Skip to comments.The Judicial Branch Is Our Best Hope for Climate Action Under Trump
Posted on 09/11/2017 12:15:22 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Its been a rough few months for anyone who cares about substantive action on climate change.
But a bright spot emerged in July when a federal appeals court came down in favor of a rule enacted by Barack Obama that will curtail methane, a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide that is being emitted in high amounts from natural gas and petroleum hydrofracking.
The methane case was another indication that if we want climate action from this government, the judiciary has become the only branch likely to give it to us. That is frightening for the obvious reasonsthat our president and our Congress are not interested in protecting us from this clear and real threatbut it should also be concerning.
These cases will likely be very difficult to resolve. But the judiciary needs to set aside its reticence to address climate change. Scientific evidence demonstrating the risks and damages of airborne pollutants and their resultant impacts is strong. Science has been critical to cases about endangered species, energy, and many other legal challenges. It can be so for climate change, too. Experts will come to the courts. There are many plaintiffs who have standing. There is little political question in many cases.
The founders of this nation meant the courts to be a place where an individual could leverage a grievance if she was wronged. Many are being wronged by climate change, and the court system should be the place where they can obtain redress. In this current administration, the court system has become the key avenue through which climate change can be affected. Judges should take this to heart. Like the judges on the federal appeals court that ruled for the methane rule, others should figure out how to deal with climate concerns.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Substantive action = send billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to some opaque, unaccountable fund controlled by the UN, to be spent on ???? We’ll never know.
Just make them state what they mean by “climate action”.
Do they mean stopping polluters? -OK we can all agree on that.
What they really mean is transferring huge sums of money to other people, and power and control over industry.
Someone should tell the clueless loon Sabrina at Slate that “climate change” is a hoax!
-—Many are being wronged by climate change, and the court system should be the place where they can obtain redress.-—
Interesting they use the word “wronged” rather than “harmed”
It would real interesting proving have climate change “harmed” anyone...
What is the climate like elsewhere in the universe where methane has been found?
After Harvey, Columbia University law department was pushing for lawsuits against Big Oil.
It’s the same old trial lawyer shakedown racket.
The oceans are the methane spewers.
Science should be evaluated by peer review, not judicial review. Even peer review is now tainted by the desire to artificially boost funding through alarmist conclusions. It’s sad. Science was beautiful while it lasted.
Usually near -270°F..............
Well what would it be without the methane?
Yet another warmist lunatic spewing hysterical lunacy.
Thomas Jefferson warned in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820:
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the DESPOTISM of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so and their power (is) the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
These environmentalists wackos are perfect useful idiots. They only know what they are told. If they read a basic meteorology book on an elementary level they would see that this planet and its history is resilient. But noooo, they’re content to be a watermelon, green on the outside,red on the inside.
Patriots are reminded that we need to get into the habit of checking every action of the unconstitutionally big federal government against the limited powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds, most of these limited powers listed in Congresss constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
After all, regardless that lawmakers have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, career lawmakers have repeatedly shown that they cannot be trusted to make sure that their official actions comply with Section 8.
In this case, since the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to deal with environmental issues, the actions of both lawless Obama and the activist federal appeals court can be considered examples of the already unconstitutionally big federal government unconstitutionally expanding its powers.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
The corrupt, uniparty Congress is also at fault for wrongly remaining silent instead of stopping the executive and judicial branches from stealing state powers imo, using those stolen powers to oppress the states and their citizens.
And speaking of mischievous Congress, consider that although Pres. Trump is accomplishing a LOT as president, it remains that since the uniparty Congress wants to get rid of him that his first two years in office are arguably for practice. That being said ...
swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to us patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitutions Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal governments powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal governments limited powers listed here.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.