So I don't know. But this seems significant. Or at least it is being portrayed as significant by our always objective and reliable news media. Some youths sued the state of Montana because, apparently, fossil fuels exist and proper establishment approved climate change solutions aren't being implemented in the state. Therefore, that denied them their constitutional right to clean air and water.
Now my thoroughly untrained and ignorant-where-the-law-is-concerned eye sees this and I see something much bigger behind the gibberish going on. I don't know. Something about it seems on the surface goofy, almost stupid, and yet I get a whiff of maliciousness behind it all. We'll see. I'm sure others will chime in around the media world. After all, the WaPo says it's a case the whole world is watching. Therefore I suspect others in the world will have more to say than I do.
Courts have long confirmed the right of a person to be an idiot. In recent decades, courts have ruled this nation to be secular. They have thus promoted being idiots. I do hope this won't give the EPA carte blanche to act "for public safety". As you say, we'll see where this goes.
ReplyDeleteThe excuse was a happy talk provision of the Montana State Constitution, which does not bind federal authorities.
DeleteThat much is true. I just noticed the press jumping on this. I've seen more stories about it as if it signifies something important. I think it does, just not for the reasons the news stories are saying.
DeleteAs always the government has made use of willing idiots to do their bidding in order to appear to have clean hands in pushing certain agendas and ideologies.
ReplyDeleteI will call myself BobB from now since a new Bob has popped up. I wrote the above
DeleteThanks for clarifying. I had a hard time wrapping my head around the two comments. I thought you were going all Harvey Two Face on me. But you're right here. It does appear beyond stupid, and not just because of the rather nebulous 'clean air and water'. In terms of law, just what is the definition of those things? I fear more and more we're seeing the courts appealed to where legislation or popular opinion fail.
DeleteYou are not a lawyer; but you are literate. It would be more responsible for you carefully to read the MT Constitution and the court opinion before frothing at the mouth in outrage.
ReplyDeleteAre you replying to Dave or someone else? How many Bobs do we have around here?
DeleteIf you think that's frothing at the mouth outrage, I'd like to see you respond to some of the websites I have visited over the years. But it would do me no good to read, merely because I'm literate. That's like saying 'you may not be an Old Testament scholar, but you're literate, so read the Hebrew text for yourself.' My gut feeling is it represents the trend of going to the courts to push agendas where legislation or popular opinion appeals fall short. The press is certainly making it something significant, whether legally it should be or not. And again, not being trained in law, I'd need others who are to make a call in that case.
DeleteHe doesn't think that. It's a skeezy rhetorical exercise on his part.
DeleteIt's a district court, not a supreme court, which makes the decision much less interesting. It's long been apparent that there are many crazy judges in the country, especially at the lower levels.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more interesting is the coordinated, world-wide news coverage of this case, which all paint this as the be all end-all "it is now illegal for the government to not be green" case.
If somehow the case is the first in many to follow, it would just be another stage in our transition into what William Briggs calls an "expertocracy." If you read the decisions it's mainly a list of model result after model result presented by "experts." (There are some chasers of the youthful plaintiffs talking about their "anxieties" and such.) In such a ruling it is the experts that really make the legal determination, with the pliant judge just a rubber stamp. We already saw this sort of thing in action in the COVID stuff.
I have no doubt it shouldn't go far. I was taken by the press stories I saw in it that suggested we have witnessed a milestone. As you point out, this was something picked up by news agencies around the world. Almost as if something is up. And yes, you notice what I've noticed and a growing number have noticed - we live in an age where self-proclaimed experts are listened to like Aztec priests of old, whether they should be listened to or not. Personally, when I see some of their output, I wonder if I would trust them to feed my goldfish, much less base national and global policy on what they say.
Delete