The Supreme Court just allowed a major climate lawsuit to go ahead
In a surprise decision late Friday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Juliana v. US, a major lawsuit filed by young people against the US government for failing to limit the effects of climate change. The case may now go to trial in a lower court after the Supreme Court’s extremely unusual move last month to temporarily block the proceeding.
The case includes 21 plaintiffs between the ages of 11 and 22, who began testing the idea that a safe climate is a civil right when the suit was first filed in 2015. It argues that the US government pursued policies that harmed the climate, thereby robbing the children of a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” As redress, they want the government to take action to fight climate change.
“The youth of our nation won an important decision today from the Supreme Court that shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy,” the plaintiffs said Friday in a statement. “We have asked the District Court for an immediate status conference to get Juliana v. US back on track for trial in the next week.”
A lower court ruled earlier this year the case could go to trial, and that trial was expected begin at the United States District Court in Oregon on Monday, October 29.
But then late last month, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay of the case to consider a request from the Justice Department for a stay to halt the case. The Supreme Court’s temporary stay sent the plaintiffs scrambling to put together a brief in time to keep the case moving forward on schedule.
On Friday, the court denied the government’s request for a stay, though Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the application, according to the court order. The Supreme Court also suggested that a federal appeals court should consider appeals on other grounds before the case heads to trial in district court.
The court, however, strongly suggests that interlocutory appeal of the district court's order on dispositive motions—in plain English, immediate appeal of some key legal questions before the trial—should happen. (Which would mean no trial unless that ruling is upheld on appeal.) pic.twitter.com/011vDPAucT
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) November 2, 2018
[...] For climate change activists, the courtroom is one of the few remaining options for enacting policies to limit greenhouse gases, as the White House scarcely acknowledges climate change and Congress remains deadlocked. The plaintiffs and the defendants in the children’s climate lawsuit will now prepare for trial, though a new date has not yet been set.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @08:21PM (16 children)
I wonder if I can sue my state for free college. Isn’t education a human right as well?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @08:31PM
Strawman + stupidity = you
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:02PM (1 child)
Yes, it is, and so it should be free.
Your part of the bargain is to pay your taxes and not waste anybody's time while you're supposed to be studying.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @12:23AM
Of course! I can’t wait to focus my time on womyn’s studies!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:14AM (9 children)
Tricky question.
A human right? Yes. It's not (absent, say, Pol Pot's Cambodia) bad to be educated.
A human prerogative? That's less clear.
If it's not a prerogative, that doesn't create any kind of mandate.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:57AM (8 children)
People given free houses don't put the same time/effort/resources into upkeep or maintenance as people who are invested in them.
If it costs nothing...it is worth nothing is the way human nature works.
.
We sure that's something we want to do with education?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:16AM
Actual experience in societies with (nearly) free university access suggests that it'll have stiff entry requirements to control costs.
Unclear whether this is good or not.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:58AM (6 children)
It's so true! The fact that the air you breathe costs you nothing is outrageous, clearly you don't appreciate it well enough.
Someone should take ownership of air and then enter in voluntary contracts with the members of all species with an aerobic metabolism. That's the capitalistic way and, as such, the only Good Way™. Hang on, I think I've seen this documentary - it sucks. [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @12:47PM (1 child)
Ah! See, if the Spaceballs had been Spaceboobs instead, that tragedy would have never happened to Druidia! As we can see, men are not angels, and even Mr. Vim admits that only women have the angelic nature necessary for anarcho-capitalism to work! We must implement the Exterminate Men Angelic Contract System!
*grin*
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:51PM
Yo! [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:47PM (1 child)
Folks in parts of China where clean air is not available certainly seem to appreciate it - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12051354/Chinese-buy-up-bottles-of-fresh-air-from-Canada.html [telegraph.co.uk]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 05 2018, @01:49AM
It was like that here once, now that people take clean air for granted, it is called a job killer.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday November 04 2018, @09:42PM (1 child)
And I've seen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_(Doctor_Who) [wikipedia.org] :)
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday November 04 2018, @11:00PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday November 04 2018, @04:44AM (1 child)
Yup, here you go [khanacademy.org].
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:56PM
Khan Acadamy is amazing, and nearly free online learning really should equate to a giant leap for mankind.
.
Reality is often disappointing.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 05 2018, @08:18PM
If something requires active effort from another person, that something isn't a right. It might be a good thing, but it's a tradeoff, not a right. It might be proper to force it by law, but it's not a right.
For instance, jury trial is not a right. It's a good thing for it to be available to all accused, and it is proper for the government to enforce access to a jury trial (and all the nuisances involved), and some aspects of jury trials incorporate rights, but access to jury trial is not a right.
Education is not a right, you have no claim on the life of someone else to provide you an education. Your parents or guardians have the responsibility to provide you an education, and under laws regarding child abuse you should be able to force your parents to provide an education just as you should be able to force them to feed you - until you're able to fend for yourself. Anything more is a gift. Nobody needs a college education enough to rightfully force somebody else to provide it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @08:30PM (2 children)
They promised us it was the final warning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @08:37PM (1 child)
This case has been in the works for a while, sure you want to double down on your child's sandbox where you bury your head? Funny side note, the cat has been burying turds in there since day one.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:02PM
Hqve you seen the latest proof? California homes burning down due to global warming:
https://files.catbox.moe/cvagp1.jpg [catbox.moe]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by corey on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:30PM (13 children)
This is good. I hope they succeed. They have a pretty good position.
The challenge will be, making the case that the government has an obligation to do something to mitigate climate change. That depends on convincing the court that a 'healthy' climate isa civil right which could be difficult, it'll bea precedent to a lot more cases.
It'll be interesting to follow anyway.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by corey on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:34PM (11 children)
(to add another point)
They could even argue that the government, by not acting on climate change, is putting the security of its citizens in jeopardy. Climate change is the biggest threat to the US I read somewhere recently. Think of the mass migrations and displacement, costs to lives etc.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:02PM (10 children)
Trump is finally actually doing something about carbon emissions:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/17/carbon-dioxide-emissions-dip-slightly-in-trumps-first-year-epa-says/ [dailysignal.com]
Amazing how on accident he can achieve what UN bureaucrats said would require giving them over a trillion dollars per year along with revocation of peoples rights.
(Score: 5, Informative) by black6host on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:06PM (9 children)
Sorry but I'm not seeing anything substantive in that article other than the EPA shilling for Trump and various links to nothing. Sorry, after Pruitt I'm a bit of a cynic.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:37PM (8 children)
Evidently our economy doing strong means that more people are able to add the more expensive "green" alternatives to their list of competition products. For someone living paycheck to paycheck who has to replace a old water heater it is now easier for them to choose the more efficient alternative that costs a couple of hundred bucks extra than it was before. Musk has also done a great job flooding the market with competition products and ideas so that prices for the alternative products are falling. For that family who has to look at option A or B regarding the water heater it is hard to understand or realize future monthly electricity savings when that extra $300 bucks means a very hard month where they are scraping to pay for other things. It is a totally different world going to the store thinking "if I spend more than $500 I can't afford gas this month" and thinking "if I spend more than $900 I can't afford gas this month. The stress of the situation in realizing a sudden unexpected expense is going to be pretty overwhelming.
How much would it cost today to install a solar panel setup? How much would it have cost a decade ago?
There is going to be a huge shift in a couple years as electric pickups hit the market and the sales guy can point out to rednecks that yeah, the truck is green, but it also has twice the torque.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 04 2018, @12:19AM (6 children)
2/3 of rednecks don't understand torque. They've got a handle on horsepower, but torque is over their head. You won't sell a lot of vehicles because they have high torque values. Oh, wait. That's not just rednecks, that pretty much goes for all Americans.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by toddestan on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:33AM (1 child)
The big change will be when fleet operators start buying them. Fleet buyers may not be that interested in green so much, but if they are cheaper to operate they'll definitely pay attention.
Trucks that are sold retail are all about image*. If the fossil-fueled versions are perceived to be more tough and manly as well as giving a finger to Prius-driving eco-hippies, they'll continue to sell. That they cost more to keep fueled may even be a feature as it shows the owner has money to burn.
*Yes I do know there are exceptions, but this is often true for both rednecks and urban cowboys alike
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:19AM
It's all in the marketing. For example, what if they're not pure electric, but serial hybrid like those monstrously huge mining trucks, or diesel-electric locomotives?
"It tows like a locomotive with 1500 foot-pounds of torque from dead rest. Never smell a burning clutch again!"
Use the engine/generator to also power a couple of three-prong plugs.
"Ride five hundred miles, then charge your tool batteries at the jobsite."
Make the generator an external combustion one like a Stirling engine, with a capability to run it off burning wood.
"I was running low on CNG, so I pulled out the saw and ran a hundred more miles on renewable energy."
You could sell that to rednecks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:30AM (3 children)
Mostly it's about rolling coal.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 04 2018, @09:31AM (2 children)
I just don't see that around here. It must be real, because I see it on Youtube, but I don't see it, even though I'm surrounded by rednecks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:00PM
Got lots of rednecks in my neck of the woods too. I've seen actual rolling coal every now and then. Mostly I was searching for something to characterize the "macho" aspect of buying a Ford F-Teen Fifty. You can tell who has a truck like that because it's a needed tool, farmers for example, and who doesn't. Farmers would probably be interested in an EV truck and would certainly understand torque. The macho crowd, however, will avoid the things just because they're EV and EVs are for wusses.
Plus as wind power becomes more accepted in the country, I'd think a lot of farmers may be interested in charging their farm equipment directly from windmills (never liked the word turbine, it's too industrial and not pastoral enough) on their property. Farmers are business people and engineers after all. If it's cheaper and more reliable, they'll be interested.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @01:32AM
That is one of the (unintentionally) funniest things I have ever seen you post.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:02AM
Mostly I thought it was because of fracking. Natural gas produces significantly less carbon emissions.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @12:25AM
I hope they do too. Then I can sue Chicago for being such an unsafe city!
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:43PM (2 children)
It is great that the children are leading the charge to force the government to combat climate change. Soon the government will have to enforce policies that reduce everyone's carbon footprint.
Like video games. Those aren't necessary, so they'll be banned. The children wanted the government to do what was necessary, so I'm sure they'll have no complaints. Music, too. We have enough music, and those guitars take up too much electricity.
Also, those horrible schools. Think of how much money could be diverted to combat climate change once the schools are closed. As well as no longer needing to heat or cool those big buildings. Yes, the schools are a sacrifice we must be willing to make to combat climate change. It's what the children wanted, after all.
Oh, and those big terrible mining machines use too much fossil fuel and put way too much pollution into the air. But we still need the materials beings mined... what to do... oh, I know! Since the children aren't in schools anymore, they can dig in the mines! We need to fight childhood obesity anyway. And to be sure none of the little darlings get lost in the mines, we'll chain them all together! Oh, the glorious future we will finally build for our dear children -- after all, they asked for it!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:58PM
Where is the Jonathan Swift moderation?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:42AM
"Music, too. We have enough music, and those guitars take up too much electricity."
I can agree with this: I could certainly do without some of the music playing today. When Janet Jackson can get nominated to the FECKING rock and roll hall of fame!....! WTF?
Rock and roll, I guess, is dead now.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:45PM (4 children)
I'll tell you, this is why it's so important to VOTE. Because when they put somebody in SC, it's FOR LIFE. And he or she -- especially she -- can be in there for a really long time. Doing a lot of damage to our Country. And there's nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don’t know. That's why we need more LOYAL Republicans in our House & Senate (buh bye Paul!!). To get my appointments through much more quickly -- so important. And to IMPEACH the bad judges. The Climate Hoax judges, the Open Boarders judges, the SLOW judges, and many more. Our Courts are a DISASTER. I'm working very hard to fix them. To make them great again -- Separate but Equal. But I need you to GET OUT AND VOTE Tuesday!!! Vote.GOP [vote.gop]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:59PM
the Open Boarders judges
Idiot, you are the one that is open for Boarders, in your hotels.
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Sunday November 04 2018, @03:23AM
Impeachment can very well be a 2 way street. Did anyone ever tell you to be careful what you wish for?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:37AM
Leon Trotsky had an idea [marxists.org] what the Second Amendment people will need to do:
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @01:48PM
<sarcasm>Yes, but of course. The running of a country is a team sport!! Our team good, other team DUMB! </sarcasm>
No, the foundation principal of the USA is a representational government. Each person gets to choose who they want to represent them. What you are advocating is a consolidation of power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely [phrases.org.uk].
There are 3 branches to the US government: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each is intended to act as a check on the others.
What you are suggesting is that the judicial branch should be stacked with politically loyal people so as to have them "rubber stamp" what you want to do. Ditto for the legislative branch.
How about, I don't know, ask the public to elect who they think will best represent THEIR interests? Possibly even someone who looks to the best long-term interests of the entire country instead of what is best able to get YOU what YOU want.
An axe can do "a lot of damage". But, used properly, it can be a powerful tool.
A Supreme Court that is filled with people who are politically-aligned with the executive and legislative branches would no longer serve as a practical check on those branches' actions.
So, all the more reason to not pick teams, and all the more reason to insist the Supreme Court perform their critical role by keeping independent.
You mean this? Separate but equal [wikipedia.org]? The critical part is the last paragraph which I've highlighted for you:
Sounds to me like you are advocating a return to racism. So SAD!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:58PM (45 children)
This kind of thing is essentially legislation by judge. The court system is really not set up to do this kind of thing; what the plaintiffs are asking for is essentially the ability to write the law how they think it should be. We already have a process for that, and throwing it to the courts will only make it even more arbitrary and undemocratic than it already is.
The job of courts is to interpret the laws written by the legislature, NOT to tell the legislature what laws must be written. The difference between this (requiring positive action) and striking down a law (preventing action) should be obvious. Allowing the courts to require positive action is a dangerous threat to democracy.
Now you may argue that the legislative systems in the US are broken, and you will get no argument from me on that. But the answer is not to redirect their power to the courts. Legislatures need to be reformed, and if enough of the population wanted it, that could happen. People just don't care right now as long as 'their side' can win.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:03PM (33 children)
Back off and look from a different perspective. The previous administration put in place a variety of rules and regs that reduce CO2 production, such as higher CAFE for cars & switching electric power from coal to nat gas. This administration, in the pocket of some special interests, has done their best to get rid of those rules. All that needs to be done is to vacate some of the recent rulings and put things back a few years.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:15PM (21 children)
And yet CO2 emissions are lower under trump.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Virindi on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:34PM (20 children)
Doesn't hurt that the real economy as a whole continues to stagnate, and manufacturing continues its death spiral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @12:29AM (18 children)
I thought the “real economy” was included in GDP. Wasn’t that supposed to never again be above 2% according to Barry? There really are two realities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:23PM (17 children)
"Real economy" can be used to describe the conditions of the working class. The GDP is skyrocketing, but the trickle-down theory is a monumental failure. The working class is seeing none of the increasing amount of wealth they are producing. Only when the working class takes control of the means of production can they ensure that they will be able to benefit from automation. The international working class is the only social force that is capable of addressing climate change.
When the working class gains the political authority to ensure the wealth created by its toils benefits itself, the economic situation of the vast majority of people improves. Only when people are able to earn a living wage and enjoy the fruits of their labor, do they begin to see that climate change is something that we do have the resources to address.
(Climate change is a global problem and requires a global response. Stalinism and Maoism, for example, are just as incapable of addressing climate change as unfettered capitalism.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:46PM (16 children)
I know 4 people at the working class level who after years of the same suddenly got better jobs and/or raises last year. So not seeing this personally.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 04 2018, @03:17PM (15 children)
n = 4 is a very, very small sample, and a convenience sample at that, when p ~= 330,000,000. I'm surprised someone on this site of all places would say something like that...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:04PM (14 children)
Unfortunately, its not anecdotes vs large samples. Instead we are dealing with real people vs massaged statistics, in which case the anecdotes do carry more weight. Really, Im giving a benefit of the doubt that the stats even exist and am responding to someone just claiming something is true.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:10PM (13 children)
Yes? And I've seen *dozens* of people, mainly friends of mine from 5 and 10 years ago, who are doing much worse. So by your logic, my anecdata carries at least 4-6 times the weight of yours. Suck it, Trebek!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:21PM (12 children)
Sure, if I considered you a trustworthy source it would count for more than my own anecdotes.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:41PM (11 children)
Ah, got it, another human Klein bottle. You are everything wrong with society's approach to statistics and and its deification of opinion over fact. People like you are why we're all in this mess.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:51PM (10 children)
Ha, in my experience Im probably one of the extremely few people who actually comprehends what a p-value means... which puts me in 99th percentile at least in understanding how to interpret stats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:20PM (9 children)
Yet you ude 4 people getting jobs as a measure of the whole economy. Yaaaa
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @07:08PM (8 children)
Where did I do that? I said Ive seen no personal evidence for the claims of a worsening economic situation for the working class. Sounds like yet another strawman to me.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:40PM (7 children)
Yeah, it's hard to see when your head's so far up your ass you can see your grandpa's last meal all the way down in Hell.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:07PM (6 children)
Ok, well I encourage you keep trusting biased and massaged stats over your own eyes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:42PM (5 children)
Hey dummy, she already gave you anecdotal evidence same as you shared.
#payattention
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:57PM (4 children)
Clearly you cant follow the point of that post. It was to dismiss anecdotal evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @11:51PM (3 children)
Nope I followed, I just wanted to point out that while she was telling you anecdotal evidence is not a good way to analyze complex situations she also included anecdotal evidence that contradicted yours.
I know this is a complex topic you've already made your mind up about but really now? Prove stats are biased! Just throwing out such claims shows you to be yet another propaganda spewing moron that can't think for yourself. That is the hallmark, reject actual evidence for *reasons* and believe what you're told by The One True Outlet.
Pffft, intellectual dishonesty is pretty bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @12:14AM (2 children)
Sure, and I responded that if I considered her a reliable source I would be taking that into account. Unfortunately neither of us is going to consider the other a reliable source for this info so its kind of moot. I also note that her anecdotes were decrease in quality of life from 5-10 years ago rather than in the last two years. Id say even with the raises and new jobs all the people I am talking about probably worse off than people in similar situations 5-10 years ago.
It is going to take a bit to recover from the 2008-2016 "ZIRP" handout to the rich insiders. We probably will need to see a real estate and stock market "crash" to make things affordable again by counteracting the phenomenon of wages lagging inflationary price increases: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/fedfunds [stlouisfed.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @12:55AM
Recent Ron Paul on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xs_3Nn1eM [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 06 2018, @05:13AM
It's been getting *steadily worse* for them is my fucking point. The amount of projection from you is incredible. I think this site has done more to confirm my darkest suspicious about the bulk of humanity than anything else except for the anti-human-trafficking stuff I've done. Seriously, just waddle off with your occiput up around your ileo-cecal valve and stop getting in the way of adults trying to have a discussion.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 05 2018, @01:07PM
Totally,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS [stlouisfed.org]
Shows a retrograde decline of 5% based on 108.065/102.835*100 since Trumps election, which is obviously a death spiral.
The problem is manufacturing is a growing business segment but the number of employees only drops with time, kinda like happened to agriculture which went from practically everyone to almost no one.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:20PM (10 children)
You can't have it both ways. Either the executive branch has unilateral authority to change these rules, or it doesn't. What you are suggesting is tantamount to the courts saying, "we liked what the other guy did better so we are saying you can't change it".
And by the way, your characterization of everyone who wants climate regulations rolled back as 'special interests' is also false. There are a large number of citizens who do not want these regulations, depending on how you ask it could easily reach parity with those who do want them. This is precisely why it is not a solved political question.
When half of the population believes A and the other half believes B, how is it proper for the courts to pick the winner? That really goes back to the question of, do you think the best ruler is a benevolent dictator (or group of them in this case) or a democratic system? Just because side A is "really really sure that they are right this time!!!" doesn't mean it is okay to sidestep the political process and claim victory by fiat. The other side is pretty sure, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:07PM (6 children)
It's telling that only children and young adults signed up. They may be correct in wanting a livable world, but they may be incorrect about the ways to achieve that. The easiest action is to limit access to energy, and chances are that this will cause food shortages and transportation problems, some people (who now drive 50 miles one way to work) will be marooned in a village, become unemployed regardless of their talent.
In practice, though, if this lawsuit is filed, it will not go anywhere due to federal sovereign immunity. Neither the President nor Congress are interested in experiments with the country. And, besides, most of our heavy industry is already in China.
If climate change is going to be fought, it has to be done by usung global methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. At least China and the USA will have to reduce pollution - likely by transitioning to electric cars and nuclear power. Wind is possible, but not everywhere; it costs a lot as well [newsweek.com], as it is a low integration system. If we ever see thermonuclear fusion (controlled or not,) humans will stop burning oil, gas, coal immediately.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:39PM (5 children)
Sovereign immunity does not apply to claims that the government or a government employee violated the Constitution. See US v. Lee, Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:10AM (4 children)
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:56AM (3 children)
No, but it sounds like their claim is that an implied right to breathe is. Which is honestly not a crazy claim, if you ignore the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights as is popular these days (that is, rather than taking rights as limitations on government, defining them as requirements for government).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:39AM (2 children)
That's a big difference. Power of doing something is not a duty. The government has power to start WW3, but there is no such duty. So that won't work - the Constitution says that the goverment has power to take care of general welfare. Those things are taken literally.
The kids may implore the government to fix the Earth, but honestly it is barely humanly possible - and if it is possible, it will require cooperation of some five or ten countries, some of which the USA has cool or bad relations with. Then the lawsuit becomes impractical, as it cannot be completed in a reasonable time - we may need 20, 30 or 50 years to do something.
And, of course, the universal reason to deny is "you have no standing" - as you cannot clearly prove that you personally will be affected. The plea for the whole country will not work, we have Congress for that, write letters to your Congressman. I'm sure the lawyers will find 1,000 more reasons.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:15AM
Duh, of course it is just a stunt! I certainly never suggested otherwise. Perhaps some environmental group is behind it for publicity, or Dems. Raise a meritless case and then when it gets tossed claim it is because the court is stacked with Trumpers. It's not like the strategy hasn't been tried before.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:14PM
The U.S. Government has a duty under the Fifth Amendment that persons on U.S. soil not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The several states have the same duty under the 14th Amendment. If anything, actions taken with the knowledge that they will cause sea level rise deprives coastal dwellers of property.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday November 04 2018, @09:41AM (2 children)
I suppose ignoring politics and looking at the science behind the issue is out of the question?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 04 2018, @03:18PM
Of course it is. Our courts need to be Fair and Balanced, just like Fox News!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 05 2018, @08:36PM
By and large, it is not the province of courts to judge the validity of scientific claims, especially not as a primary consideration. Courts are there to judge actions according to law, and sometimes to determine if lesser (legislative) law conforms to superior (Constitutional) law.
(Score: 5, Informative) by captain normal on Sunday November 04 2018, @03:35AM
The courts were set up to enforce the Constitution. To keep the Executive and Legislative branches from going apeshit. It is not judicial legislation to tell congress and the executive that what they are doing is against the rules as laid down in the Constitution.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @09:51AM
A sensible court will reach the conclusion that the duty of governance is not limited to sort term but must take into consideration the interest of future generations too - and may ask for the legislative process to include such considerations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:52PM (7 children)
Legislation by judge has been part of the progressive's long march playbook for a long time. This is just another step in that direction.
I just can't tell which is the more cynical position: that they know this is blatantly against Constitutional process and don't care, or that our school's civic education is so bad the people involved don't actually know any better.
I'm just hoping this was allowed so it can get far enough along for this tactic to be slapped down with great finality by the Supreme Court. Can't really hold out much hope for that, though, as it seems like all the judges are bang alongside the kind of pretzel logic that decided Wickard.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Sunday November 04 2018, @02:19PM (4 children)
The judges aren't "legislating" as much as holding the Congress to the same deal it agreed to in 1789 when it officially proposed the Bill of Rights for ratification by the several states. Sea level rise deprives residents of "property without due process of law," which the Congress agreed not to do in article 7 of the Bill of Rights (now the Fifth Amendment).
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:53PM (3 children)
See my post above about negative vs. positive.
The purpose of the bill of rights is to restrain the government from causing certain harms. The government is not the cause of possible sea level rise; it is merely one possible solution.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:27PM (2 children)
When the government issues a permit to construct and operate a harmful power plant, it is in part "the cause of possible sea level rise".
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)
By that logic, the government is responsible for ANY action which is not expressly illegal. That is not how Common Law systems work (it is a lot more similar to Roman law). Merely allowing something does not cause it...the cause is still the person actually taking the action (or their employer, following the doctrine of agency).
And if failure to stop something makes it the fault of the government, does that mean I can sue the government for allowing a criminal to break into my house and search my papers and effects? Hell, I sure can't practice my right to keep and bear arms unless the government gives me a free gun. Surely I can sue for that? By inaction they have prevented me from exercising my right.
Note that even think inaction SHOULD be cause, it is indisputable that the Constitution of the US was written with the idea of Common Law tradition in mind. So applying a definition of 'cause' that is inconsistent with Common Law would be to change the rules that were written.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 05 2018, @02:30AM
The common law is about legislating from the bench, usually in the absence of legislation and based on precedent. In this case, the courts probably don't have a reason to legislate and the most they'd do is refer the matter to Congress, but perhaps there are conflicting laws or some precedent that the plaintiffs can take advantage of.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday November 04 2018, @06:50PM
Funny thing about that which kinda makes the same point: these days, it's not that everyone agrees that Wickard was logically sound. It's more that everyone knows that there is simply too much inertia in the administrative state. I question if the decision would actually be followed if Wickard were to be overturned, and justices such as Thomas seem to worry as well. It really seems like Thomas disagrees with Wickard but knows he can't say so.
The Court may in theory be able to overturn any law or precedent, but that is not so in practice. We have an enormous federal government built on the falsity of commerce clause interpretation. Entities like that can't be disassembled by a single court order.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday November 04 2018, @11:26PM
Yeah. Since Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org]. That John Marshall was Antifa through and through, eh AC? Moron.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 05 2018, @07:30PM
It's more or less the same kind of argument that the Executive/Legislative branches used many times in the past to get crap like the War on Drugs or before that the various Sedition laws pushed through and upheld. It's kinda abusive, but it's also the system working as designed in a sense...it's following the letter of the law, but perhaps not the spirit.
But those in power have been using this as a weapon against us for well over a century at this point; if we really want it to stop we have to convince the people who are currently getting an advantage from it to take it away. They aren't going to do that as long as they're the only ones using it; so our best hope of stopping this madness is to start using it against them too.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:04PM (4 children)
... can they send these commie traitor kids to Guantanamo, or is a Federal prison in the homeland good enough?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:22PM (2 children)
Firm command of arithmetics and working knowledge of probability is the best formulation to cure the falling-sky syndrome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @09:57AM (1 child)
Because the sceptic sure can prove AGW does not happen, yes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @11:57AM
It is for the alarmists to prove that this specific warming can somehow do horrible things which none of the preceding warmer spells did. To the date, they have done nothing of the sort.
Calling it "AGW" does not in any way affect thermodynamic equations.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:24PM
Those kids have a long way to go...to catch up to the number of lawsuits that Trump has filed (or threatened) over his litigious career.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Saturday November 03 2018, @11:40PM (2 children)
I recently had a conversation at work about this. I told my coworker that the blue states should implement all sorts of laws and really push the climate change stuff within their own jurisdiction. This will flesh out good and bad ideas so we can see what does and doesn't work and it will be easier to convince the red states later on to get onboard. My coworker responded that we must force all of the states to participate, otherwise its pointless and we might as well not even try because all progress will be undone.
Even if the US continues to be great, doesn't do us any good without Chyna being onboard.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday November 04 2018, @04:46AM
Well then it's important that we start handling the opioid crisis [eonline.com].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pino P on Sunday November 04 2018, @03:17PM
Would your proposal give the blue states grounds to sue the red states in federal court for emitting pollution that crosses state lines into a blue state?
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:04AM (4 children)
The Governments obvious first step is twist the case into demanding evidence that the alleged harm is actually occurring. It should be interesting to watch both sides squirm on that if they get a good impartial judge who disallows hearsay and unsubstantiated opinion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:30AM
It's not even twisting the case. It's bog standard practice - start by demonstrating that you even have a prima facie case, otherwise you get a summary judgement against you. This involves showing standing, appropriate jurisdiction, some kind of genuine complaint, all that good stuff.
And if these kids can't make a serious case in the teeth of counterarguments in a courtroom, then they deserve to lose.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday November 05 2018, @07:32PM (2 children)
The government never had to do that when they used damn near the exact same argument to ram through the controlled substances act...I think the judge ought to make those asshats face their own hypocrisy.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:49AM (1 child)
While I don't disagree about the hypocrisy, there is a bit of difference between passing a law and a lawsuit.
To pass a law you just need a majority of legislators to agree that it is good for society*.
To win a lawsuit you need to present a better case than your opponent.**
My main hope was that the gov would challenge the 'science is settled' bullshit*** and the Judge would make both sides prove their case. Pass the popcorn.
*good for society usually being either what gets them re-elected or gets them money.
**or have more money for lawyers, which is often the same thing.
***until we have a working omniscient theory of everything the science is never settled, and any claim it is is politics not science.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 06 2018, @12:24PM
Check Gonzales v. Raich, the CSA has faced lawsuits too, and the Supreme Court sided with the feds that twisting the hell out of the existing law was fine in order to legally justify drug prohibition. So they ought to have no problem with how these kids are trying to twist the law in a similar manner in order to improve environmental regulation.