- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
A judge in Montana ruled on Monday that the state violated the state constitutional rights of 16 young people by promoting the use of fossil fuels and ignoring the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, which cause global warming and climate change. The ruling, a historic first in the U.S. for environmental law, could influence thousands of other pending climate change lawsuits in the country.
How long until this gets appealed to Scotus who rules that young people can go fuck themselves?
Our government is owned by powerful interests who dont care they are killing us and our youth.
An appeal is likely, but this is still a big W. It immediately invalidates laws prohibiting the consideration of emissions. Even if it gets knocked down by higher courts, it will likely have some impact in the immediate term (allowing people to bring up emissions concerns when energy permits are going through approval right now).
And more importantly, it might pave a way for future change. The first attempt down a new path might not get all the way to the end, but it might have a lasting impact in other ways. And this one just jumped over the first big hurdle.
Congrats to this pretty bad ass group of young ones.
These cases are such a double-edged sword, because they risk being taken up by Trump’s SCOTUS. If they rule against based on the majority’s antiquated worldview, it will leave the US, and especially younger generations, in severe danger for a very long time.
I can see where you’re coming from, but we can’t stop fighting for fear of court rulings.
Courts are only there to interpret laws. A determined legislature should be able to overcome poor court interpretations through enacting laws.
For example, Dobbs v. Jackson (stripping abortion protections) only nullified Roe v. Wade. Congress could still protect/prohibit abortion rights with the stroke of a pen. Of course, the legislature’s obvious dysfunction is a problem that must be factored in. But I’d also factor in growing resentment in the Supreme Court with each asinine ruling akin to Dobbs they have to make. Make no mistake about it, that enraged and fueled a lot of opposition. Enough of that could lead to stacking the court.
In this particular case, it seems to be a state issue, so it’s pretty unlikely to make it to the fed Supreme Court anyway. And at least it means that people who likely would be using legal resources for other nefarious means are tied up trying to overturn this one.
