisted constitutional rights exist (such as the right to killing ones unborn child).

      • The problem with your argument is how can the US Constitution protect the rights of someone yet to be born and become a citizen? Your can have laws that apply to the citizen but gets problematic with the child.

        If you want to confer US citizenship rights at the point of conception you are going to have a hell of a lot of US citizens created by visiting tourists, just saying 🙂

      • John Endicott, the US Constitution, under Amendment 14, states:
        “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

        No amendment to the Constitution has changed this declarative sentence. (But note that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 , Sections 301and 309, expanded upon this to clarify that infants BORN of one or two US parents (wed or unwed) maybe become US citizens at birth even if the birth occurs outside of the borders of the United States and its territorial lands.)

        The 14th Amendment and the INA clauses do not confer US citizenship to UNBORN children.

        As the saying goes, if you don’t like what’s currently in the Constitution and its 27 Amendments, you have every right to mount an effort to peacefully and legally try to add a new Amendment.

        • As the saying goes, if you don’t like what’s currently in the Constitution and its 27 Amendments, you have every right to mount an effort to peacefully and legally try to add a new Amendment.

          Show me where in the constitution ABORTION is listed as a right? You can’t , because such a right does not exist anywhere in the constitution (you won’t find any references to abortion anywhere in the actual text of the constitution, go on search the document for yourself and let us all know what article and what section mentions abortion). It’s those that wanted to make killing their babies a right that should have had to change the constitution, but instead judges invented that right for them.

          (No more arguments over Abortion as the topic is about a court case on climate damage claims) MOD

      • Previous attempts to reply seem to have gotten lost in cyberspace, so one more try:

        The problem with your argument is how can the US Constitution protect the rights of someone yet to be born and become a citizen?

        LbD, Citizenship isn’t involved. Unless you think the Constitution allows the murder of non-citizens. Is that REALLY the argument you want to make? Seriously? The right we are talking about here isn’t the right of the Child to be a citizen, it’s the right of the parent to murder that child.

        As the saying goes, if you don’t like what’s currently in the Constitution and its 27 Amendments, you have every right to mount an effort to peacefully and legally try to add a new Amendment.

        Gorden, it’s those who wanted a right to murder their children who needed to change the constitution because ABORTION appears nowhere in the constitution (go on, search it for yourself and tell me where you find the word Abortion or equivilant word in there. You won’t find it because it’s not there). Instead they got judges to invent the right for them. What should have happened is Abortion should have remained in the realm of the states to decide on per the 9th and 10th amendments.

        [Abortion is a topic no longer allowed in this thread, as stated by another moderator. This Mod agrees.]

  8. 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.

  9. ” livable climate” ,by whose standards..??
    populations of jungle/prairie/desert /mountains/costliness just might have diff ones..

    • “Livable climate”?
      I consider Minnesota, North Dakota, and ALL equatorial countries to be UN-livable. But I’ve never gone to court for reparations… children, children, … puhleeze

  10. “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?

  11. 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?

    • They didn’t get to the issue, the first question is does a person have rights which are not granted by the sovereign state … the answer was no.

      It pits the 30 articles of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” against the sovereignity of the state
      https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

      The socialist left would love that to be enforcible law but as detailed even on the wikipedia link
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

      Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for more than 50 years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law. However, in the United States, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), concluded that the Declaration “does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law.” Courts of other countries have also concluded that the Declaration is not in and of itself part of domestic law.

      The socialist left keeps trying push the issue because the want the act of being born to infer some worldwide rights to you which transcend a sovereign state.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

    • He was nominated by Bush during an presidential election year, and met the same fate Judge Garland would later meet – the democrat Senate refused to confirm due to his being nominated during an presidential election year so the nomination ended at the end of the congressional term and the next president (Obama) simply picked someone else for the position the following congressional term.

  15. 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.

Comments are closed.