They can’t really be serious… can they?!
A group of 21 “youths” between the ages of 11 and 23 have banded together in order to sue the federal government over the failure to protect “current and future generations” from “catastrophic climate change” according to a gushing piece on ThinkProgress.
Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the group of young people. The case is Juliana v The United States, named after the eldest of the plaintiffs, Kelsey Juliana, a young environmental activist that was raised by environmental activists in Eugene, Oregon.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2015 against the Obama administration, but, fortunately (for literally everyone), Hillary lost in 2016, so the lawsuit now names the Trump administration as the defendant. And boy, Howdy, is that changing the reportage! It’s now about how these brave children are facing down the immoral, climate-denier, Trump and his band of mustache-twirling baddies who actively want to pollute the world simply to make themselves rich. Because that’s a thing.
These kids think that they’re fighting Hexxus from the horrible, horrible kids propaganda piece, Fern Gully.
The lawsuit isn’t claiming that there is inaction in the fight against man-made climate change on the government’s part, but rather, that it has “facilitated and subsidized a certain type of system that is reliant on fossil fuels.” The plaintiffs claim that in perpetuating this system, the government has violated their Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, or property.
I know, I know. This all seems ridiculous. Especially since aborted children don’t have the opportunity to sue the government for their government-sanctioned murder which violates their Fifth Amendment rights. That’s because they have been so dehumanized that many no longer consider a baby in the womb a human.
But I digress… Back to the frivolous lawsuit and the breathless, glowing journalisming of ThinkProgress.
The significance of a landmark youth climate case was not lost on three Oregon judges Tuesday afternoon, as the case was repeatedly compared to the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision that made racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
In what legal experts have called a groundbreaking piece of climate litigation, the youth lawsuit seeks to hold the federal government accountable for its role in perpetuating climate change.
Watch the 60 Minutes profile of the lawsuit here:
The lawsuit is currently being heard by the notoriously leftist 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, not-so-affectionately called the “9th Circus” by many on the right side of the political spectrum.
The lawsuit presumes that the climate will be irrevocably damaged if drastic action isn’t taken immediately. What action? Well, that’s up to the government to determine. But they need to do it NOW because they’ve been pro-actively destroying the climate.
What has this lawsuit in common with the Supreme Court case that ended racial segregation in public schools? Easy, peasy! The government perpetuating an economic system that relies on fossil fuel is *drumroll* discriminatory!
Leftists are saying that this case is one of discrimination against future generations.
Check out the comments by Julia Olson, the lead attorney for Our Children’s Trust.
“If we look back on the 20th century, we can see race and sex discrimination were the constitutional questions of the era,” Olson said in her concluding remarks. “When our great-grandchildren look back… they will see government sanctioned climate destruction was the constitutional question of this century.”
But I thought that the Great, Wise, Democratic-Socialist thought-leader AOC said that people weren’t having children because of climate change… and that the world is going to end in 12 years.
Either way, no one will be around to kvetch, amirite?
The landmark lawsuit, brought by a group of children and young adults ranging in age from 11 to 23, argues that the government is violating its constitutional obligation to current and future generations by failing to preserve a clean atmosphere. A final decision could shape the future of climate litigation for years to come.
Watch what one of the plaintiffs, 11-year old Levi Draheim, discusses his early interest in climate change after being fed a steady diet of climate hysteria by his mother from a very young age:
Yikes. That reminds me of this article on Greta Thunberg, the 16-year old Swedish climate change activist who suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, OCD, selective mutism (which is apparently a thing), and claims that she can see carbon dioxide, an invisible gas. It’s unclear if she can also see dead people.
They’ve made these kids hysterical.
This kid lives on an island “barely above sea level” in Florida. The threat of “climate change” covering his island due to rising sea levels is really horrible, but, I would argue it is worse to die from the cold in Alaska because you aren’t allowed to heat your home with fossil fuel, which includes burning wood. Maybe it’s just me. I’ve lived in northern climates and I’ve lived in Florida, and trust me, the heat is easier to deal with than the cold.
That’s the kids’ side of the argument. What is the government’s defense? There’s no Constitutional right to protection from a possible climate apocalypse.
The government is arguing that it has not undermined the plaintiffs’ rights — as they claim it has through its failure to provide a safe and livable climate to current and future generations — and even if it has, fixing the damage would be infeasible.
What’s more, as [Assistant Attorney General Jeff] Clark summarized in his closing statement, “We don’t think this constitutional right exists, there’s no historical basis for it.” He added that allowing this case to go forward would cast a “dagger at the separation of powers” within the branches of government and that if it was successful, would set a dangerous precedent. There would be “no logical stopping power,” he argued.
Not so, says the lawsuit. There is a governmental responsibility to maintain “common elements” which, it argues, includes a “clean atmosphere.”
The lawsuit uses a legal theory known as atmospheric trust litigation, which argues that the government must maintain certain common elements such as rivers or shorelines, and in this case, the atmosphere, for public use. By failing to protect and preserve a clean atmosphere for future generations — by promoting fossil fuels, for instance — the lawsuit argues that the government is violating its obligation to the public trust.
When asked what sort of outcome the plaintiffs were looking for, Olson said that the government’s discrimination against this younger generation should be declared unconstitutional.
“The government devalues the lives of these young people by making decisions on energy policies,” she said. “[It] values them less and values adults today more.”
Yes, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Olson apparently doesn’t understand that killing off future taxpayers is not exactly within the best interests of the federal government.
The plaintiffs are arguing that the government must act to create a national energy plan that transitions the United States off of the reliance on fossil fuels. They are seeking action.
“You appear to be requesting some sort of affirmative action,” Judge Mary Murguia said. “We would not be striking down anything … we would be affirmatively telling the government to do something.”
And indeed, perhaps no problem has existed before on a scale such as that of the climate crisis. “The scale of the problem is so big because of the systemic conduct of the government,” Olson said.
Olson explained that yes, the defendants — the federal government — should be ordered to take similar action, “much like Brown vs. Board,” because “whenever there is a government system that’s causing such catastrophic infringement to fundamental rights… [there’s a] duty to issue a decree to address [this] constitutional violation.”
How do people in northern states heat their homes in the winter without fossil fuels (which includes burning wood)? That’s their problem, I guess. These kids don’t give a damn about that. “The Government” will come up with a solution. Government solutions are always the best ones, amirite?
Three of the leftist judges on the 9th Circus
were giddy with delight “appeared sympathetic” to the arguments that the plaintiffs presented. Judge Hurwitz said, “You present compelling evidence that we have a real problem… it may even rise to the level of criminal neglect. The tough question is, do we get to act because of that?” He added, “We may have the wrong Congress and the wrong president. The question for us is whether we get to intervene in that.”
This case is no longer just about the “catastrophic effects of climate change” it’s about sticking it to the Trump administration.
by Doug Giles
Doug Giles, best-selling author of Raising Righteous And Rowdy Girls and Editor-In-Chief of the mega-blog, ClashDaily.com, has just penned a book he guarantees will kick hipster males into the rarefied air of masculinity. That is, if the man-child will put down his frappuccino; shut the hell up and listen and obey everything he instructs them to do in his timely and tornadic tome. Buy Now: Pussification: The Effeminization Of The American Male
By the way, since Facebook has unpublished ClashDaily’s page, your best bet to keep in the loop is to Subscribe to our ClashDaily Newsletter right here:
We’ve moved to a new social media platform, MeWe. It’s like Facebook without the data breaches and censorship.
Sign up and you can still get all the ClashDaily goodness by joining our MeWe group.
Do you love what we’re doing at Clash?
Do you want to kick in to our ‘war chest’ so that we Happy Warriors can maximize the size of the footprint we leave on Leftism’s backside? Here’s a link for ya to do just that.