Pro-Life In Action: Shitstain's Lawyers Argue That There Is No Right To A Liveable Climate/Planet

[hatrack]

Almost exactly two years after President Trump announced his plans to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, a groundbreaking youth climate change lawsuit challenging the federal government’s promotion of fossil fuel energy was back in court for a long-awaited hearing. Before a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Trump administration, which has tried numerous times to derail the suit, argued that the case is an “attack on the Constitution” and that there is no right to a stable climate system capable of sustaining human life.

The 21 youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States allege that the government’s role in perpetuating a fossil fuel energy system despite knowledge of the climate consequences amounts to violations of their constitutional rights. During the hearing June 4, the judges had tough questions for both sides arguing the lawsuit, which originally launched when Barack Obama was still president. On November 10, 2016, one day after the election that put President Trump in office, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case and recognized a life-sustaining climate system as a right that is “fundamental to a free and ordered society.”

Since then, the federal government under the Trump administration has tried repeatedly to stop the case from going to trial while simultaneously pursuing an “energy dominance” agenda and an assault on existing climate and environmental policies. This includes President Trump’s announcement on June 1, 2017 that he intends to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the nearly 200-nation agreement to limit global warming.

EDIT

This week in Portland, Oregon, the judges heard oral arguments in that appeal. The Trump-appointed Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Bossert Clark opened the hearing by arguing that the case inappropriately attacks administrative agency actions through constitutional claims. “There are wholesale administrative regimes that are being circumvented by this lawsuit,” Clark said. “This is a suit designed to circumvent a whole bunch of statutes.” Clark was part of BP’s legal representation in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill litigation and has challenged on behalf of industry the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that rising greenhouse gas levels endanger public health and welfare. During his arguments this week, he said a right to a “safe climate” capable of sustaining human life doesn’t exist and that the U.S. government is not endangering the plaintiffs.

EDIT

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/05/paris-accord-trump-juliana-case-constitutional-right-safe-climate

[C_U_L8R]

1. Republicans don't believe in the Common Good.

That's the essential problem right there.

[mountain grammy]

2. Yet, right there in the preamble

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So easy to miss..