SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Put-that-in-your-pipe[line]-and-smoke-it dept.
In his ruling, Judge Brian Morris said “the Trump administration completely disregarded the climate effects of building the Keystone pipeline,” according to Vermont law professor Pat Parenteau.
“The Trump administration dismissed, with barely a paragraph in the decision document they issued, the whole idea that the pipeline would be contributing to climate change and the judge said that's not good enough,” Parenteau explains. “[He said], ‘You really do have to take into account the growing body of science that we all know and you have to explain why it makes sense, given that, to authorize yet another major piece of fossil fuel infrastructure that will take 40 years to pay off.’”
Morris is a former justice on the Montana Supreme Court and is considered a “very moderate judge,” Parenteau adds. “He’s hardly a radical environmentalist. There are some judges on the federal bench who are more pro-environment ..., but Judge Morris isn’t in that same category.”
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @06:25AM (2 children)
My problem with Judgery is that Judges present themselves as these non-political, ethereal beings who rise above bias to keep social interaction moving solely along proper, lawful, procedural lines; yet, a "judgment" is almost always just a euphemism for a personal "gut feeling".
Why doesn't this judge specify exactly what would constitute a proper response. Is it 2 paragraphs? My gut feeling is that this judge's judgment is not good enough, and should be ignored.
He reveals his inanity with this line, though: "You really do have to take into account the growing body of science that we all know". He's talking out of his ass; his judgment may as well be a Facebook wall post.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Monday December 17 2018, @11:13AM
In a sense I agree, however, you are shooting the messenger. The judicial systems all over the world are designed to employ inane judges who talk out of their asses. The assumption is that by having a hierarchy of courts, the inaneness can be kept down to a bearable limit. Then there are the cases where the judges really don't get it. That's when the law has to be made more precise. Let me suggest the HTAOTKSP-law: "When arguing about the keystone pipeline - and with an argument made to a positive effect - said argument has to contain at least 100 words, covering at least 40 unique words as defined in a generally accepted and lawful dictionary. Additionally, it has to at least contain the words body, climate, 40, fuel, and not to forget "pay off". This law hereby states, that all other wordings, be they in spirit of the law are not, shall be considered inadmissible on account of not following the letter of the law."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @01:52PM
He's a judge making a judgement, so presumably there was court case, with, you know, expert witnesses and similar evidence.