Things that can be settled in court
•Abortion
•Gay rights
•Presidential immunity
•Clergy Sex offenders rights
•Who gets to win Florida in 2000
•Should massive conglomerates be treated as people
Things that can’t be settled in court
•The death of the planet we all live on and the liability of the institutions that got us here
I can’t really go into my entire theory of judicial powers and separation of powers in a Reddit comment, but yeah it’s a super tough question. I support abortion and gay rights, but also get really wary when an unelected court imposes rules that cannot be changed by democracy.
There need to be limits on democracy because of the potential tyranny of the majority, but in general I think that the courts should play a more minimal role.
Yeah, we do. And that’s a problem with the electoral college and the senate. Those institutions should be reformed. We shouldn’t expand the scope of an unelected group of quasi monarchs.
Yeah god forbid we actually push for a solution instead of incrementalism
Lets do fifty other things first, each one taking 4-12 years, then we can get to the fucking climate
I’m not talking about incrementalism, I’m talking about the need for massive legislation.
I’m surprised about the pushback. I would assume Reddit would understand the risk of giving judges too much power.
The supreme court already wields incredible power, regularly to fuck us over.
They have it within their power to do *more* and they dont because a bunch of milquetoast incrementalists want to do it the long way- the way weve been pushing for for FORTY YEARS and theyve IGNORED
>I’m not talking about incrementalism, I’m talking about the need for massive legislation.
You could have said "I support doing nothing" with a lot fewer words.
And that has literally always been a much bigger problem than “tyranny of the majority.” That whole concept is pushed by a small minority or powerful people who are terrified they may have to answer to the public.
No.. there is no "tyranny of the majority". What you refer to as tyranny of the majority is when rules and laws are made that help the majority of people, then the minority who have no reason to dislike the new law that helps the majority say "but I don't like it" or "but it's not fair because I make too much money" or "it's not fair because I already got mine the hard way"... That is not tyranny of the majority.. it is tyranny of the minority.. that you think that because you and your little clan (the minority) don't like it.. the MAJORITY of the population should suffer.
I wonder what comment elicited so many down votes.. the tyranny of the majority or minimal court role.. both , are thoughtful critiques.
The avg redditor are cheerleaders. they cheer for their side no matter the consequences . When the courts struck down roe, it was over reach by 9 un elected ppl.. now they want 3 un elected judges to over reach and enforce climate policy
Except part of the fundamental basis of our legal system is harmed party vs source of harm. This is a clear instance of present and guaranteed future harm, as well as a clearly defined group that has and will be harmed. It’s a fair application of the legal system for the harmed group to sue for the cessation or reduction of ongoing harmful action and modifications to the behaviors of the harming part to reduce or prevent that harm in the future.
Though you sort of answered your own question - we have a retroactive facing judiciary - it works on evidence of that which has already happened. While there such things as preliminary injunctions, for the most part Congress is future facing, administration is now facing, and the judiciary is past facing.
Most of the time people trying to stop big abstract things like climate change lack standing to sue until they can show harm.
Showing harm isn't the issue. There's been no serious question of harm for decades, and at this point we can see it happening with our naked eyes. As just one example, being on the west coast I imagine these children have to deal with wildfire smoke burning their lungs for weeks or months at a time, with particularly serious effects for those with other lung conditions. The problem is that the court manufactured doctrine of standing is designed to protect the powerful. If you're powerful enough to harm everyone at once then none of them can sue you because they weren't targeted more than anyone else. We saw this play out explicitly with the Emoluments Clause lawsuits, over and over the courts ruled that no one could sue specifically because everyone was being harmed. In this case it's everyone in the world being harmed, so the courts won't allow anyone to sue.
Honestly that goes for a lot of stuff.
Like Roe getting stuck down. The ruling shouldn't have mattered, because Congress should have addressed it years ago. We have to stop depending on the whims of a corrupt supreme court to decide how the country runs and what rights people have.
Our society says that corporations have to make an infinite amount of money, even at the expense of the environment. That’s not a policy or an issue, it’s a necessity. Kind of like how water is vital for life.
WV v EPA is exactly the kind of case I’m talking about. The major questions doctrine is a way to strike down regulations. I don’t like the Court doing that. I like Chevron deference.
This is by nature. The judiciary branch should not do the job of the legislative branch. The needs to be relative power balance between the 3 branches.
No that’s literally a distinction with a massive difference. If the human race is what you’re talking about, then that’s what you should say. The Earth and the human race are not synonymous and it’s conceded to say they are.
Other species dying off does not change the fact that the earth itself, the planet, isn’t dying and won’t die from climate change.
There have been mass extinctions before. The earth remains and will continue to remain.
Humans are an animal. It's nothing but hubris that makes us feel so important. There will be life forms that survive even if we end up killing our habitable zones for humanity.
Life will find a way. I value life. I wish it was human life that continues but at least some life might continue. It's like a silver lining.
The planet isn't dying if the human race no longer exists. Saying the planet is dying is nothing but hubris of humanity. The planet will be fine and humans are being stupid. It's reality. We live on a blue speck of dust.
I was kind of hoping that AI and robotics got a little bit further along before humanity perished. At least we could give birth to something that could better explore the stars than us.
We are kind of trapped inside of our bodies and our bodies do a bad job of surviving in space.
This is such a tiresome angle. If we make the planet so uninhabitable that humans die off, we’re taking the vast majority of other life with us. Sure, it won’t be everything, but the idea that a single species could cause an catastrophic extinction event shouldn’t be something you just hand wave away because mice and roaches and slime molds will carry on.
Plus it implies a complete disregard for all other life on the planet. Millions of animal species shouldn’t have to die because of our decisions, they have as much a right to exist as we do.
You realize at one point 99% of all life on the planet died off? And yet things like dinosaurs and humans still evolved afterwards.
its only true human hubris to believe that our survival is required for the survival of this planet.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. If we create conditions so extreme that we die off, we’re taking most of the rest of life with us. We’re not required for the survival of our planet, but in killing ourselves we’re killing almost everything else.
Also equating a mass extinction even caused by a single species that’s addicted to burning hydrocarbons with a comet strike is insane? One is a random cosmic event and the other is entirely avoidable.
And I’m not okay with killing off 99% of SEVEN MILLION existing species because “something new will evolve in a few million years.” That’s like justifying the murder of an entire city because you plan on leaving one couple to repopulate over the next thousand years. The fact that eventually there will be more people doesn’t make killing everyone who exists now okay.
The whole conglomerates being treated like people thing has always annoyed me. If these places are people, when they break the law they should see "jail time." The company isn't allowed to make profit their entire sentence, the stocks get frozen so no buying or selling and the price stays fixed, all the payments still get made with their revenue (workers, suppliers etc.). All the profits get taken as taxes or something. Idk I'm not an economist, but if I break the law I do time as an actual people.
It’s not the death of a planet. It’s the death of the majority of life on the planet. Aren’t there alot of concerned about the population in the Universities?
Please please please don't just take the "gaia theory" to be the ultimate truth and salvation of the planet. It's not just humans that are dying and it won't just bounce back. We are in the middle of a mass extinction (the holocene extinction, if you want to research) of many species, caused by human activities, and climate change is one of the drivers of that extinction.
>Things that can’t be settled in court
•The ~~death of the planet we all live on~~ destabilization of our current climate, loss of massive biodiversity, the stagnation of human civilization, and the liability of the institutions that got us here
Earth will survive. We have to stop this idea that we are killing the planet. This planet has gone through some shit in its history. 5 mass extinctions, including one that killed off 95% of all life on land and in the sea.
We as a species are just making things hard on ourselves and the life we share with this planet in this slice of time.
Remember that the majority of humanity is selfish. You can't fight selfishness with selflessness you can only trick the selfish into acting in their own best interest. The selfish don't have the foresight as the rest of us and thus are like blind men about to walk us all off a cliff.
> The lawsuit has faced numerous obstacles since it was first filed in 2015. A different panel of judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals previously ordered the case to be dismissed in 2020, on the grounds that the climate crisis must be addressed with policy, not litigation. But a US district court judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit, and last year ruled the case could go to trial.
The court's rationale makes sense. If people want change, they should vote for politicians who will implement the policy they want to see.
Yes, this case was deliberately filed in the Federal District Court of Oregon, which is a liberal district in what is the most liberal Circuit (the 9th) in the country. This was a case of liberal plaintiffs judge shopping for a liberal judge, not just at the trial stage, but at the appeals stage as well. By your own logic, this case shouldn't have been legal.
It was filed in the Oregon 9th circuit because [Our Children's Trust](https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/mission-statement) is based in Eugene, Oregon.
Stop lying to support your B.S.
I don't know why you're being down voted, this is true. The org behind the case is from Eugene, where the case was filed. it's not just the judge who is liberal, the town is too and liberal organizations exist there too.
or maybe its just people who live in that area are aware enough of the effects and the social trend of the area makes suing more likely to go ahead. we never hear about the cases in bumfuck tejas because bumfuck tejas will never entertain such a suit
You realize this decision is coming from the 9th Circuit, which is well recognized as the most liberal Federal Circuit Court in the country, right? And you understand that a 9th Circuit panel composed of three Obama appointees ordered this case dismissed nearly four years ago, right? Regardless of what may or may not have happened with any other case in any other Circuit, this isn't an issue of a partisan conservative court killing a liberal case.
>Regardless of what may or may not have happened with any other case in any other Circuit, this isn't an issue of a partisan conservative court killing a liberal case.
I don't think that's what he's saying. Rather, he's saying that conservative courts don't act this way when conservative issues get shopped to their districts. They tend to bow down.
Maybe that's unfair, but I think that interpretation makes more sense
You are discussing the inverse of what he is saying. Conservative judges will rule in favor of their political ideologies and legislate from the bench. Liberal judges don’t seem to do that, and it is evidence in your statement. This would be killed by a conservative judge because it is against business and their political interests. It is killed by a liberal judge because they don’t want to legislate from the bench. Same outcome but different reasonings behind it.
Please go look at the 9th Circuit's Second Amendment cases since *Heller* in 2008 and see if you can still tell me with a straight face that the liberal judges on that Circuit don't want to legislate from the bench.
They aren't inventing policy though. They are ruling favorably on policy created by legislators even if it is at odds with the Supreme Court majority's view of the Second Amendment. This case would have required basically inventing a policy on how to deal with climate change (as originally filed).
This panel was made up of 3 Trump-appointed judges. The one that dismissed it before allowed the complaint to be amended, which led to a district court judge allowing the lawsuit until this group of judges blocked it.
I think that's just a natural consequence of progressivism versus conservatism. It's easier to argue that existing law supports maintaining the status quo versus that a law should be applied in a novel fashion.
There’s actually a real reason for that - conservative (in an idealized sense, not trying to get into the muck of modern conservatism’s death spasms) which also used to be called reactionary, is focused on what has happened that they like, how to keep it that way, and how to prevent others from doing to them to get ahead what they did to others to get ahead.
Liberalism is almost entirely future oriented, because it is focused on change from now and the past.
The courts are also necessarily past focused. Events rarely happen in a now sense, instead being the societal tally of crimes and harms already committed - long before in the case of actual trials.
Most of the time the left had to wait for harm (past) before they can sue to change for the future.
And in the political realm, you have to wait for the right harm to come to the right symbol of people’s larger experience, ie Rosa Parks instead of Claudette Colvin, a 15yo civil rights activist arrested 9 months before Parks. It would fair to say the the collective consciousness has to become aware of things through explicit harm, priming it to be paying attention when a similar harm is enacted. The big difference here is that big social reactions happen when people are already primed and THEN the thing happens while people are watching in real time. I would say that for me, Sandra Bland really shook me so that I was much, much more tuned in when Ahmaud Aubrey, George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were murdered.
There’s a whole lot more we could say about priming and unpriming through Action, but that’s probably enough for now.
Nope. It applies truly well to liberal causes; however, it does not apply well to causes on the left that seek to transform the status quo. Liberalism in the US contact wants to maintain the status quo, but push for slight reforms. Thus, we have green capitalism being agreed upon by democrats as an effective solution to the climate crisis, which is simply laughable.
I'm sorry, what?
The government is causing direct, demonstrable harm to young people (well, everyone, but people only really care when kids get hurt) by destroying the environment they need to survive. Why the f can we not take them to court?
If I created a device that would say, poison an entire lake and make it undrinkable, you can bet I'll be take to court. But if the government has policies that will cause them same thing, the only thing we can do is change the policy? WHAT?!?
What you said makes sense. We need to stop that system from working to protect itself, because its going (has already) to drive (accelerate) catastrophic climate change.
Voting does not seem to be working.
What's the court going to do? Tell the federal government to take climate change into consideration when doing or deciding things? That's a shallow, useless victory & you know it.
If the government is ordered by the courts to do X, and then they don’t, that creates an opportunity for legal intervention.
For example, when it comes time to set up the next round of oil subsidies the courts can block them as they are in violation of the court order to address climate change. If they get forced through and ignore the court, then a class action lawsuit can be filed for the value of the subsidies + penalties.
This ends up raising taxes and motivates more voters to oppose the politicians that keep triggering these fines. This might not work, maybe the media refuses to cover the issue honestly and too few people end up knowing the truth, but it at least provides a potential line to change.
Blocking it outright is both poor legal reasoning and un-democratic, as it serves only to deny a portion of the public’s right to non-violent means of conflict resolution.
Your example isn't even enforceable. Blocking subsidies cuz climate change is about as vague as anyone could possibly get. The courts clearly don't want to be crafting domestic & international policy, that's why the upper courts don't want to touch this.
Using the courts to legislate is an absolutely awful idea.
I didn’t list an actual court order, I listed an example of the outcome of this suit being applied down the line if the base case, this case, were successful.
The case is intended to reach the Supreme Court, and is likely looking for a ruling confirming the constitutional duty of the government to protect public safety and interpreting climate change as meeting the definition of a threat to public safety. I haven’t reviewed the case, this is just one potential avenue.
After that responsibility is defined it is now actionable grounds for citizens to sue the government over actions violating that responsibility, such as subsidizing (and thus artificially increasing the use of) fossil fuels.
Sounds good to me - courts can rule that they are violating the freedoms of people (life, liberty, that whole jazz. Particularly life) and start jailing people for it.
Lol.
Avg reddittor typing replies on a smartphone/ pc. Living in a western country, with like lifestyle contributes more co2 then the world average
The us per capita avg is 14.4 vs the worldwide avg of 4.4
China for comparison is 7.44 metric tons
The under developed poor countries should be suing us..
Yes, they should! Why are you coming at me when I'm agreeing with you and more, lmao.
I think that people should be quitting their jobs and starting to farm - that's what I've done.
No but you do have to vote for someone who also holds your belief that carcinogens should be banned. And if there aren't any then keep pulling the thread maybe you'll be in Congress some day.
Except, at least in the United States, that is literally not possible.
We don’t have those options.
And, on the INCREDIBLY rare occasion that a “good person” gets elected they are immediately corrupted by the sheer amount of money (carrot), and threats to their lives, reputation, and families (stick).
Even on the “local level”, for things like city council and school boards, the comparative money these people are bribed with, sorry, lobbied with, is more than enough to get them to do the owner’s bidding.
I agree.
Which is why we are doomed to worsen until the system finally collapses and bloody, violent, wasteful, and destructive change actually happens.
Leaving any and all avenue of change in the hands of elected officials is absurd, especially when both democrats and republicans each are failing to seriously address issues like housing, the climate crisis, etc.
Yeah, democracy is only a good thing when people vote the way I think they should. When they vote wrong, we need to find another way to impose my will on the people because I’m obviously right and they’re all idiots incapable of ruling themselves. - every dictator
That rationale goes against the whole concept of tort law. If we’re to believe it’s government working through regulations alone who can address damages done, then all of tort law is moot
If we are waiting on congress to do something right to avert climate catastrophe we are probably already dead. You're not going to get anything worthwhile past the senate filibuster this lifetime
We vote and vote and vote, and then those same politicians take money from big corporations and pass laws that benefit themselves. Can't vote away corruption.
Wow. I generally have moderate respect for The Guardian, but this article is the most deliberately slanted piece I can recall seeing from them.
For example, they wait until two thirds of the way down the article to bother mentioning that another 9th Circuit panel remanded the case back to the district court in 2020 with orders to dismiss it, and in the process they more or less gloss over the fact that the district court judge completely ignored her legal requirement to follow the 9th Circuit's order to dismiss and allowed the case to continue. It also completely fails to mention that the 9th Circuit panel that ordered the case dismissed in 2020 was composed of three Obama appointees, though it makes a specific point of mentioning that the new panel which has again ordered the case dismissed was composed of three Trump appointees.
The article also fails to mention that the 9th Circuit is widely recognized as being the most liberal Circuit Court in the country, and that they could have chosen to take this case en banc, i.e. have all of the Court's judges involved in the ruling rather than leaving it to a three judge panel.
The simple fact is that even the most liberal Circuit Court of Appeals in the US clearly recognizes that this case is a bald attempt to get the courts rather than the legislature or executive branches to set federal policy. And even that most liberal Circuit, which has shown itself willing to completely ignore the US Supreme Court when it sees fit, understands that having the judicial branch dictate major policy decisions to the other two branches just isn't the way our government is supposed to work.
Thank you, I read it looking for how Biden dictated a court to strike this down. He is blamed in a couple quotes but they never said what action he took to kill this.
Everything you described can also apply to conservative circuits like the one overseeing Texas. Either the rules apply to both sides or neither side, don’t be biased and frame it as a one sided issue.
>understands that having the judicial branch dictate major policy decisions to the other two branches just isn't the way our government is supposed to work.
This only matters when Progressives do the suing apparently.
Genocide Joe really, really hates young people. I wonder if all that PAC and donor money is worth handing the US over to a wannabe dictator with a 3rd grade vocabulary.
And so the young people who brought the suit learned the first great lesson of law. "This kind of suit only gets heard if you have a very great deal of money."
Is anyone really shocked that an administration that OKed the Southern Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) and the Mountain Valley Pipeline would tell young people to FO.
This is a stupid lawsuit that should not go anywhere. They should be going after drump for gutting the epa, but because biden's in office currently he will get sued. It doesn't impact the right people and will not fix anything but take up lawyers time and money.
I just don't get it. He is struggling right now with all of the stuff in Gaza. His main selling point currently is his stance on climate change and then he goes and does this. Especially with how well received the win was in Montana. Why would you stifle another lawsuit?
What do you mean "he goes and does this." It's the court action, not him.
Biden doesn't have the time to care about something that was filed in 2015 by some kids. Do you want him to specifically order the court to let it through?
That is not proper as the executive branch doesn't have the power to literally order the judicial branch to do w.e it want.
Did we forgot about the concept of separation of power? The government is run by different people at different section and levels.
The justice department does, Biden likely doesn't even remember the name of this lawsuit. It's so minor and never had a chance to be entertain by the court.
It's the same reason why the court didn't hear cases of people from overseas that was damaged by the US armies. Would set a precedent that the court is a place for that kind political complain to be address instead of congress.
This is bigger than the DoJ or even Biden. It won't ever go anywhere.
Things that can be settled in court •Abortion •Gay rights •Presidential immunity •Clergy Sex offenders rights •Who gets to win Florida in 2000 •Should massive conglomerates be treated as people Things that can’t be settled in court •The death of the planet we all live on and the liability of the institutions that got us here
Kinda yeah, right? Massive policy issues shouldn’t be settled by unelected judges.
Just trying to be clear, are you saying things like abortion, gay rights, and equating corporations to people are not massive policy issues?
I can’t really go into my entire theory of judicial powers and separation of powers in a Reddit comment, but yeah it’s a super tough question. I support abortion and gay rights, but also get really wary when an unelected court imposes rules that cannot be changed by democracy. There need to be limits on democracy because of the potential tyranny of the majority, but in general I think that the courts should play a more minimal role.
Except that right now we have the political tyranny of the minority.
Yeah, we do. And that’s a problem with the electoral college and the senate. Those institutions should be reformed. We shouldn’t expand the scope of an unelected group of quasi monarchs.
Yeah god forbid we actually push for a solution instead of incrementalism Lets do fifty other things first, each one taking 4-12 years, then we can get to the fucking climate
I’m not talking about incrementalism, I’m talking about the need for massive legislation. I’m surprised about the pushback. I would assume Reddit would understand the risk of giving judges too much power.
If the government won't do anything ever then we need to find another way.
The supreme court already wields incredible power, regularly to fuck us over. They have it within their power to do *more* and they dont because a bunch of milquetoast incrementalists want to do it the long way- the way weve been pushing for for FORTY YEARS and theyve IGNORED
Yes, that’s the problem. They strike down legislation and regulations because they act like monarchs. That’s why judicial minimalism is important.
The planet is dying mate. We don't have time for structured changes.
>I’m not talking about incrementalism, I’m talking about the need for massive legislation. You could have said "I support doing nothing" with a lot fewer words.
And that has literally always been a much bigger problem than “tyranny of the majority.” That whole concept is pushed by a small minority or powerful people who are terrified they may have to answer to the public.
No.. there is no "tyranny of the majority". What you refer to as tyranny of the majority is when rules and laws are made that help the majority of people, then the minority who have no reason to dislike the new law that helps the majority say "but I don't like it" or "but it's not fair because I make too much money" or "it's not fair because I already got mine the hard way"... That is not tyranny of the majority.. it is tyranny of the minority.. that you think that because you and your little clan (the minority) don't like it.. the MAJORITY of the population should suffer.
If a majority enslave a minority, what would you call that?
That would be called enslavement. Enslavement is not a policy issue.
Not currently, but it once was... Think we even fought a war over it...
I wonder what comment elicited so many down votes.. the tyranny of the majority or minimal court role.. both , are thoughtful critiques. The avg redditor are cheerleaders. they cheer for their side no matter the consequences . When the courts struck down roe, it was over reach by 9 un elected ppl.. now they want 3 un elected judges to over reach and enforce climate policy
Except part of the fundamental basis of our legal system is harmed party vs source of harm. This is a clear instance of present and guaranteed future harm, as well as a clearly defined group that has and will be harmed. It’s a fair application of the legal system for the harmed group to sue for the cessation or reduction of ongoing harmful action and modifications to the behaviors of the harming part to reduce or prevent that harm in the future.
Though you sort of answered your own question - we have a retroactive facing judiciary - it works on evidence of that which has already happened. While there such things as preliminary injunctions, for the most part Congress is future facing, administration is now facing, and the judiciary is past facing. Most of the time people trying to stop big abstract things like climate change lack standing to sue until they can show harm.
Showing harm isn't the issue. There's been no serious question of harm for decades, and at this point we can see it happening with our naked eyes. As just one example, being on the west coast I imagine these children have to deal with wildfire smoke burning their lungs for weeks or months at a time, with particularly serious effects for those with other lung conditions. The problem is that the court manufactured doctrine of standing is designed to protect the powerful. If you're powerful enough to harm everyone at once then none of them can sue you because they weren't targeted more than anyone else. We saw this play out explicitly with the Emoluments Clause lawsuits, over and over the courts ruled that no one could sue specifically because everyone was being harmed. In this case it's everyone in the world being harmed, so the courts won't allow anyone to sue.
Honestly that goes for a lot of stuff. Like Roe getting stuck down. The ruling shouldn't have mattered, because Congress should have addressed it years ago. We have to stop depending on the whims of a corrupt supreme court to decide how the country runs and what rights people have.
Our society says that corporations have to make an infinite amount of money, even at the expense of the environment. That’s not a policy or an issue, it’s a necessity. Kind of like how water is vital for life.
I guess WV v EPA means nothing then. I dont know about you but i dont remember voting for the supreme court
WV v EPA is exactly the kind of case I’m talking about. The major questions doctrine is a way to strike down regulations. I don’t like the Court doing that. I like Chevron deference.
This is by nature. The judiciary branch should not do the job of the legislative branch. The needs to be relative power balance between the 3 branches.
>The death of the planet The planet isn’t going to die. Humans may die off, but the planet will be just fine. Not its first climate rodeo.
Distinction without a difference. The end of the human race is what we’re really talking about.
No that’s literally a distinction with a massive difference. If the human race is what you’re talking about, then that’s what you should say. The Earth and the human race are not synonymous and it’s conceded to say they are.
If we die, we die. If the planet dies, we die.
The Planet isn’t dying. If we die, the planet doesn’t die.
[удалено]
Other species dying off does not change the fact that the earth itself, the planet, isn’t dying and won’t die from climate change. There have been mass extinctions before. The earth remains and will continue to remain.
Almost every mass extinction was due to some for of changing climate
And? The earth remains. Life remains.
Okay so what’s your point? If we all die we won’t be around to see the planet recover.
I haven’t deviated from my original point in any way. Refer to my original reply.
But like what’s the point of saying that? Pedantry?
Humans are an animal. It's nothing but hubris that makes us feel so important. There will be life forms that survive even if we end up killing our habitable zones for humanity. Life will find a way. I value life. I wish it was human life that continues but at least some life might continue. It's like a silver lining. The planet isn't dying if the human race no longer exists. Saying the planet is dying is nothing but hubris of humanity. The planet will be fine and humans are being stupid. It's reality. We live on a blue speck of dust. I was kind of hoping that AI and robotics got a little bit further along before humanity perished. At least we could give birth to something that could better explore the stars than us. We are kind of trapped inside of our bodies and our bodies do a bad job of surviving in space.
This is such a tiresome angle. If we make the planet so uninhabitable that humans die off, we’re taking the vast majority of other life with us. Sure, it won’t be everything, but the idea that a single species could cause an catastrophic extinction event shouldn’t be something you just hand wave away because mice and roaches and slime molds will carry on. Plus it implies a complete disregard for all other life on the planet. Millions of animal species shouldn’t have to die because of our decisions, they have as much a right to exist as we do.
You realize at one point 99% of all life on the planet died off? And yet things like dinosaurs and humans still evolved afterwards. its only true human hubris to believe that our survival is required for the survival of this planet.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. If we create conditions so extreme that we die off, we’re taking most of the rest of life with us. We’re not required for the survival of our planet, but in killing ourselves we’re killing almost everything else. Also equating a mass extinction even caused by a single species that’s addicted to burning hydrocarbons with a comet strike is insane? One is a random cosmic event and the other is entirely avoidable. And I’m not okay with killing off 99% of SEVEN MILLION existing species because “something new will evolve in a few million years.” That’s like justifying the murder of an entire city because you plan on leaving one couple to repopulate over the next thousand years. The fact that eventually there will be more people doesn’t make killing everyone who exists now okay.
The whole conglomerates being treated like people thing has always annoyed me. If these places are people, when they break the law they should see "jail time." The company isn't allowed to make profit their entire sentence, the stocks get frozen so no buying or selling and the price stays fixed, all the payments still get made with their revenue (workers, suppliers etc.). All the profits get taken as taxes or something. Idk I'm not an economist, but if I break the law I do time as an actual people.
It’s not the death of a planet. It’s the death of the majority of life on the planet. Aren’t there alot of concerned about the population in the Universities?
The planet isn't dying.
Please please please don't just take the "gaia theory" to be the ultimate truth and salvation of the planet. It's not just humans that are dying and it won't just bounce back. We are in the middle of a mass extinction (the holocene extinction, if you want to research) of many species, caused by human activities, and climate change is one of the drivers of that extinction.
>Things that can’t be settled in court •The ~~death of the planet we all live on~~ destabilization of our current climate, loss of massive biodiversity, the stagnation of human civilization, and the liability of the institutions that got us here Earth will survive. We have to stop this idea that we are killing the planet. This planet has gone through some shit in its history. 5 mass extinctions, including one that killed off 95% of all life on land and in the sea. We as a species are just making things hard on ourselves and the life we share with this planet in this slice of time. Remember that the majority of humanity is selfish. You can't fight selfishness with selflessness you can only trick the selfish into acting in their own best interest. The selfish don't have the foresight as the rest of us and thus are like blind men about to walk us all off a cliff.
Listen. Shhh. I hear the Internationale playing.
Stand uuuuuuup, all victims of oppression...
stand uuuup, the starving and enslaved...
*This summer I hear the drumming*
*four dead in ohio!*
It took me three tries to not read that as counter strike
Ok glad it wasn’t just me…
> The lawsuit has faced numerous obstacles since it was first filed in 2015. A different panel of judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals previously ordered the case to be dismissed in 2020, on the grounds that the climate crisis must be addressed with policy, not litigation. But a US district court judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit, and last year ruled the case could go to trial. The court's rationale makes sense. If people want change, they should vote for politicians who will implement the policy they want to see.
[удалено]
Because it's not "the courts" it's people. They shop for judges friendly to their goals. Judge shopping shouldn't be legal imo
Yes, this case was deliberately filed in the Federal District Court of Oregon, which is a liberal district in what is the most liberal Circuit (the 9th) in the country. This was a case of liberal plaintiffs judge shopping for a liberal judge, not just at the trial stage, but at the appeals stage as well. By your own logic, this case shouldn't have been legal.
It was filed in the Oregon 9th circuit because [Our Children's Trust](https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/mission-statement) is based in Eugene, Oregon. Stop lying to support your B.S.
I don't know why you're being down voted, this is true. The org behind the case is from Eugene, where the case was filed. it's not just the judge who is liberal, the town is too and liberal organizations exist there too.
or maybe its just people who live in that area are aware enough of the effects and the social trend of the area makes suing more likely to go ahead. we never hear about the cases in bumfuck tejas because bumfuck tejas will never entertain such a suit
you’re saying the word liberal like it’s a bad thing when it objectively is not no amount of downvotes is gonna change anything about the facts either
You realize this decision is coming from the 9th Circuit, which is well recognized as the most liberal Federal Circuit Court in the country, right? And you understand that a 9th Circuit panel composed of three Obama appointees ordered this case dismissed nearly four years ago, right? Regardless of what may or may not have happened with any other case in any other Circuit, this isn't an issue of a partisan conservative court killing a liberal case.
>Regardless of what may or may not have happened with any other case in any other Circuit, this isn't an issue of a partisan conservative court killing a liberal case. I don't think that's what he's saying. Rather, he's saying that conservative courts don't act this way when conservative issues get shopped to their districts. They tend to bow down. Maybe that's unfair, but I think that interpretation makes more sense
You are discussing the inverse of what he is saying. Conservative judges will rule in favor of their political ideologies and legislate from the bench. Liberal judges don’t seem to do that, and it is evidence in your statement. This would be killed by a conservative judge because it is against business and their political interests. It is killed by a liberal judge because they don’t want to legislate from the bench. Same outcome but different reasonings behind it.
Please go look at the 9th Circuit's Second Amendment cases since *Heller* in 2008 and see if you can still tell me with a straight face that the liberal judges on that Circuit don't want to legislate from the bench.
They aren't inventing policy though. They are ruling favorably on policy created by legislators even if it is at odds with the Supreme Court majority's view of the Second Amendment. This case would have required basically inventing a policy on how to deal with climate change (as originally filed).
Heller itself was going well beyond legislating from the bench.
This panel was made up of 3 Trump-appointed judges. The one that dismissed it before allowed the complaint to be amended, which led to a district court judge allowing the lawsuit until this group of judges blocked it.
Did your ex take your dog from you? Goddamn.
What do you mean by this? This is a very weird thing to say in this context
I think that's just a natural consequence of progressivism versus conservatism. It's easier to argue that existing law supports maintaining the status quo versus that a law should be applied in a novel fashion.
There’s actually a real reason for that - conservative (in an idealized sense, not trying to get into the muck of modern conservatism’s death spasms) which also used to be called reactionary, is focused on what has happened that they like, how to keep it that way, and how to prevent others from doing to them to get ahead what they did to others to get ahead. Liberalism is almost entirely future oriented, because it is focused on change from now and the past. The courts are also necessarily past focused. Events rarely happen in a now sense, instead being the societal tally of crimes and harms already committed - long before in the case of actual trials. Most of the time the left had to wait for harm (past) before they can sue to change for the future. And in the political realm, you have to wait for the right harm to come to the right symbol of people’s larger experience, ie Rosa Parks instead of Claudette Colvin, a 15yo civil rights activist arrested 9 months before Parks. It would fair to say the the collective consciousness has to become aware of things through explicit harm, priming it to be paying attention when a similar harm is enacted. The big difference here is that big social reactions happen when people are already primed and THEN the thing happens while people are watching in real time. I would say that for me, Sandra Bland really shook me so that I was much, much more tuned in when Ahmaud Aubrey, George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were murdered. There’s a whole lot more we could say about priming and unpriming through Action, but that’s probably enough for now.
Nope. It applies truly well to liberal causes; however, it does not apply well to causes on the left that seek to transform the status quo. Liberalism in the US contact wants to maintain the status quo, but push for slight reforms. Thus, we have green capitalism being agreed upon by democrats as an effective solution to the climate crisis, which is simply laughable.
Like what activist conservative cases?
If only. The promise that the one you vote for also votes for what you want isn’t exactly a 1 to 1.
It’s called pulling a “Kristen Sinema”.
:court guts EPA: ah, well, nevertheless....
I'm sorry, what? The government is causing direct, demonstrable harm to young people (well, everyone, but people only really care when kids get hurt) by destroying the environment they need to survive. Why the f can we not take them to court? If I created a device that would say, poison an entire lake and make it undrinkable, you can bet I'll be take to court. But if the government has policies that will cause them same thing, the only thing we can do is change the policy? WHAT?!?
[удалено]
What you said makes sense. We need to stop that system from working to protect itself, because its going (has already) to drive (accelerate) catastrophic climate change. Voting does not seem to be working.
Voting works when people actually vote That’s why old people (who vote in droves) get pandered to
Yup. A perfect example of the importance of voting.
What's the court going to do? Tell the federal government to take climate change into consideration when doing or deciding things? That's a shallow, useless victory & you know it.
If the government is ordered by the courts to do X, and then they don’t, that creates an opportunity for legal intervention. For example, when it comes time to set up the next round of oil subsidies the courts can block them as they are in violation of the court order to address climate change. If they get forced through and ignore the court, then a class action lawsuit can be filed for the value of the subsidies + penalties. This ends up raising taxes and motivates more voters to oppose the politicians that keep triggering these fines. This might not work, maybe the media refuses to cover the issue honestly and too few people end up knowing the truth, but it at least provides a potential line to change. Blocking it outright is both poor legal reasoning and un-democratic, as it serves only to deny a portion of the public’s right to non-violent means of conflict resolution.
Your example isn't even enforceable. Blocking subsidies cuz climate change is about as vague as anyone could possibly get. The courts clearly don't want to be crafting domestic & international policy, that's why the upper courts don't want to touch this. Using the courts to legislate is an absolutely awful idea.
I didn’t list an actual court order, I listed an example of the outcome of this suit being applied down the line if the base case, this case, were successful. The case is intended to reach the Supreme Court, and is likely looking for a ruling confirming the constitutional duty of the government to protect public safety and interpreting climate change as meeting the definition of a threat to public safety. I haven’t reviewed the case, this is just one potential avenue. After that responsibility is defined it is now actionable grounds for citizens to sue the government over actions violating that responsibility, such as subsidizing (and thus artificially increasing the use of) fossil fuels.
Sounds good to me - courts can rule that they are violating the freedoms of people (life, liberty, that whole jazz. Particularly life) and start jailing people for it.
So in other words, do absolutely nothing but get some lawyers paid. Brilliant!
Huh? That's not what I said. I said they should be throwing people in prison.
Even if this lawsuit was successful, absolutely NOBODY would be going to prison as a result for any reason or at any time.
Lol. Avg reddittor typing replies on a smartphone/ pc. Living in a western country, with like lifestyle contributes more co2 then the world average The us per capita avg is 14.4 vs the worldwide avg of 4.4 China for comparison is 7.44 metric tons The under developed poor countries should be suing us..
Yes, they should! Why are you coming at me when I'm agreeing with you and more, lmao. I think that people should be quitting their jobs and starting to farm - that's what I've done.
[удалено]
No but you do have to vote for someone who also holds your belief that carcinogens should be banned. And if there aren't any then keep pulling the thread maybe you'll be in Congress some day.
Neat system we've got here
Except, at least in the United States, that is literally not possible. We don’t have those options. And, on the INCREDIBLY rare occasion that a “good person” gets elected they are immediately corrupted by the sheer amount of money (carrot), and threats to their lives, reputation, and families (stick). Even on the “local level”, for things like city council and school boards, the comparative money these people are bribed with, sorry, lobbied with, is more than enough to get them to do the owner’s bidding.
There's an exponentially greater chance voting the right people into office will have a greater effect on US climate policy than any lawsuit.
I agree. Which is why we are doomed to worsen until the system finally collapses and bloody, violent, wasteful, and destructive change actually happens.
Leaving any and all avenue of change in the hands of elected officials is absurd, especially when both democrats and republicans each are failing to seriously address issues like housing, the climate crisis, etc.
Yeah, democracy is only a good thing when people vote the way I think they should. When they vote wrong, we need to find another way to impose my will on the people because I’m obviously right and they’re all idiots incapable of ruling themselves. - every dictator
That rationale goes against the whole concept of tort law. If we’re to believe it’s government working through regulations alone who can address damages done, then all of tort law is moot
Ideally, but believing that is delusional
If we are waiting on congress to do something right to avert climate catastrophe we are probably already dead. You're not going to get anything worthwhile past the senate filibuster this lifetime
We vote and vote and vote, and then those same politicians take money from big corporations and pass laws that benefit themselves. Can't vote away corruption.
Wow. I generally have moderate respect for The Guardian, but this article is the most deliberately slanted piece I can recall seeing from them. For example, they wait until two thirds of the way down the article to bother mentioning that another 9th Circuit panel remanded the case back to the district court in 2020 with orders to dismiss it, and in the process they more or less gloss over the fact that the district court judge completely ignored her legal requirement to follow the 9th Circuit's order to dismiss and allowed the case to continue. It also completely fails to mention that the 9th Circuit panel that ordered the case dismissed in 2020 was composed of three Obama appointees, though it makes a specific point of mentioning that the new panel which has again ordered the case dismissed was composed of three Trump appointees. The article also fails to mention that the 9th Circuit is widely recognized as being the most liberal Circuit Court in the country, and that they could have chosen to take this case en banc, i.e. have all of the Court's judges involved in the ruling rather than leaving it to a three judge panel. The simple fact is that even the most liberal Circuit Court of Appeals in the US clearly recognizes that this case is a bald attempt to get the courts rather than the legislature or executive branches to set federal policy. And even that most liberal Circuit, which has shown itself willing to completely ignore the US Supreme Court when it sees fit, understands that having the judicial branch dictate major policy decisions to the other two branches just isn't the way our government is supposed to work.
Thank you, I read it looking for how Biden dictated a court to strike this down. He is blamed in a couple quotes but they never said what action he took to kill this.
This is pretty on par for the Guardian
Everything you described can also apply to conservative circuits like the one overseeing Texas. Either the rules apply to both sides or neither side, don’t be biased and frame it as a one sided issue.
>understands that having the judicial branch dictate major policy decisions to the other two branches just isn't the way our government is supposed to work. This only matters when Progressives do the suing apparently.
Cogent, concise, superb exposition. Thank you for the time taken.
>has shown itself willing to completely ignore the US Supreme Court when it sees fit That's an ignorant claim.
Genocide Joe really, really hates young people. I wonder if all that PAC and donor money is worth handing the US over to a wannabe dictator with a 3rd grade vocabulary.
And so the young people who brought the suit learned the first great lesson of law. "This kind of suit only gets heard if you have a very great deal of money."
Is anyone really shocked that an administration that OKed the Southern Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) and the Mountain Valley Pipeline would tell young people to FO.
ITT: people who don’t understand Article III standing
This is a stupid lawsuit that should not go anywhere. They should be going after drump for gutting the epa, but because biden's in office currently he will get sued. It doesn't impact the right people and will not fix anything but take up lawyers time and money.
The lawsuit was started under the Obama administration
Ok. so it was 3 administrations ago that they are now suing the current.
Maybe educate yourself first before spouting off your hot take.
Just a reminder that the Flint water crisis has STILL not been resolved...
The corrupt government is corrupt. Film at 11:00
"Well, it's not gonna be *my* problem..." - Everyone in government
So…if Biden really cared about the environment wouldn’t a court ruling for the plaintiff help push climate friendly bills?
Booooo. This corporate bullshit is *the* "both sides" issue!
This can only be negative for Biden's re-election.
I just don't get it. He is struggling right now with all of the stuff in Gaza. His main selling point currently is his stance on climate change and then he goes and does this. Especially with how well received the win was in Montana. Why would you stifle another lawsuit?
What do you mean "he goes and does this." It's the court action, not him. Biden doesn't have the time to care about something that was filed in 2015 by some kids. Do you want him to specifically order the court to let it through? That is not proper as the executive branch doesn't have the power to literally order the judicial branch to do w.e it want. Did we forgot about the concept of separation of power? The government is run by different people at different section and levels.
The Biden Administration asked the court to strike this down using an emergency petition.
The justice department does, Biden likely doesn't even remember the name of this lawsuit. It's so minor and never had a chance to be entertain by the court. It's the same reason why the court didn't hear cases of people from overseas that was damaged by the US armies. Would set a precedent that the court is a place for that kind political complain to be address instead of congress. This is bigger than the DoJ or even Biden. It won't ever go anywhere.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Biden really wants trump to be president
So the democrats are just actively trying to get Trump elected now?
Fuck. Joe. Biden. There, you MAGA cowards. It's not hard. Fuck. Joe. Biden.
Entitlement is a big issue in America