The children vs. global warming

Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of AEP v. Connecticut.  The basis of Connecticut’s law suit was that power companies were emitting “green house’ gasses which were causing global warming, or climate change, or whatever it is called these days, and the courts, under the doctrine of public nuisance, should step in and regulate.

Although the Court has not yet ruled, the questions from the bench, particularly those of Justice Ginsburg, do not bode well for Connecticut’s claim.

Perhaps sensing that, a new organization was formed which, with a different legal theory, and an unusual “cast of characters” as plaintiffs, has filed a new law suit.

This claim  has been brought against the federal government and ten states, although we are told that forty more states will soon find themselves as defendants.

The claim,

is based on an obscure doctrine under common law known as public trust, which dates to the Roman Empire and protects property of communal value.  Throughout history, that has mostly meant navigable waters or shorelines…

I have no problem with “obscure common law doctrines”, but, the same problem presented in AEP v. Connecticut exists here.  If the problem is truly “global”, how can a court in, Montana, for example, do anything about it.

But, the story here is the “plaintiff”…Our Children’s Trust.  It has

fielded kids to act as human shields, such as the California minor who has ‘snorkeled several times’ and ‘due to these experiences, he values the aesthetic and material properties of nature.”

And, he is not alone.  Another plaintiff  is a:

‘youth activist’ from Redmond, Washington, who wants ‘humans to live in peace and harmony with each other and the planet Earth.’

Don’t you just love what our children are being taught in schools?

But, the real point of this post is lawyers.  It is anyone’s guess what American taxpayers will spend defending this junk litigation.

And, lawyers wonder why they have a bad name.

15 replies
  1. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    The correct response to this type of lawsuit is, “My Mama didn’t raise no fool. Dismissed … WITH PREJUDICE!” *BAM*

  2. Gary J
    Gary J says:

    Sorry to say this SOS but lawyersd have been screwing things up in this country for a long time. A few bad apples have soured my taste for lawyers. They sue anybody for any reason as long as there is money in it for them. As well as writing laws and opinions so 90 % of people can not understand what is being said.

  3. Eric
    Eric says:

    A responsible parent of a child being educated in a public school should know that reeducation at home is a necessity nowadays. The crap that some of these teachers are feeding our kids is way, way out there. Tell your kids what’s really happening in their schools. They’re smart enough to know what NOT to learn. Teach them how to play the game, but make sure they know what the truth is, and it’s not the pap that our government schools are selling!

  4. Tracy
    Tracy says:

    SOS………………..what are your thoughts on “tort reform.”? It would seem long overdue that these plaintiffs have some “skin in the game.” As a plaintiff, if you bring a frivilous action and lose, then you pay. Tax payers shouldn’t have to cover these costs.

  5. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    The plaintiffs claim that?global warming is: “decreasing snowpack” in CA; “raising sea levels” threatening NYC; “making it impossible for several species of hardwood trees to survive” and “eroding beaches” in CT. The suit is brought on the back of the MA v EPA (2007) case in which the court stamped its (initial) approval on the existence and consequences of global warming.? The acceptance of garbage science by the court is the crux of this and could spell doom down the road. ?

  6. SoundOffSister
    SoundOffSister says:

    Loser pays attorney fees is, to the best of my knowledge,?the rule in the United Kingdom.? Personally, I think it a good concept.
    Here, the federal courts, and many, if not all, state courts have rules that impose “sanctions” on both the attorney, and the party that file a frivolous law suit.? The problem is that whether sanctions are imposed or not, depends upon the judge.? And, most judges, in my experience, are reluctant to do so.
    On the flip side., the American Bar Association lobbies that if “loser pays” were the law, novel legal theories would never be brought.?
    To me, that is a dumb argument.? If a novel theory is advanced, and, it has merit, no judge would ever apply sanctions.? If said novel theory is truly inane, then, sanctions should apply.? Judicial discretion on this point doesn’t seem to be working.? As much as I hate to say it, perhaps we do need a law.

  7. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    How about a class action suit, the children of the U.S. vs the Dept. of Education, for compensation to remedy a lousy education?
    It may not be novel, but it sure is overdue…

  8. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I have been told for decades that the local Boards of Ed “run/control” the school systems. Is this the Dept. of Education mentioned above? Or have been fed a lie?

  9. Shared Sacrifice
    Shared Sacrifice says:

    My kids fears that their parents will be worked and taxed into an early grave; furthermore, they’d like for their parents to take home more of their pay, not work so hard, build wealth, have more family time, more time to prepare wholesome meals, retire early, build a legacy… Our children have seen Oliver Twist, and they worry!? This seems like a more plausible case in my humble opinion.

  10. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I’m surprised the Supreme Court took this case. I think I’m glad they did, because a ruling by them will put a stop to such nonsense. However, I wish they would hurry up and rule on Obamacare.

  11. Murphy
    Murphy says:

    If you accept the global warming premise then you have to admit….. The Children are the Cause of it!
    The more people you have the more Co2 they generate. The more people you have the more resources of Gaia (mother earth) you have to use to survive. Perhaps the power companies should sue mothers for increasing the populace.

  12. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    You know, sammy, maybe you are right: maybe it is the local schoolboards controlling the education of our children.? That is something I (and you) can do something about.
    It also argues the question: why do we need a Dept. of Education?

  13. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    We don’t need a Dept. of education. That was what Reagan said and had his head handed to him. But again, he was right.

Comments are closed.