This is why all Americans should be grateful for President Trump’s judicial nominees.
In 2015, a group of 21 children (<cough> I’m sure this was the children’s idea, aren’t you? Sure you are) filed a lawsuit that came to be known as Juliana vs. the United States. This pure abuse of the legal system to engage in climate change hysteria grandstanding asserted that the government was violating their constitutional rights by not sufficiently addressing the climate change crisis. The case should have been thrown out years ago, but last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finally did it.
Well, good. The fact that it took this long was a disgrace, and the result of “Think of the children!” pandering. The 9th Circuit being the residue of judicial activism and liberal bias that it has long been, however, it couldn’t restrain itself from writing, “The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,.”
panel concluded. Whoever one the three judge decided that the word “reluctantly” belonged there should be forceably retired. “The panel reluctantly concluded that the United States Constitution does not permit courts to dictate national policy, nor citizens, especially those without voting privileges, to bypass our system of governance because they disagree with its policies” is what that word is telling us, and a judge who regrets how the separation of powers operates to that extent does not belong on the bench. Maybe they belong in President Elizabeth Warren’s cabinet, as she announced this week that she would eliminate student loan debt “on day one.” Lord, this woman is a shameless liar!
But I digress. Sorry. Warren’s name is becoming like “Niagara Falls” to me in the old vaudeville skit….
Back to the case…
However, that ill-omened word “reluctantly” is nothing compared to the incompetent emotional drivel registered by Judge Josephine Laura Staton. I think I’ll use her from now on to metaphorically shake in the face of those who cite Trump’s less qualified judicial appointments, of whom there have been, alas, too many. She dissented from the panel’s decision, which literally, though reluctantly, did nothing but follow black letter law. Go ahead, read it, and by all means, have your most fanatic climate change-addled friends read it too. Then explain to them why it shows either ignorance or disrespect for democracy, the law, AND science.
“Waiting is not an option,” the judge writes. “Those alive today are at perhaps the singular point in history where society (1) is scientifically aware of the impending climate crisis, and (2) can avoid the point of no return.”
This isn’t a statement of fact, nor is it informed opinion. This judge, like the vast majority of climate hysterics, only knows what she has been told by activists from groups whose politics she admires, and can’t possibly understand the technical data and projections underlying them. Society is not “aware” of the impending climate crisis with any specificity, and if the judge thinks she is, she’s an idiot. We know this, because one doomsday prediction after another has proven hyperbolic. What will this crisis be, judge? When will it occur? What measures are you so certain will address them? What will have to be sacrificed to do that? Are you certain they can be addressed? Are you certain subsequent factors and events won’t materially change “the impending crisis”?
The dissent goes off the rails into Fantasyland, and then flies out of Fantasyland into Maniac Mansion. “[P]laintiffs have a constitutional right to be free from irreversible and catastrophic climate change,” she writes. This, of course, is irresponsible bootstrapping from the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness asserted in our nation’s mission statement, the Declaration. Her distorted view transforms a statement meant to affirm the individual’s right to be free of government domination to one justifying government dictatorship rationalized by citizens’ assertion that they have a right to have everyone else’s liberty and needs forcefully curtailed because they prefer policies embodying their priorities.
Judges like this, and I know we have many more than Judge Staton, are un-American and dangerous, lurking enemies of democracy and representative government waiting for their chance to order policies they support regardless of the will of the people or the judgment of their elected representatives. She continues, “Without explicitly laying this groundwork, the majority nonetheless suggests that this case is “special”—and beyond our redress—because plaintiffs’ requested relief requires (1) the messy business of evaluating competing policy considerations to steer the government away from fossil fuels and (2) the intimidating task of supervising implementation over many years, if not decades….I admit these are daunting tasks, but we are constitutionally empowered to undertake them. There is no justiciability exception for cases of great complexity and magnitude….”
Translation: even though we are unqualified to make policy in this area, unelected as well, and though there is no provision in the Constitution or court system empowering the judiciary to wrest lawmaking from the Legislative branch and regulation from the Executive Branch, we can do it because we’re all going to die if we don’t. That’s what my friends tell me.”
This is a Green New Dealer talking, make no mistake. She is advocating dismantling our system to put in place a leftist regime, relying on the courts for legal authority. Naturally, the progressives in thrall to this plot—use climate change fearmongering to scare people into giving up their rights for the good of humanity—are extolling this sinister effort to undermine our governing principles.
But I’m sure she supports late term abortion, so she must be a terrific judge.
In one respect, I almost wish hers was the majority opinion so the U.S. Supreme Court could emphaticaly stuff her ideas into the dustbin of bad jurisprudence where it belongs, as well as overturn the 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the 2007 Supreme Court case she relies on. If that had happened, the late Justice Scalia’s ringing dissent in the 2007 case would undoubtedly be enshrined in precedent, as it must be. He wrote,
“The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency….
If you want to post this on Facebook, you either have to use the Ethics Alarms link in a reply, or this link in a post: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1218621316586201090