U.S. District Court Dismisses ‘Climate Change’ Lawsuit

With all the other suits pending, this might set a precedent

U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISMISSES KIDS’ LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP CLIMATE POLICIES

A federal district judge in Philadelphia dismissed a lawsuit by two Pennsylvania boys and an environmental group challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of some Obama-era climate regulations.

In Clean Air Council v. United States, Judge Paul Diamond of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the Trump administration because the Constitution does not guarantee due process rights to what the boys and the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council (CAC) called a “life-sustaining climate.” Diamond noted the boys, who were ages seven and 11 when the lawsuit was filed in November 2017, could not trace their respective health problems to the Trump administration’s climate policies.

Diamond granted requests by President Donald Trump, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and other administration officials to dismiss the case.

The judiciary is not the branch of government charged with making climate policy, Diamond ruled.

“Plaintiffs’ disagreement with the defendants is a policy debate best left to the political process,” Diamond wrote. “Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch, I will grant defendants’ motion.”

The two important points are that dealing with ‘climate change’ is a political process best left to elected representatives, rather than the courts, and there is no right to a “life-sustaining climate.” Not that we’re in any danger from a minuscule 1.5F increase in global temperatures in 170 years, something expected during a Holocene warm period.

In his decision dismissing the CAC lawsuit, Diamond took the rare step of rebuking a decision made by one of his peers, Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court of Oregon in the case Juliana v. United States.

In Juliana, 21 children represented by an environmental activist organization sued the federal government over its climate change policies. Aiken ordered the lawsuit to trial in 2016, stating “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” Aiken’s determination the young plaintiffs had a Constitutional right to a livable climate was the first such ruling by a U.S. judge.

Aiken’s ruling is at odds with previous court decisions, Diamond stated in his decision.

“[T]he Julianna Court certainly contravened or ignored longstanding precedent,” and the government power granted through guarantees of a stable climate would be “apparently without limit,” Diamond wrote.

Warmists do, in fact, want to invest massive power to the government over Everyone Else’s lives. They never see to grasp that this same power will control their own lives.