Now this is interesting. This week another children’s climate lawsuit has been dismissed, this time in Seattle Washington, hotbed of climatists as rabid as California. According to AP, Judge Michael Scott gave away his personal bias by telling the plaintiffs not to be discouraged by his ruling granting the motion to dismiss from defendant Governor Inslee. Methinks that leftward justices in the lower courts are realizing they can no longer make policy from the bench and expect higher courts to let it pass. With Gorsuch sitting on the highest court, and Kavanaugh soon to be added, liberal grandstanding opinions may become much rarer.
The story from Washington Examiner Washington judge throws out children’s climate change lawsuit Excerpts in italics with my bolds.
A judge in Washington state on Tuesday dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed against the state by a group of child activists.
King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott ruled in favor of the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Aji P. v. State of Washington. The 13 young activists in the suit argue that the state is violating their constitutional rights through actions that cause climate change.
Judge Scott ruled that issues brought up in the case are political questions that cannot be resolved by a court, and must be addressed by Congress and the president.
Attorneys representing the children said they would make a formal statement on the judge’s decision on Wednesday morning. An initial statement by Our Children’s Trust, the group representing the children, suggested Judge Scott erred in his decision.
“Given the significance of the Court’s decision and the pronounced departures from proper judicial procedure and consideration of Plaintiffs’ claims, Our Children’s Trust will issue a formal statement regarding the decision tomorrow,” the initial statement read.
The child plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they were both “saddened” and heartbroken” by the judge’s decision.
The same group of child activists has also sued the federal government on the same constitutional grounds in Juliana v. United States. But that lawsuit has had better luck in federal appeals court, which rejected the Trump administration’s several attempts to have the case thrown out.
More recently, the Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch attempt by the Trump administration to block the climate change lawsuit filed by children, meaning the lawsuit will have its day in court later this fall.
“The Government’s request for relief is premature and is denied without prejudice,” read the high court’s decision.
The case will be heard in federal district court in October.
Note: The article omits the caution directed by the supremes in their decision not to intervene. The brief unsigned order said the Trump administration’s request was premature. The court did, however, note that the claims made in the ambitious lawsuit are “striking” and the question of whether they can be considered by a jury “presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion.” As such, the lower court should take those concerns into account in handling the case, the order said.
“Without prejudice” suggests the highest court is open to hearing the case should the lower court get it wrong.
Footnote: The Fable of Political Success
A provincial political leader won the parliamentary election and on the day to take the oath was greeted by the outgoing premier. Wishing him well, his predecessor gave him three envelopes, explaining it was a tradition. The envelopes contained advice to be consulted later on if difficulties were encountered.
Not long after taking office, criticisms started up, and the new premier opened the first envelope. It explained: “Blame it on the previous administration.” He followed that advice pointing to past financial mismanagement, and the difficulty undoing bad policies and programs he had inherited.
That calmed things down for awhile, but a year later the excuses were wearing thin. So he turned to the second envelope which gave the advice: “Blame it on the federal government.” A new campaign of announcements focused on delays and shortfalls of federal funding, poor coordination and liaison by federal counterparts, and counterproductive federal policies.
This quieted critics for more than a year, but alas it too began to fall on deaf ears. It was time to open the third envelope: ” Blame it on climate change, or else prepare three envelopes.”