Claim: President Biden “Aiming to Destroy a … Climate Lawsuit”

Essay by Eric Worrall

A lawsuit to make climate action a constitutional right; A team of young plaintiffs including James Hansen’s granddaughter is shocked that Biden is opposing their effort to make climate action a binding requirement on the US government.

Biden Is Aiming to Destroy a Historic Climate Change Lawsuit


Juliana v. United States is a historic climate change lawsuit seeking to establish a constitutional right to a livable planet. But the Biden administration has indicated it will fight tooth and nail to prevent the lawsuit from ever getting a trial.

Any day now, a federal circuit court is expected to deliver a ruling that would allow a historic climate change lawsuit to proceed to trial.

If and when the case moves forward, however, it faces a major obstacle: President Joe Biden’s Justice Department.

The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was brought by twenty-one young plaintiffs in 2015 and seeks to establish a federal, constitutional right to a livable planet. If the case is successful, any federal policies that enable more fossil fuel development could be challenged as unconstitutional.

But the Obama and Trump administrations both vehemently fought the lawsuit, and now those close to the case say that Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicated it will also use every procedural tool at its disposal to prevent the lawsuit from ever getting a trial.

“I have asked [them] very directly, if we win this motion, and we can move forward with the case, do you intend to go to trial?” Julia Olson, the lead plaintiff’s lawyer, told us. “Their response has always been something along the lines of, ‘It is our position that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction and that this case should never go to trial.’”

“There was zero shift when Biden took office, zero shift from the Trump administration,” said Olson.

Read more:

We can only speculate why Biden’s administration doesn’t want the plaintiffs to win.

My guess is someone in the Biden administration knows the climate crisis is nonsense. The Biden administration might talk about climate action, but in my opinion Biden’s opposition to this lawsuit is evidence he has no genuine intention to reduce emissions.

Even Biden’s opposition to domestic oil production has done nothing to actually reduce emissions, all it has done is to make life more expensive for ordinary Americans. Foreign energy tycoons get rich under Biden’s America last energy policies, but the overall emissions stay the same.

Correction (EW): James Hansen, not James Hanson 🙂

5 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter W
May 26, 2022 2:24 pm

I wonder how the plaintiffs think they could stop the next ice age.

Reply to  Peter W
May 26, 2022 2:56 pm

As with everything legal (and engineering), the devil is in the detail.

To tie down what the climate kooks want to be preserved by their “right”, they will have to stipulate precisely what they demand won’t change.

Good luck with that.
They’re just wasting everyone’s time.
The courts don’t have the patience for this kind of bullshit.

(they’ll be flat out ruling what a “woman” is ffs)

Reply to  Mr.
May 27, 2022 7:55 am


Women – An adult Human female.

And courts do not make laws… let alone rolling/ruling in new constitutional amendments.

But, well, stupid is what stupid does.

And children have no right of stand in courts of law.


Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
Reply to  Peter W
May 26, 2022 11:16 pm

I seem to recall some line in the Bible predicting that some nation would be oppressed by their child rulers.

“Juliana v. United States is a historic climate change lawsuit seeking to establish a constitutional right to a livable planet”

How can the Constitution create a right to something the government(s) of the United States can’t possibly deliver?

And what does a “livable planet” even mean?? Much of the planet is “unlivable” now (try living in the Antarctic or Death Valley) – would the US have an obligation to warm the antarctic and cool Death Valley?

These people are infantile.

Last edited 1 month ago by Observer
Bryan A
May 26, 2022 2:27 pm

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

I have yet to find anyplace where it is stated that the judicial system can create a constitutional amendment. And, since neither side has the required majority, it hasn’t been proposed but rather opposed

Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2022 4:06 pm

The Supreme Court can, and does, by their rulings, create defacto Constitutional Amendments. They say as much on the SC website. When they make a ruling based “on the Constitution”, that becomes the “amended” Consitution, and it takes either an actual Constitutional Amendment to overturn it, or a 50 year effort to get a different Supreme Court in place that will over turn “precedent”.
That’s exactly what is occurring now with the Roe v. Wade (abortion) brouhaha. The Supreme Court in 1973 essentially legislated from the bench, and made a ruling on a subject that they WISHED was the law of the land, but had no authority, under the Constitution, to rule on. Any power not explicitly given to the Federal Government (and hence the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court) is left as a power of the individual States, “or the people”. Every Constitutional scholar knew that Roe v. Wade was badly decided, was legislating, not judging. Even very liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, later to become a stalwart liberal Justice, said as much back before she was a Justice and spoke freely about it.
The point is, with a Supreme Court that believes in a “living Constitution”, they take upon themselves to say what the Constitution “means” as it “changes”, and, therefore only the SCOTUS Justices can tell us what our written words actually mean. Normal citizens, even well educated people, can’t read it any more and understand its basic premises when one must look to a judge to get the “real” meaning. The current Court is trying to go back to a more literal reading of the Constitution, and is taking much heat on the potential Roe v. Wade overturning. That would be the correct ruling based on our Constitution. If the people and the states really want the Constitution to preserve or protect a right, there is a method laid out to Amend it.
There are many things that are not a Federal issue, and are not defined in the Constitution for the Federal Covernment to get involved. Those are specifically left to the states, each of which may have a different view, and their elected representatives should hammer it out. That is called “democracy”.

Reply to  BobM
May 26, 2022 4:41 pm

It’s all been downhill since Marbury vs. Madison. 🙂

Last edited 1 month ago by Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 26, 2022 4:47 pm

States power gets weaker because they don’t have ability to “print” money.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 26, 2022 5:16 pm

Pat Frank, strongly disagree. I think I have more knowledge here, while you have much more in chemistry and error propagation.

Marbury v Madison was foundational to the Constitution. The issue simply stated (omitting fact details) was stark. The Congress is sworn by A1 to uphold the constitution. So, on the one hand, Congress should decide by vote what is constitutional. On the other hand, A3 gives those issues to SCOTUS to decide. So, the first Chief Justice Marshall of SCOTUS rightly sided with SCOTUS, because Congress can obviously be politically swayed, as in the fact specifics of this most famous case.

The opinion is mandatory early 2L con law—minimum one whole class 2 hour period, sometimes more than one to explore secondary issues later raised—and to this day remains a thing of legal logic beauty.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 6:16 pm

It’s no surprise that John Marshall is adored by American law schools, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that the federal government has become much more powerful than the Constitution’s framers or it’s supporters at the State ratifying conventions could possibly have imagined.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 7:30 pm


I am no “legal” scholar, but I am an American Patriot so please accept this from one who cares deeply about the USA..

The problem with the SCOTUS and the federal courts is that the constitution demands that spending be appropriated in the House, but federal courts demand that the Federal government spend money that was NOT appropriated in the House, or in ways not directed by the House. Starting with M v M, the SCOTUS has exceed its constitutional boundaries.

Democrats when in power have used “consent decrees” between federal agencies and/or the DOJ and “plaintiffs” “approved” by federal judges to force federal agencies to spend money as the Left, always the Left wants.

This MUST stop, and TRUMP’S! 3 justices with Alito and Thomas MAY do the stopping. I would really like to see the interstate commerce clause returned to its true scope.90% of new federal law uses that clause in its enabling justification.

The Chief Justice is a liberal on judicial activism, just look at his opinion of Obamacare. I don’t think he will be of much assistance.

Reply to  Drake
May 26, 2022 10:11 pm

I tend to agree with you, Drake. And would like to see an end to Federal agencies making rules with the force of law.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Drake
May 27, 2022 4:12 am

“The Chief Justice is a liberal on judicial activism”

The Chief Justice doesn’t seem interested in finding out the leaker who corrputed his precious Supreme Court and has put the lives and the families of several Supreme Court Justices in danger from the Radical Left.

The Chief Justice is a HUGE disappointment. He is a judicial activist who has harmed the nation with his decisions.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
R Terrell
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 30, 2022 5:26 pm

So, THANK YOU, Mr. Bush, for that!

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 10:09 pm

Rud, my implied point was that Marbury laid the ground for the Supreme Court’s power grab of judicial supremacy.

Article I does not give Congress the power to decide by vote what is Constitutional. Only the power to legislate subject to the president’s veto (Sections 7&8).

It’s become pretty clear that the SCOTUS can be politically biased in its judgments, as well.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 27, 2022 8:36 am

Marshall’s jurisprudence gave rise to ‘case law’, in which precedent was based on prior cases, rather than looking to the Constitution itself and/or what it’s proponents said about it at the State ratifying conventions.

In my opinion, case law is very much analogous to a ‘Markov’ process, in which the meaning of the Constitution will tend to diverge over time. And given the nature of government, we know this divergence will tend to favor the expansion of government.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Tom Abbott
Reply to  BobM
May 27, 2022 4:08 am

Excellent comment, Bob.

Reply to  BobM
May 28, 2022 3:40 am

SCOTUS has no authority over the Legislature.
A Legislature, State or Federal can ignore SCOTUS, if it decides to.

A State Legislature can amend the State’s Constitution, provided that the amendment has merit (by requesting a SCOTUS validation) and it has no any objections from other regional governing institutions (or any other valid entities within the State) and it does not contradict or infringes the USA Constitution… at the very least.

SCOTUS can not and does not amend the USA Constitution… but it can have a verdict about the validity and merit of a proposed amendment.
A SCOTUS verdict against a proposed amendment to USA constitution could be final and terminal… as it supposes to.
Amending the USA constitution is far far much more complex and much harder than just a SCOTUS verdict.
Trying to make it as simple as that, by a verdict of SCOTUS, it is against the USA Constitution.

Well, maybe it is different than this!
What can I say.



MM from Canada
May 26, 2022 2:29 pm

“Juliana v. United States is a historic climate change lawsuit seeking to establish a constitutional right to a livable planet.”

Do Juliana et al. somehow imagine that the US can force every other country in the world to abide by the US Constitution?

Last edited 1 month ago by MM from Canada
Rick C
Reply to  MM from Canada
May 26, 2022 3:15 pm

They have confused “Camelot” with the real world. They think the government can make bad weather illegal. Methinks the lawsuit is just a vehicle to raise money to make some lawyers rich. The lawyers who brought this case should be disbarred and charged with malpractice.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rick C
May 27, 2022 4:19 am

Hansen should be charged with malpractice.

Ron Long
May 26, 2022 2:30 pm

I’m not a lawyer, but I can’t imagine how some idiot children have standing to sue for a “livable planet”. Having said that, I’m actually in favor of a “Scopes Monkey Trial” sort of trial regarding benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 versus imagined negative effects.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 26, 2022 3:04 pm

Nota Bene. Scopes lost.

Ron Long
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 26, 2022 4:16 pm

Scopes lost at trial, but the verdict was set aside by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The point of the Scopes Monkey Trial is that it brought forward the scientific idea of evolution versus the dogma of religion, and the trial provided a turning point where science mattered, which is why I wish for a similar trial.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 26, 2022 4:48 pm

Marching backward, to the glorious 16th century.

Ron Long
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 26, 2022 5:42 pm

Hey, Giordano, what’s that I smell burning?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Long
May 26, 2022 5:21 pm

It is my understanding that in order to have standing in a case, one has to be able to demonstrate that they have been harmed. None of them can. At best, they are speculating that they will be. That is not sufficient for standing. It is little better than someone claiming that they are certain what horse will win the next Kentucky Derby.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2022 7:35 pm

Until there is LOOSER PAYS, this will forever happen. And LOOSER PAYS MUST include any attorney that is pro bono or working for a portion of the award.

Reply to  Drake
May 26, 2022 9:39 pm

Nope, any attorney working pro bono or for a portion of the award shouldn’t get paid a penny

That would stop them from taking frivolous cases such as this.

It’s their risk

Reply to  Ron Long
May 27, 2022 4:11 am

Ron, I agree, but you would need good (scientifically minded) lawyers to present the implausibility of any evidence they could produce. That said it could open up a great can of worms with regard Climate Crisis etc. depending how far the defence (the government) would push it.
It would be an interesting case though…!

David Elstrom
May 26, 2022 2:42 pm

Leftist jerks studying the Constitution’s white space again to find a “right” to loot normal Americans in support of their First Church of Climate Catastrophe. Seems like the actual words of the First Amendment would bar their imposition of this nonsense as an establishment of (bogus) religion.

Giordano Milton
May 26, 2022 2:53 pm

If you want a constitutional amendment then submit a proposal through the usual process.

The courts have no power to invent amendments from nothing.

May 26, 2022 3:02 pm

Firstly, what is defined as a “livable planet”

Planet needs more atmospheric CO2 to become more green.

CO2 does not affect climate.

Secondly, It would be interesting to dissect the lives of these clueless munchkins, and see just how much they totally rely on fossil fuels for their every existence.

To be livable, society needs a solid reliable source of energy. Wind and solar cannot ever provide that.

Obviously , these children are calling for an INCREASE in fossil fuel usage.

David Wolcott
Reply to  b.nice
May 26, 2022 4:28 pm

If we establish a colony on the Moon does that mean the Moon is livable? As opposed to, say, Venus? “Livable” is a ridiculously vague concept.

May 26, 2022 3:02 pm

> “My guess is someone in the Biden administration knows the climate crisis is nonsense.”

Not hardly. That attitude is grounds for exclusion from the Biden Administration.

The reason is that should the suit succeed it would obligate the US to pursue any means to force other nations to comply as well.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 26, 2022 5:23 pm

The biden administration (as well as others) don’t like because it would take away some of their flexibility. An amorphous rule of law (free reign with executive orders, etc.) benefits the bad guys.

Reply to  DonM
May 26, 2022 7:39 pm

Agreed DonM. Democrats want control of the purse strings to buy the next election. If courts take that money away, what will they do?

The Dems and the swamp really needed to get rid of TRUMP! because he was actually working toward solving perpetual problems, which would leave them with nothing to run on.

Dave Fair
May 26, 2022 3:03 pm

Eric, both the Trump and Brandon Administrations’ opposition to the lawsuit have nothing to do with climate one way or the other. No U.S. Administration can allow the courts to usurp Legislative or Executive Branches’ Constitutional prerogatives in passing and administering laws. Additionally, the “life, liberty and happiness (property)” verbiage does not ensure them to particular individuals or classes of people. Our Constitution only provides for equal protections under the laws established in accordance with the Constitution, not a guarantee of anything in particular to anybody.

This lawsuit will be quashed do to reasons similar to those requiring Roe v Wade be overturned; if it is not clear that an issue is covered by the Constitution then it is not an individual much less a group right. Since no group of nine people is infallible, sometimes mistakes happen and corrections must be made. If people don’t like that there are procedures for changing our Constitution.

[Anyway, ask Rud Istvan for a better explanation. The above is just off the top of my head.]

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Rud Istvan
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 26, 2022 3:37 pm

Since I was ‘asked’ and did study con law intensely, here are some thoughts.

  1. Most of the lawsuits to now have been failed attempts to stretch the ‘public nuisance doctrine’. They have failed for two reasons. There are no damages, and no provable ‘immenent’ damages that would enable injunctive relief.
  2. This suit, now 7 years in gestation, tries to create a federal ‘constitutional environmental right’ where no such exists. The draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade is sufficient masterful guidance on all the underlying issues and precedents to this ‘environmental right’ claim.
  3. The Constitution is quite specific. The 10th amendment applies. Period. The kids creative lawyers continue to lose.
  4. There is an underlying legally fatal ‘inherent vagueness’ problem in the claim for a constitutional ‘livable planet’ right. Planet doesn’t mean where Hansen’s granddaughter or her lawyer lives. Inuit find the Arctic perfectly livable. Kalahari bushmen find that desert livable. Amazon aborigines find their tropical rainforest quite livable. Southern Californian’s may soon find their arid region unlivable from lack of Colorado river water. But that isn’t the planet, is largely the result of un-natural human interventions since the mid 1930’s (Hoover and Glen Canyon dams), and decisions to flush about half of California’s naturally acquired annual surface water to sea to protect the decades ago disappeared delta smelt—as if the Constitution protected delta smelt fish rights. Nope.
Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 4:13 pm

Thanks for the information, Rud. I apologize for imposing an implied burden for your response.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 26, 2022 4:32 pm

No apology necessary. I was going to weigh in anyway. You just gave me an earlier opportunity to do so.
And, you validate a reason to continue to participate when I sometimes feel most of what I could contribute already was. TY.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 8:21 pm

Rud, I think repetition of important points is appropriate. Often I miss important details the first few times through a topic. And there are always new people and those that need reinforcement.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2022 4:39 am

Your contributions on law and science are always enlightening, Rud. Keep up the good work.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 5:13 pm

As an aside, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that CO2 is going to make the planet “unlivable”. Even the IPCC has never made such a claim.

The worst the so called scientists have ever claimed is more storms and more droughts. Hardly “unliveable”.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2022 5:31 pm

Yup. Subsumed under the ‘no demonstrable damages’ comment above (well I got a bit more legal) in why the ‘public nuisance’ lawsuits have all failed.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 7:48 pm

Other than “demonstrable damages” is backward facing, while my comment was forward facing, I agree completely.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2022 4:48 am

“As an aside, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that CO2 is going to make the planet “unlivable”.”

That’s the main point. Were I the judge, I would want to see the evidence that CO2 is doing, or is going to do what the alarmists claim.

As a CO2/weather/climate observer of many years, I can honestly say there is no evidence that CO2 will do any of these things. Everything involved in Human-caused Climate Change is speculation. Speculation should not hold up in a court of law and judges are trained to separate speculation from facts, so the Human-caused Climate Change claims have no chance of being upheld in an honest courtroom.

Facts not in evidence. That’s the bottom line. No amount of speculation will change this and that’s all the alarmists have to make their case.

Lawsuits like this should not only be thrown out of court, they should be laughed out of court, if it ever got to the point of debating the various issues involved.

Remember: In the U.S., anyone can sue anybody for anything, so the mere filing of a lawsuit should not be taken as necessarily having merit.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 9:06 am

The problem is that only “experts” get to weigh in on science and the court gets to choose who it accepts as an “expert”. If a left wing judge were to decide that only people from the climate cult qualified as experts, they could easily rule that CO2 is going to kill us and there is no evidence on the other side.

Reply to  MarkW
May 27, 2022 10:12 am

The evidence does not support the notion of a climate crisis, period. Not only that, but China now emits twice as much CO2 as the US. China and India’s emissions are rapidly growing while the US’s emissions have dropped for decades. It would be impossible to apportion a part of any (fictitious) damage to the US and impossible to achieve a reduction in US CO2 emissions that would negate China and India’s rise.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 6:30 pm

Another case of, who wins in a lawsuit? Lawyers!

May 26, 2022 3:05 pm

I think the most interesting question is how on Earth did this suit get this far?
It should have been laughed out of court years ago.

Reply to  TonyL
May 26, 2022 5:16 pm

I thought this thing bit the dust over two years back — does somebody know if it resurrected somehow?

January 18, 2020 “The 9th Circuit pulls the plug on a children’s climate change lawsuit”

… on Friday, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit reluctantly reversed the trial court ruling and dismissed Juliana, et al. v. United States of America.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TonyL
May 26, 2022 5:26 pm

There are influential people who would like it to succeed, despite the obvious legal flaws.

Reply to  TonyL
May 27, 2022 9:07 am

Judges are very reluctant to toss out cases as being without merit.
Most of their friends are lawyers and they are reluctant to slow down the industry’s gravy train.

Tom in Florida
May 26, 2022 3:07 pm

Once again some people do not understand that the U.S. Constitution is a document that outlines the powers we the people grant to the government along with restrictions on what the government can do with those powers, not a document that outlines any rights the government grants us.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 26, 2022 5:01 pm

Exactly. And as a result of questions raised during its ratification (despite the Federalist Papers ‘founders marketing program’), it’s first 10 amendments were swiftly passed in 1789 and ratified 1791. Everybody should read and ponder #10:

“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.”
(Note: ‘or to the people’ meant when state constitutions were also silent.)

The US Legislative powers are enumerated in A1§8. The Executive powers are enumerated in A2§2. The Judicial powers are enumerated in A3§2. The first 10 amendments established further specific federal limitations, extended to the states after the civil war by SCOTUS via 14A§1 last clause.

The US constitutional edifice is truly a thing of beauty in many ways.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 5:31 pm

The US constitutional edifice is truly a thing of beauty in many ways.

Largely unappreciated by the left who seem to be displeased with anything and everything as it now stands, and have no compunctions about doing anything to make the changes that they want.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2022 7:47 pm

The LEFT, always wants MORE POWER. The US Constitution is the brake on their desire for more power.

Were it not for the constitutional amendment allowing the federal government to tax individuals at the end of a gun barrel we would not be in the mess we are in now.

Reply to  Drake
May 26, 2022 8:58 pm

You mean the 16th Amendment that was never ratified by the states but rather lied into power by Federal and political officials.

Reply to  Drake
May 26, 2022 11:17 pm

The left argues against the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments all the time. They also ignore the 9th and 10th amendments religiously. That’s 7 out of 10 of the fundamental rights you possess that they oppose.

Not exactly the bastions of liberty in any short review of their philosophy.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2022 7:53 pm

Several liberals are demanding that the 2nd amendment be repealed.
They probably think Biden can do that with an executive order.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 7:53 pm

I just wish they had been a little more explicit.
For example if the power to regulate interstate trade was primarily to intervene in trade wars between states, then say so.
As it is the commerce clause has been so distorted as to justify federal regulation of everything.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 26, 2022 9:22 pm

“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.”

Seems straightforward enough, but hasn’t stopped Uncle Fed from largely doing whatever he wants, to whomever he wants, whenever he wants.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
May 27, 2022 5:03 am

It’s a race between bureaucracies and the powerhungry, who try to impose their will on everyone, and The People who move to throw off these impositions.

This coming election in November in the U.S. will be a demonstration of The People taking power back from the powerhungry and the very stupid.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 9:09 am

bureaucracies and the powerhungry

You say that like these were two separate things.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 27, 2022 4:56 am

““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.”
(Note: ‘or to the people’ meant when state constitutions were also silent.)”

Yes the People always have the final say.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 9:10 am

A lot of liberals want to get rid of the 2nd amendment. If they succeed, the days of the people having the final word will soon come to an end.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
May 28, 2022 3:04 am

They won’t succeed.

May 26, 2022 3:11 pm

We can only speculate why Biden’s administration doesn’t want the plaintiffs to win.

Even lefty overlords are smart enough to know that would open up a whole new can of worms from the climate nutzis and cramp their style
An Entirely New Kind of Highly Reactive Chemicals Has Been Found in The Atmosphere (
You want to keep the peasants modestly afraid and looking to you for their mummy in charge not paranoid and completely out of control.

May 26, 2022 3:12 pm

The hilarious thing is that they think the US can guarantee a ‘livable planet’. They seem to think its the only country on it.

How can you possibly have a constitutional right to something which your country cannot deliver, because its entirely dependent on what other, independent, countries do?

You cannot have a constitutional right to have China stop emitting. Or Russia. Or India. Or Indonesia. They are the ones emitting and increasing emissions as fast as they can. They are the ones who, according to these people, are destroying the planet.

Do these people really think they have a right under the US Constitution for China to lower its emissions? Or indeed, do anything?

These people are so insane it takes one’s breath away. What has happened to us? Is it something in the water? In education? Is it a virus? Is it too many drugs? We had better find out soon, while there are some old people around who still have relatively intact brains.

Reply to  michel
May 26, 2022 3:21 pm

But let’s hear Griff’s take on this /s.

Bryan A
Reply to  michel
May 26, 2022 3:31 pm

Watch Idiocracy

About the dumbing down of society

Reply to  Bryan A
May 26, 2022 4:50 pm

Awesome movie. My favorite is when they take him to prison and he is standing in line to get processed and walks over to leave prison.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  michel
May 26, 2022 5:32 pm

I would put most of the blame on education.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2022 9:13 am

100 years ago, society was much more patriarchal and guns were everywhere.

Yet mass murders were almost unheard of.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  michel
May 27, 2022 5:10 am

“These people are so insane it takes one’s breath away. What has happened to us? Is it something in the water? In education? Is it a virus? Is it too many drugs?”

It’s the radical Leftwing Media doing all this dirty work. They are the most dangerous organization in the world because they create a false reality which causes ordinary people to elect leftwing fools to public office because the ordinary people have been fooled into thinking these leftwing politicians are not fools.

When Leftwing radicals are put in charge of things, like they are now, everything goes to hell in a handbasket. This terrible situation we find ourselves in was caused because radical Democrats are in control. It’s as simple as that. The solution to the problem is to oust the radical Democrats from power as soon as possible at the ballot box.

If you like our current situation, keep electing radical Democrats.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 9:15 am

Part of it is the belief by those on the left that a life without consequences is possible.
Every time something goes wrong in your life, don’t look at yourself, instead someone else must be at fault.
It’s hardly surprising that people who have not been as successful as they believe they should be, have taken to striking out at a society they believe has failed them?

May 26, 2022 3:53 pm

Fraudsters rarely want their fraud examined in court unless the fix is solidly in. That would be difficult with so much at stake to the public.

May 26, 2022 3:57 pm

The Fourteenth Amendment,
Section 1-
“All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United State and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Although the “equal protection under the laws” has been called upon in aid of plaintiffs in such diverse cases as Brown v.Board of Education (racial discrimination),Roe v. Wade ( reproductive rights), Bush v.Gore ( election recounts), Reed v.Reed ( gender discrimination),and University of California v. Bakke ( racial quotas in education), the Superior Courts have made it crystal clear in case after case ( 25-0 at my last count) that the “right to a liveable planet” if such a human right exists anywhere is not a “ privilege or immunity” of US Citizens nor Is inaction a deprivation of any right to life,liberty and property.
The Courts have repeatedly said that the issue is not one for the judiciary but rather for the Congress and International Conventions.
Case closed.

Reply to  Herbert
May 26, 2022 5:52 pm

It is worth noting that in Australia, on 15 March last, as noted in WUWT passim, a three judge panel of the Full Federal Court of Australia unanimously held in Sharma v. Minister for the Environment that the Minister had no duty of care to Australian children to exercise her powers to approve the expansion of a coal mine so as to avoid the alleged harmful effects of climate change.
Chief Justice Allsop noted that “ the posited duty throws up for consideration at the point of breach matters that are core policy questions unsuitable in their nature and character for judicial determination”.
In a case similar to Juliana, Herd v. Montana, a trial date has been set for 23 February next year in what is described as the first children-led climate case hearing in US history.

Reply to  Herbert
May 26, 2022 9:09 pm

The real teeth of the 14th is Section 5, an unlimited grant of power to Congress. Unlimited because lawyer speak can relate anything to anything else, thus Congress has unlimited legal power over anything they want to legislate.

May 26, 2022 3:58 pm

Grow up. This is what happens when your grandfather is nuts.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
May 26, 2022 4:58 pm

Which one?
(as if I needed to ask)

Walter Sobchak
May 26, 2022 4:01 pm

The have a constitutional right to a livable planet?

It should go with the list of rights from Police Academy 2:

You have the right to remain silent. The right to a court-appointed attorney. You have the right to sing the blues. You have the right to cable TV. You have the right to sublet. You have the right to paint the walls. No loud colors.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 27, 2022 5:17 am

I like those Police Academy movies. 🙂

May 26, 2022 4:16 pm

Here we go again, more virtue signaling lawfare. Waste of time and money (ours). Attorneys must froth at the mouth trying to get attached to one of these.

May 26, 2022 4:32 pm

Probably the Biden group, like the Trump administration, see the trial as a judicial power-grab. Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have no power to establish rights. They can only adjudicate law and interpret the Constitution within certain limits.

Any court attempting to establish rights clearly oversteps their authority under the Constitution. Further rights can be recognized only by virtue of Constitutional amendments, which no court has the power to make.

So, any court ordering such a right is arrogating a power strictly reserved to the Legislature and the States. The Executive, legitimate or not, will resist that grab.

That said, the Constitution does not establish rights. Rights — life, liberty, property — are determined by the state of nature. There is no natural right to a livable planet. The KT bolide is object proof of that view. There isn’t even a natural right to live on an unpolluted planet. Aeolian dust, volcanic lahars, and wildfire smoke establish that.

There is a right to redress for injury. Ms. Hansen and her group have no hope of showing injury.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 26, 2022 7:28 pm

“Any court attempting to establish rights clearly oversteps their authority under the Constitution. Further rights can be recognized only by virtue of Constitutional amendments, which no court has the power to make”

This is the reason Roe v Wade needs to be thrown out.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 27, 2022 5:24 am

The Roe v Wade decision may be coming in the next few days. Let’s hope it does, otherwise the radical Left gets another month where they can throw public fits over the possible decision. Get it over with and send it back to the States.

The Radical Left will have to get themselves some recreational vehicles so they can travel around to all the States to protest State abortion decisions. They’ll have to leave Washington DC because the decisionmakers will no longer be there, they will be in the various State legislatures.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 2:58 pm

Next up: shutter the EPA and return environmental protection to the states, where it belongs.

Stuart Moore
May 26, 2022 4:33 pm

Now the lawyers jump onto the anti-C gravy train.

May 26, 2022 5:02 pm

If this suit wins, the control of the climate scam will be taken from the hands of the politicians and given to the courts.

Of course the politicians aren’t going to support this suit.

May 26, 2022 5:17 pm

They should be careful what they ask for. A livable planet just might include staying warm in the winter and cool in the summer, or the right to self-defense, or the right to have contracts honored without government second guessing.

That which is achieved by executive order, political lawsuits, and other extra-constitutional methods can be undone the same way, and worse than they can ever imagine.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Felix
May 27, 2022 6:21 am

Considering the ever increasing human population, this Planet is already very livable.

May 26, 2022 5:45 pm

This is what happens when children are taught/indoctrinated that everything is known, everything can be controlled, and there are no consequences to be suffered.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 26, 2022 6:28 pm

Regarding “a constitutional right to a livable planet”, there is a concept known as legal standing.

Quite simply, the USA has no . . . zero . . . zip . . . nada . . . legal standing to impose it’s Constitution (and any laws derived therefrom) on the world that lies outside of the nation’s boundaries of states and territories.

You have to have an IQ lower than room temperature to believe that China, India, Russia, European nations, Indonesia, Australia—even the tiny nation of Nauru—would pay any attention at all to whatever stupid “constitution right” woke-like lawmakers and jurists passed in the United States.

Beyond this, I anxiously await the humor to come as the lawyers and bureaucrats argue over the definition of “livable planet”.

Anyone out there . . . anyone at all . . . think that is will be the US alone that determines whether or not future planet Earth will be “livable” just based actions taken (or even not taken) by the USA?

Personally, I can’t wait to see the US federal circuit court ruling on whether or not Juliana v. United States can go forward . . . and their reasons for a decision either way!

Getting the popcorn ready.

May 26, 2022 7:47 pm

I think a trail might not be a bad idea. Sounds like a perfect time for a carbon/nuclear holiday. It could be part of the defense to show what would happen if those asking for a hearing actually get their way. It is past time to stop enabling these pieces of trash.

May 26, 2022 9:23 pm

These young climate activists should make an education a priority first.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gbees
May 27, 2022 5:26 am

James Hansen is educating them. That’s the problem.

May 26, 2022 9:45 pm

Who’s funding this?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
May 27, 2022 5:27 am

Which leftwing billionaire is funding this?

Matthew Sykes
May 27, 2022 12:13 am

They all know it is nonsense, but seeing the chance to tax us because of it, pretend it is real.

So all you see are token gestures, but in reality, there is no serious attempt to limit fossil fuel usage.

Look at the UK, the gov just gave Shell the go ahead to explore more north sea oil fields, and is repoening the discussion ion fracking. Despite it being a ludicrously green government. Sunak is up to his eye balls in the movement.

Tom Abbott
May 27, 2022 4:03 am

From the article: “Juliana v. United States is a historic climate change lawsuit seeking to establish a constitutional right to a livable planet.”

Such hubris! Can you say “divorced from reality”?

Andrew Wilkins
May 27, 2022 4:18 am

From the Jacobin website:
“Pro-worker climate policy might someday earn the support of a powerful working-class army, but first, we have to help bring that army into existence”

The website is run by loony eco-commies. It’s comedy gold.

Steve Richards
May 27, 2022 4:31 am

If this case means – keeping fossil fuels in the ground then a current live example of what happens is occurring in Sri Lanka.

They have, 12 months ago banned fertilizer, pesticides and any other normal and useful aid to productive farming and ruined the country.

Crop yields down catastrophically
Tea exports down catastrophically

So, little food, little cash, little fuel just as a result of:


Read here and weep what one person with a ‘good idea’ can do…

May 27, 2022 7:00 am

Any sane constitutionalist knows just how very dangerous it is to add random “constitutional rights” to our body of Federal Law. Look what has happened with the abortion issue.

What kinds of spin-offs would result from a “constitutional right to a livable planet” — an you imagine the bureaucracy that would be established to enforce such a right? Would the federal government be required to go to war to prevent India from building coal plants? Go to war to prevent Brazil from allowing deforestation?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Kip Hansen
May 28, 2022 9:32 am

Endless series of citizen-vs-government lawsuits to follow just in the US . . . you know, “You failed to provide me with a ‘livable planet’ “. . . cue supporting testimony from expert witness Greta Thunberg.


It’s a great plan for future careers as lawyers.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 27, 2022 11:02 am

Kids! Want a livable planet? Start by tidying your bedroom.

%d bloggers like this: