20 votes

US Supreme Court allows historic kids' climate lawsuit to go forward

8 comments

  1. [5]
    MimicSquid
    Link
    What ever happened to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

    By contrast, the US Department of Justice argues that “there is no right to ‘a climate system capable of sustaining human life’” — as the Juliana plaintiffs assert.

    What ever happened to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

    13 votes
    1. stephen
      Link Parent
      I agree in principle. Except, "life liberty happinss" is from the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land (which DOJ is ostensibly tasked with) is from the Constitution which uses the...

      I agree in principle. Except, "life liberty happinss" is from the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land (which DOJ is ostensibly tasked with) is from the Constitution which uses the phrase "life liberty property."

      I know what you're gonna say "But both say life!" Yes while that is true, when it comes down to the government's approach to "life liberty and property" it's a matter of the priorities of the state.

      You asked "What happened to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?'" to which I ask you: What do you think is historically the priority of American state? The right to happiness or the right to property?

      This isn't to say that I think what has happened here is justified. Rather, I'm just trying to say that prioritizing the right to property of corporations over the right to life of people is more historically precedented than you'd expect, that happiness isn't part of the mental calculus of lawmakers and never has been.

      So for what happened to it, it's never been a priority here and we need to struggle to fight for it. It's not like we can just say "Elect the right people, fix the system." This IS the system.

      6 votes
    2. [2]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      But does the US constitution say anything about the quality of that life? You're allowed to be free, you're allowed to own property (as @stephen points out, the US constitution doesn't say...

      But does the US constitution say anything about the quality of that life? You're allowed to be free, you're allowed to own property (as @stephen points out, the US constitution doesn't say anything about pursuing happiness), and you're allowed to live. However, there's nothing to say that life has to be lived in a world free of climate change or its effects.

      The plaintiffs would have to prove that a US citizen is being denied life as a result of global warming. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs are actually alive, and therefore can not prove they are being denied life. If somebody had died as a direct result of the effects of global warming, that might strengthen the case. However, that would require demonstrating a link between that particular death and global warming. And, as even climate scientists like to say, we can't link any given weather event to global warming: global warming only changes the climate, it doesn't create specific hurricanes or cause specific floods or trigger particular heatwaves.

      It's a tricky case to prosecute.

      3 votes
      1. stephen
        Link Parent
        God damn it love this username so much. It should. Maybe we need a new constitution to replace the one written three centuries ago by the factory owners and slavers who shat in bucket their whole...

        God damn it love this username so much.

        But does the US constitution say anything about the quality of that life?

        It should. Maybe we need a new constitution to replace the one written three centuries ago by the factory owners and slavers who shat in bucket their whole lives.

        Gosh it's almost like out existing legal apparatuses are inadequate to mount a response to the climate change being created by corporate feudalism.

        2 votes
    3. spctrvl
      Link Parent
      What the actual fuck. If that quote doesn't exemplify how far gone the United States government is, I don't know what does.

      What the actual fuck. If that quote doesn't exemplify how far gone the United States government is, I don't know what does.

  2. [3]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    Given everything I've read about the US Supreme Court - the political process of nominating judges and the the politicised nature of the court itself - I find myself cynically wondering whether...

    Given everything I've read about the US Supreme Court - the political process of nominating judges and the the politicised nature of the court itself - I find myself cynically wondering whether the Supreme Court is allowing this case to proceed solely for the purpose of making a judgement against the plaintiffs, thus removing any responsibility for action on climate change from the US government. Basically, they're giving themselves permission to create a precedent that will block all future cases like this, so there will be no action on climate change in the USA.

    7 votes
    1. patience_limited
      Link Parent
      The Supreme Court punted - they've simply remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit because that court's remedies haven't been exhausted, and it has the power to dispose of the claim...

      The Supreme Court punted - they've simply remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit because that court's remedies haven't been exhausted, and it has the power to dispose of the claim appropriately. In the Supreme's order:

      See S. Ct. Rule 20.1 (petitioners
      seeking extraordinary writ must show “that adequate relief cannot
      be obtained in any other form or from any other court”

      This is neither a positive nor negative development, other than the Supreme Court's current bench avoiding an openly ideological dismissal of the case.

      4 votes
    2. Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      Almost guaranteed this is exactly the reason they are going to hear arguments on it. That doesn't mean it will block all future cases like this, but it will set a really high barrier. It's...

      Almost guaranteed this is exactly the reason they are going to hear arguments on it.

      That doesn't mean it will block all future cases like this, but it will set a really high barrier. It's extremely rare that the supreme court looks back at an old judgement and says "we fucked up."

      2 votes