A True Progressive Top Court Takes On Climate Change: The Case of Germany


Francis Menton

Two of my recent posts have looked at critiques from the left of the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA — the June 30 decision that held that the Clean Air Act did not clearly give EPA authority to order the phase-out of all fossil-fuel generated electricity in the U.S. My July 5 post, “How To Think Like A Liberal Supreme Court Justice,” summarized Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in the West Virginia case. My September 12 post, “How The Left Views Administrative Law,” discussed the presentation at the Federalist Society convention by Professor Sally Katzen of NYU Law School, where she stated her belief that EPA did have the authority in question, and criticized the Court for having taken “an extreme action to shut down rule-making.”

But the Kagan dissent and Katzen presentation are just critiques of the approach to this matter taken by our constitutionalist-dominated Supreme Court. A separate question is, what would the liberals do if they suddenly found themselves in control of the top court — say, if a new Democrat-controlled Congress decides to create six new justices to be appointed by President Biden?

At the lunch following the panel where Professor Katzen spoke, I found myself sitting next to two lawyers who had come from Germany to attend the convention. One of them said to me, in essence, you have no idea what a country’s top court might do when it feels that its powers are unconstrained. He then referred me, on the subject of climate change, to a Decision from the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) from March 2021; and he gave me sufficient pointers to find information about the Decision in English.

It turns out that the Constitutional Court has an English-language portion of its website, where can be found both a press release of April 29, 2021, summarizing the Decision, as well as a full translation of the Decision itself. The full Decision has some 270 “paragraphs,” some quite long, and would likely be around 200 pages if typed out in the format used by our courts. It is unanimous, and there are no concurrences or dissents. Unlike cases from our Supreme Court, the Decision does not have a caption naming plaintiffs and defendants. They suggest referring to the Decision as the “Order of the First Senate of 24 March 2021.” (The Constitutional Court is divided into two halves, called “Senates,” of eight judges each. They divide the cases between themselves based on subject matter.)

Here’s the short version of the Decision: Various claimants challenged the German Climate Change Act of 2019, on the ground that the Act did not go far enough in setting mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found that the mandates in the Climate Change Act were sufficient for the period up to 2030. But as to the period after 2030, the Court found that the legislature had not adopted sufficient targets for GHG reduction, and ordered it to do so! And in the absence of the legislature adopting a law to the Court’s satisfaction, the Court stated that it would impose such legislation by its own order.

That may sound shocking to many who are familiar with our own Supreme Court and constitutional doctrine. But our Court, despite some past excesses, has never really come under the control of the radical Left that now dominates law schools and the Democratic Party, as well as much of Europe. If you think that no Supreme Court in the U.S. would ever do something as crazy as this, I would not be at all sure.

Many things about this case appear quite strange to this American lawyer. First, the case does not represent an appeal from lower courts that had previously issued decisions; rather, it was begun in this Court, which is both the original court and the final court on matters of constitutionality. Apparently, that is how it works for all cases before this Court. Second, the absence of a caption is only the first indicator of the extent to which the case does not constitute an actual dispute between real parties. Although the case was commenced by four different groups of “complainants,” who are apparently mostly actual people, the decision studiously avoids naming any of them. Rather, they are referenced anonymously (e.g., “the complainants” (paragraph 40), “complainants no. 1 to 11” (paragraph 40), or (as to a different claim), “The complainants are predominantly adolescents and young adults.” (paragraph 60)).

There is a section in the Decision addressing “standing,” beginning at paragraph 96. This Court takes a very different approach from that of our courts on how to determine standing of a plaintiff asserting degradation of the environment, although I’m not sure that the end result would be any different here. From paragraph 96:

In light of what the complainants regard as the overly generous emission amounts allowed until 2030 under these provisions, it ultimately seems possible that duties of protection arising from fundamental rights in Art. 2(2) first sentence and Art. 14(1) GG have been violated, and moreover that the complainants who live in Germany are potentially faced with immense reduction burdens after 2030 which might jeopardise their freedom – freedom that is comprehensively protected by fundamental rights – in an unconstitutional manner. In all other respects, the possibility of a fundamental rights violation is ruled out or at least has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

GG is the German acronym for Grundgesetz — “Basic Law” — the analog of our Constitution. So apparently, the basis for establishing standing before this Court is that “it seems possible that duties of protection arising from fundamental rights [in the GG] have been violated.” That is a rather low bar. On the other hand, despite the seemingly higher bar in our system of showing some concrete injury, basically the courts here have accepted any assertion of environmental degradation as sufficient injury.

On to the merits. You will need to make it all the way to paragraphs 143 and following to find the authority on which the Court claims the ability to order the German legislature to make laws of the Court’s choosing completely transforming the economy. Here are the key lines (from paragraphs 144 – 148):

Art. 2(2) first sentence GG imposes on the state a general duty of protection of life and physical integrity. Apart from providing the individual with a defensive right against state interference, this fundamental right also encompasses the state’s duty to protect and promote the legal interests of life and physical integrity and to safeguard these interests against unlawful interference by others . . . . The duties of protection derived from the objective dimension of this fundamental right are, in principle, part of the subjective enjoyment of this fundamental right. Thus, if duties of protection are violated, the fundamental right enshrined in Art. 2(2) first sentence GG is also violated, and affected individuals can oppose such a violation by lodging a constitutional complaint . . . .

The state’s duty of protection arising from Art. 2(2) first sentence GG does not take effect only after violations have already occurred. It is also oriented towards the future. . . . The protection of life and physical integrity under Art. 2(2) first sentence GG encompasses protection against impairments and degradation of constitutionally guaranteed interests caused by environmental pollution, regardless of who or what circumstances are the cause . . . . The state’s duty of protection arising from Art. 2(2) first sentence GG also includes the duty to protect life and health against the risks posed by climate change. . . .

As you can see, the logic of the Decision begins and ends with Article 2(2), first sentence, of the GG. That must be quite some powerful sentence. Here is the full text in English translation:

Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity.

That’s it. Somehow, with really nothing more to say on the subject than those eleven words (only nine words in German!), they have managed to stretch this Decision out to something like 200 pages. Undoubtedly, the idea is to make it so long that essentially nobody can read it all and realize that the judges have just pulled these massive powers for themselves out of thin air.

Here is a picture of the building that the German Constitutional Court operates out of, located in Karlsrühe, Germany.


Clearly, working in a hideous modernist building of this sort addles the brain. See also, the FBI building in Washington. (To be fair, the FBI building is worse.)

Would a leftist-dominated Supreme Court in the U.S. ever go quite this far off the rails? Perhaps that will never be tested in the “climate” arena, for various reasons, one being that the EPA is willing to be the entity issuing the edicts to shut down the economy, and all the Supreme Court would need to do would be to decline to stop them. On the other hand, given the power of the religion of climate apocalypse, I would have little doubt that a leftist-dominated Supreme Court, if it saw no other route to get the job done, would issue whatever order it thought necessary to eliminate fossil fuels. Remember, our Supreme Court, when it thought there should be a constitutional right to abortion, was able to find it in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). In terms of the logic, there’s not a lot of difference between that and what the German Constitutional Court has done here.

5 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
November 15, 2022 6:18 am

Sounds like the Kinder are Komplaining about their potential for facing more stringent reductions mandates against them as a direct result of the actions of their Eltern and the current Politische Elite.

David Kamakaris
November 15, 2022 6:18 am

“ordered it to do so!”

Seig HEIL!

Leo Smith
November 15, 2022 6:41 am

We have more to fear from our own governments than Vladimir Putin…

abolition man
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 15, 2022 6:59 am

The FTX crypto scandal could possibly expose the roots of the Trump/Ukraine impeachment, and the basis for the current proxy war with Russia!
It looks like US taxpayer dollars were going into Ukraine, getting placed into FTX programs, and then being laundered back to US politicians as political donations! This is why it was so important to neutralize Trump; he might have exposed the whole thing!
With the current war, the amount of money flowing into Ukraine has only increased. This may be why our lords and masters are loath to push for truce or negotiations; it hits them right in the pocketbook!

Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 8:50 am

Wow just wow – your brain was taken over by the black helicopters apparently. I suppose you’re also a QAnoner too. Where’s that strait jacket!?

Reply to  Duane
November 15, 2022 10:11 am

Unfortunately Duane is not aware of the fact that crypto resides on a Blockchain and all transactions are public. The FTX path to the Ukraine and back to the DNC has already been verified.
It’s just a matter of time before the Big Guy is implicated.

Bryan A
Reply to  Yirgach
November 15, 2022 11:09 am

Implicated and Impeached

Reply to  Bryan A
November 15, 2022 1:06 pm

The Big Guy will be replaced by Kamala Harris on January 20th, so there really isn’t enough time to hold the trial in the Senate.

Bryan A
Reply to  fdemaris
November 15, 2022 7:40 pm

Horse laugh Harris couldn’t get Elected to Ice Cream Truck Driver

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
Reply to  Bryan A
November 16, 2022 5:36 pm

Democrat Senate wouldn’t dump Biden if he murdered someone on prime time TV.

Reply to  Yirgach
November 15, 2022 11:18 am

False : “all transactions are public”

the records stored in the Bitcoin blockchain (as well as most others) are encrypted. This means that only the owner of a record can decrypt it to reveal their identity (using a publicprivate key pair). As a result, users of blockchains can remain anonymous while preserving transparency.

Your absurd claim of ‘back to the DNC’ falls over on a basic principle of blockchains.
The transactions tracked , yes. The identities no.

Reply to  Duker
November 15, 2022 12:23 pm

The transaction has a source and destination. Cryptography provides a virtual indelible fingerprint to trace the path.

Reply to  n.n
November 15, 2022 1:41 pm

Path to what ? The end user and all other owners in between is unknown.
Which link in the chain – hint its in the name- is the one you are after? As they wouldnt have created the crypto but bought it from multiple other and their chains, and sold out early or later to other unknown users
Again you dont understand what you are talking about , it figures , but are just spreading nonsense from others

Reply to  Duker
November 16, 2022 5:32 am

Here’s the lowdown on this caper:

The United States, by contrast, is exercising great caution. Part of the reason for that hesitancy is the financial collapse of FTX, which is exposing evidence that the Democrats, some Republicans, the Ukrainians and FTX organized an elaborate financial kickback scheme. The scheme involved promising members of Congress who sent money to Ukraine a hefty contribution in turn from a Democrat benefactor. In this case, the owner of FTX. Once the U.S. dollars were credited to Ukraine’s account, President Zelensky and his partners diverted some of the proceeds to purchase crypto currency from FTX. FTX, in turn, sent some of that funds back to the cooperating members of Congress and the Democrat National Committee. This scheme is unraveling. The dummies mistakenly believed that crypto is untraceable. Nope. Thanks to block chain, eminently traceable.


Reply to  Yirgach
November 17, 2022 9:01 am

Thanks, Yirgach. It should be obvious to anyone w/half a brain that, whatever the exact details, Ukraine has been used by the DNC and their neo-marxists as a massive money-laundering site for quite a few years. Biden and son are obviously involved in it, as well as many, many others.

Reply to  Duker
November 16, 2022 7:16 am

Please explain via a really world analogy what you think the crypto thing is.

Reply to  Duker
November 16, 2022 7:14 am

This means that only the owner of a record can decrypt it to reveal their identity

If you think so please explain how you think the spending orders are verified by the system. If I have 1 BTC (or some other item) why wouldn’t I give you 1 and send 1 back to my other account? Who would be responsible for checking that?

Reply to  Duane
November 15, 2022 10:12 am

duh prthludent dothsent habv thuh bavilithy to impacth oll prithes.

(that is tough, I don’t know how can function ALL the time, from that specific perspective.)

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 15, 2022 8:48 am

So says Putin and his American toadies like you.

You do realize, don’t you, that Putin doesn’t just disagree with people on policy – he has them murdered.

Last edited 6 months ago by Duane
Reply to  Duane
November 15, 2022 9:11 am

Oh, so Putin is just like the Clinton family.

abolition man
Reply to  Duane
November 15, 2022 9:47 am

Take a deep breath or two, and try to let go of your fear and anger.
Then you can make an attempt at following this thing called “evidence.” I know it is more difficult, but it leads to far better answers and solutions.
I never said one word about supporting Putin; I consider him and his cronies in Moscow to be a bunch of corrupt criminals! But I think it is long past time to start considering that our leaders in Washington may be just as, or MORE, corrupt than the kleptocracy in Russia!
Putin is, overall, very popular with his people; and he seems to, at least marginally, care about their needs. Our current leaders in the West appear to despise their own subjects, which is why they are willing to institute ruinous policies like the Green Raw Deal, Not Zero, or whatever the latest scam is. Yes, Putin is a brutal dictator, but the current total of deaths from the COVID jabs as reported to the VAERS system is over 15,000 as of Nov. 4, 2022! And studies show that VAERS has an underreporting factor (URF) of about 30, which means as many as 450,000 may have died from these poorly tested experimental products! I doubt that Putin has murdered 15,000 of his own subjects, much less the far higher figure!

Bryan A
Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 11:14 am

Putin is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukranians and Russians directly caused by HIS War in Ukraine

abolition man
Reply to  Bryan A
November 15, 2022 4:38 pm

How different is the war in Ukraine from the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962?
JFK threatened nuclear war when he discovered that the Russians had placed missiles directly across the Straits of Florida on Cuban soil! Putin has been warning the EU and the US to stop pushing NATO membership on his immediate neighbors for years; but instead of backing down, like Russia in 1962, the US and the EU stepped across the line he drew and then were shocked when he reacted as he said he would!
The topic de jour is the totalitarian nature of the courts in Germany. Maybe instead of rooting so hard for your team, you should take a look at how much the Western nations now have in common with a brutal thug like Putin; especially after the ChiCom-19 lockdowns and mandates!

Last edited 6 months ago by abolition man
Bryan A
Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 7:55 pm

Putin didn’t want Any former Soviet Block Nation to get NATO status because he had great hopes of reuniting the USSR. Putin’s strategy is to place Russians in Ukraine regions. Use them to build a vocal group pushing for separatist movements (like Crimea) then push (or murder and bury in mass graves) the local Ukrainian population out of towns, move Russians in and hold the “Vote” for separating from Ukraine. Like he has in Crimea AND Eastern Ukraine.
The difference between Ukraine and Cuba is Cuba was blockaded in October (so the missiles couldn’t be installed) but not invaded by the U.S. with the inhabitants murdered and buried in mass graves while the U.S. moves in American citizens and holds mock elections proclaiming Cuba wants to be part of the U.S.
Oh And…
Putin is STILL directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukranians and Russians directly caused by HIS War in Ukraine

Last edited 6 months ago by Bryan A
Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
November 15, 2022 8:17 pm

Nearly 80,000 Russian Soldiers alone have been killed in Eastern Ukraine
Putin cares not about his people, he called up another 300,000 reservists to throw at Ukraine in an effort to get Zelinsky to “Bend the Knee” if he cared, he wouldn’t be in Ukraine. Putin thought eastern Ukraine would be as easy a push over win as Crimea was. He didn’t count on the global support against his thuggery.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 11:37 am

Kinda hard to take seriously any comment which claims the Ukrainian invasion shows a dictator cares about his people.

Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 4:19 pm

Putin cares about his people?
Is that why he’s having deserters executed, using sledge hammers?
Is that why thousands of Russia elites are buying citizenships in places like Grenada?
Is that why 100’s of thousands of draft age young men are heading for the border?

Putin is popular, then again,so was, and is Stalin.

Reply to  Duane
November 15, 2022 12:27 pm

The war started during the Obama administration in the 2014 Slavic Spring (i.e. coup without borders) in the World War Spring series. Russia was already legally in Crimea, and joined with Ukrainians to mitigate the progress of the worst of the criminal assault by the Kiev regime and aligned forces on the civilian population.

Reply to  n.n
November 15, 2022 1:11 pm

Now we know you’re just recited from Russia Today, because Russia was never legally in Ukrainian territory and there was no criminal assault by the Kiev regime on civilians.

Reply to  n.n
November 15, 2022 4:21 pm

Last edited 6 months ago by MarkW
Boff Doff
November 15, 2022 6:55 am

Such decision making outside of statutory authority is endemic throughout European legal systems. It’s a result of civil codes which supposedly cover all circumstances but don’t and judges being appointed by pol’s without much regard to their legal qualifications.

The rest of The West is headed there at warp speed.

November 15, 2022 7:05 am

The German courts always supported Nazi laws. Don’t expect them to do other than the will of evil dictators like Fuehrerin von der Leyen and the rest of the WTF.

Reply to  thetruthparty
November 15, 2022 12:29 pm

Social[ist] justice.

Reply to  n.n
November 16, 2022 8:54 am

Social[ist] [in]justice

November 15, 2022 7:33 am

What did you expect from a glass-walled, low energy efficiency institution making overarching legal judgements on others?

Curious George
Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 15, 2022 8:33 am

What’s the difference between a Federal Judge and God?
God knows that He is not a Federal Judge.

Reply to  Curious George
November 15, 2022 12:31 pm

God advises, but defers to individual conscience, through religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) of rules to optimize functional outcomes (e.g. evolutionary fitness).

Last edited 6 months ago by n.n
November 15, 2022 7:35 am

Now check footprints and tire marks at the crime scenes where energy infrastructure was attacked, since mums the word on Russian operatives.

November 15, 2022 9:19 am

The left has become experts in first packing the courts and then using those courts to order actions that the leftists have not been able to achieve through the political process.

November 15, 2022 9:44 am

If the bar isn’t low enough they will lower it.

Day by day the data diverges away from the narrative. Yet their faith remains unshaken. My definition of bonkers

abolition man
November 15, 2022 10:01 am

Thanks for the breakdown, Francis!
Unfortunately, the word Progressive has become a beard for the cultural Marxists throughout our institutions in the West. Until this apocalyptic religion is pushed out of polite society we will continue to experience the hatred and division that Marxists create so as to thrive!
Whether it’s Climastrology, Critical Racist Theory or the so-called Diversity Equity and Inclusion that is infecting our banks and corporations; the Marxist tears down everything around him/her/it while promising an idyllic future once in power. So far they have a perfect record of NEVER achieving any of their goals except the death and destruction of their opponents!
Let’s give German governing bodies near dictatorial power, what could go wrong!?

Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 12:35 pm

Progressive refers to a philosophy of progress (i.e. unqualified monotonic process). Liberalism is a philosophy of divergence. Libertarianism is a philosophy of independence. Conservativism is a philosophy of moderation (e.g. “while evils are sufferable”).

Reply to  n.n
November 15, 2022 1:42 pm

And socialism is just the process of insuring that widows and orphans have a place to sleep and enough food.

Reply to  AndyHce
November 15, 2022 5:57 pm

That’s what the socialists claim. Unfortunately what always ends up is that under socialism, those who run the government become rich, everyone else becomes poor and anyone who disagrees with government become dead.

Reply to  abolition man
November 15, 2022 12:41 pm

Diversity of individuals, minority of one, equitable and inclusive, yes.

Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, normalizes color blocs (e.g. “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination under the ethical (i.e. morality’s relativistic sibling) religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) established in secular societies.

Critical Racists’ Theory presumes Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism, classicism), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine under the ethical religion (e.g. Pro-Choice) popularly adopted in democratic/dictatorial regimes.

Capt Jeff
November 15, 2022 10:46 am

What concerned me with the Barrett Senate hearings was her comment that rulings on climate issues would be based on the information provided by government scientists. Government websites clearly are biased and only present opinions and information that support the concept of us being in a “Crisis”.
Their bias is a clear violation of OMB Quality Assurance and Quantity Control requirements. But because there doesn’t seem to be any effort to challenge them, which they would be required to address and correct, a lot of biased and misleading information is left in place. Their obligation to objectivity and balance are totally lacking.
The court leaning on government career scientists would not bode well for this country.
Skeptical scientists need to stand up and challenge them now, not wait to try and refute them in court.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Capt Jeff
November 16, 2022 6:50 am

“What concerned me with the Barrett Senate hearings was her comment that rulings on climate issues would be based on the information provided by government scientists.”

Yes, that would be very concerning. What this would do is inject politics into science, something we should try to avoid at all costs.

Government scientists are not the only authorities on the science of human-caused climate change, Justice Barrett.

November 15, 2022 11:32 am

The Constitutional Court judges are selected for terms of 12 years, half elected by all the members of the Bundestag, and half by the states chamber the Bundesrat.
Theres is no discussion of their beliefs or prior circumstances, and 1/3 of 16 are required to have served on the immediate lower courts.
half are law professors as thats the only outside employment allowed

In a different case they made another far reaching decision,

“A group of German academics, including a former leader of the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland, Bernd Lucke, took a case in 2015 to challenge the bond-buying programme of the European Central Bank (ECB).”

They won

Last edited 6 months ago by Duker
Joe Gordon
November 15, 2022 11:34 am

Why call it progressive? That implies a constant examination of ideas and challenging the status quo.

This is a religion. This is civilization’s regression to the Dark Ages, where science is verboten.

These European judges are more like the Pope or a corrupt 20th Century revivalist, filling tents with acolytes primed to do anything to save themselves from the coming Armageddon.

I used to think civilization would eventually outgrow religion. But people are so naturally religious. Therefore religion has evolved into this Green form. Same concept. Same rejection of science. Same result – so sayeth the lord, so sayeth the flock.

Reply to  Joe Gordon
November 15, 2022 12:49 pm

Progress denotes an [unqualified] monotonic process: one step forward, two steps backward, with a popular connotation that interprets it as positive, functional, fit development in religious (i.e. behavioral protocol) contexts (e.g. secular ethical), under divergent faiths (e.g. Twilight fringe or conflation of logical domains), frequently dictated in secular socities by men and women who presume to godhood backed by established/appointed domain experts.

Joe Gordon
Reply to  n.n
November 15, 2022 2:34 pm

What allows for progress is a true separation between church and state.

What the Green New Deal/Great Reset religion wants is a theocracy.

If we allow these high priests to run modern countries, we will soon become indistinguishable from Iran. Different clothing, same concept.

Reply to  Joe Gordon
November 15, 2022 1:45 pm

Thinking is almost always hard work. What a bother.

Reply to  AndyHce
November 15, 2022 5:58 pm

Which is why socialists want only those who have been properly trained to engage in it.

Scarecrow Repair
November 15, 2022 11:35 am

That they can’t see the contradiction is amazing. Well, no, not really. It is amazing, but not that they pretend to not see it.

  • imposes on the state a general duty of protection of life and physical integrity
  • Apart from providing the individual with a defensive right against state interference

They couldn’t make it clearer if they tried that individuals come second to the state.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
November 16, 2022 6:58 am

I wonder what they mean by “physical integrity”?

Scarecrow Repair
November 15, 2022 11:39 am

Thanks for this in-depth look at how the German court works. I knew it was a joke, just did not know how horrible the joke was.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
November 16, 2022 6:59 am

It does look like a horrible joke. They sound like a bunch of little dictators.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 17, 2022 3:58 am

Worse, they’re taking their inspiration from adolescent dupes who whine about non-issues like “climate change.”

November 15, 2022 1:02 pm

The author overlooks a few analogous items from the US courts. There is a court in the Midwest (Ohio, IIRC) that spent a dozen or so years trying to figure out what the property level of school spending was after ruling that the existing level was inadequate based on the same kind of general duty provision in the state construction. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs EPA discarded all existing rules of “standing” to allow Massachusetts into court on the basis of speculative future harm that EPA could not have done anything about anyway.

November 15, 2022 1:19 pm

So what if Germany, the UK, the US, Australia, and various other countries actually went to zero industrial, transportation, power, etc. CO2 emissions? Total atmospheric CO2 would continue to rise anyway.

Walter Sobchak
November 15, 2022 2:54 pm

“If you think that no Supreme Court in the U.S. would ever do something as crazy as this, I would not be at all sure.”

The U.S. Supreme Court did something far more radical in the same sex marriage decision. They ordered the States to create a legal institution unprecedented in human history — all time — all the way back.

“Would a leftist-dominated Supreme Court in the U.S. ever go quite this far off the rails?”

Don’t ask silly questions. Of course they would.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 15, 2022 4:58 pm

Don’t democratic countries elect politicians to debate and pass laws ?
The high courts should only be used to settle a question of a point of law .
Why have elected parliaments ?
If unelected judges can change any law that they disagree with if some members of the public petition the court for change then we are all in trouble.
This is very dangerous and must threaten democratic governments .

Reply to  Graham
November 15, 2022 6:02 pm

A left wing talk show host recently went on a rant when a court blocked Biden’s attempt to excuse student debt via executive order.

According to him, only a right wing ideologue would argue that government can’t excuse a debt owed to the government.

The idea that a president isn’t a dictator, was not something he was prepared to accept. At least when the president is a left wing Democrat.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Graham
November 15, 2022 7:42 pm

In theory you are correct. In theory, theory and fact do not differ. In fact, theory and fact are often at odds. What I described is the facts.

November 16, 2022 7:09 am

That’s literally stuffing the higher court. Like literally literally (not MSNBC “really literally” subjectively in a way).

Poland was punished by the EU for allegedly stuffing higher courts. Actually for expelling very old judges (often commies).

What will the pro Biden pro EU liberal European establishment say?

Dennis Gerald Sandberg
Reply to  niceguy12345
November 16, 2022 6:51 pm

Speaking of destroying courts; Obama appointed the largest share of currently active federal judges at 38%. Totally willing to make any decision about any subject with 100% obedience to the liberal/progressive cause..

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights