SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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.