Climate Change Suit to US Supreme Court

Teen's suit is on the move:
http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/FEDERAL FILE STAMPED COMPLAINT.pdf
Petitions filed in all 50 states:
http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/legal-action/petitions

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1ffgR1BxaE[/youtube]

http://www.seolawfirm.com/2011/04/climate-change-lawsuit-heads-to-supreme-court/

The Supreme Court will hear a case next week that will determine whether federal judges have a legitimate role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The case could open the door for the federal judiciary to begin shaping climate change policy in the event of continued inaction by the president or Congress.

Placing limits on greenhouse gas emissions is something typically left to congressional lawmakers or the president. Crafting policy in response to climate change is a complex process in which courts tend to avoid involvement. In the face of a reluctance to act on the federal level, states and local governments are increasingly using litigation in an attempt to force polluters to change their policies. [1]

Click to expand...

http://www.livescience.com/14072-climate-change-lawsuit-public-trust-youth.html

By failing to take action against global warming, the federal government has violated its legal obligation to protect the atmosphere as a resource that belongs to everyone, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court last week.

Click to expand...

http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
http://fromjameshansen.blogspot.com/
http://www.kids-vs-global-warming.com/Home.html
http://imattermarch.org/

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00020&segmentID=5

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raW7wu_XxPs[/youtube]

We don't need no "activist" judges. Let us all party like there is no tomorrow (and that would ensure that there is no tomorrow).

Please correct me if I am wrong... My high school civics class was quite a long time ago. Isn't it the congress that makes laws and the courts that interpret them and hand down judgements? Seems that setting policy on any issue is out of scope for the court system.

Jim

jimcmorr said:

Please correct me if I am wrong... My high school civics class was quite a long time ago. Isn't it the congress that makes laws and the courts that interpret them and hand down judgements? Seems that setting policy on any issue is out of scope for the court system.

Jim

Click to expand...

aka New Hampshire = Live free or die.
I guess we know which side of that you come out on.

also on spelling = judgments.

jimcmorr said:

Please correct me if I am wrong... My high school civics class was quite a long time ago. Isn't it the congress that makes laws and the courts that interpret them and hand down judgements? Seems that setting policy on any issue is out of scope for the court system.

Click to expand...

That is the simplistic view of things and good for high school. Now you need to grow up and read the real adult version of constitution

If the courts can judge a law, and set (parts of) it aside, it seems that they could rule on the modification or repeal of a law, or even on the lack of a law.

If fundamental rights are being abridged, how can the courts NOT enforce those rights. That said, I don't think this particular effort is going to succeed, because of both politics and because the letter of the law doesn't support the effort, although it should. It's purpose is to attract attention to the disservice we are doing to our children with our inattention to climate change.

davewill said:

If fundamental rights are being abridged, how can the courts NOT enforce those rights. That said, I don't think this particular effort is going to succeed, because of both politics and because the letter of the law doesn't support the effort, although it should. It's purpose is to attract attention to the disservice we are doing to our children with our inattention to climate change.

Click to expand...

Agreed. but for however long it takes for someone to retire or leave the court under other circumstances, It all sadly depends on how Justice Anthony Kennedy views it.
The four conservatives are pretty much a renegade band that is installing some pretty activist and reactionary views of America. A couple of them fly under the banner of original constructionism and are cranky old men, and the other two are just ideological movement conservatives.

I can't speak for HS civics, but am a few days away from finishing a freshman college level gov't class. Both the textbook crew and professor (attorney, PhD, Harvard Law) seem to think that the Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution and keep a check/balance on the Legislative and Executive branches.

EPA rules (like those of the other federal agencies) have the force of federal law, and these agencies were 'built' by the Executive/Legislative branches, so it would seem that the court has oversight over these as well.

This isn't the only case in the federal system or on appeal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/energy-environment/27lawsuits.html

The cases need not even get that far to have an impact, said James E. Tierney, the director of the National State Attorneys General program at Columbia Law School. Kivalina alleged in its complaint that the industry conspired “to suppress the awareness of the link” between emissions and climate change through “front groups, fake citizens organizations and bogus scientific bodies.”

That claim echoes those in suits against the tobacco industry that ultimately led to industry settlements and increased government regulation.

Click to expand...

If nothing else, a court order may give the politicians a way to do the right thing while saving face with their fossil-fuel handlers...

jimcmorr said:

Please correct me if I am wrong... My high school civics class was quite a long time ago. Isn't it the congress that makes laws and the courts that interpret them and hand down judgements? Seems that setting policy on any issue is out of scope for the court system.

Jim

Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

This piece from the PEW Center might provide some insight: http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/tubmanm/time-face-facts-epa-regulation

Other attacks have fixated on the legality of the new regulations. Yet, in the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA[1], the Supreme Court ruled explicitly that EPA had the authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act if the Agency determined that they posed a significant threat to public health and welfare. This threat was overwhelmingly demonstrated in the 2009 endangerment finding[2], which documented the risks of climate change posed by GHGs. This endangerment finding was issued by the Obama Administration, but the Bush Administration had come to exactly the same conclusions[3]. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of regulation is a hard example to be confronted with, but that hasn’t stopped opponents.

Click to expand...

[1]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
[2] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
[3] http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...r_PresdidentfromStephenJohnson_2.8.2011_2.pdf

Maybe it's time for a reality check. The one thing I learned from practicing here in CA is that money buys a lot of legislation ... and a lot of its interpretation ... so if you don't like the law(s) and/or they get interpreted in ways that you personally abhor, you'd best get back to work and start making your OWN giant pile of money and power. btw, you don't find reality in high school civics test books.

hill said:

Maybe it's time for a reality check. The one thing I learned from practicing here in CA is that money buys a lot of legislation ... and a lot of its interpretation ... so if you don't like the law(s) and they gets interpreted, you'd best get back to work. btw, you don't find reality in high school civics test books.

Click to expand...

Yes - as they say, we have the best legislators and judges money can buy

hill said:

Maybe it's time for a reality check. The one thing I learned from practicing here in CA is that money buys a lot of legislation ... and a lot of its interpretation ... so if you don't like the law(s) and they gets interpreted, you'd best get back to work. btw, you don't find reality in high school civics test books.

Click to expand...

Don't hold back - help us have a 'reality check' too!

Do you think these runs at the Supreme Court are doomed to fail because of the conservative majority (AKA judges can't rule without bias), or are you suggesting we can 'help' steer the judgments by connecting with the judge's PayPal account? :shock: :lol: