Climate Kiddies Plan To Try And Sue In California Again

A better idea would be for them to live the net zero life they demand for Everyone Else, and convince all their climate cult friends to do the same

Judge dismisses California kids’ climate lawsuit. They plan to try again

After a federal judge dismissed a landmark climate lawsuit filed by 18 California children against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the youth plaintiffs plan to amend and resubmit their allegations, their attorneys say.

The children — who have lost homes in wildfires, suffered health problems from breathing polluted air, missed weeks of education due to climate change-related school closures and been forced to ration tap water due to unprecedented droughts — sued the EPA for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by allowing pollution from burning fossil fuels to continue despite knowing the harm it poses to kids.

Except, the EPA is not a dictatorial federal agency, and doesn’t have the statutory authority to act as one. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California this month ruled the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the suit because they did not show how the remedies they sought — including a declaratory judgment that their constitutional rights have been violated — would mitigate those harms.

“Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how a declaration regarding Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution and the legality of Defendants’ conduct, on its own, is likely to remedy these alleged injuries,” he wrote. The ruling granted the plaintiffs permission to amend their complaint by no later than May 20.

Too bad Judge Fitzgerald didn’t ask the kiddies if they were practicing what they preached, and if they were traveling around in fossil fueled vehicles.

The co-executive director of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit law firm that represents the plaintiffs and has filed similar suits in other states, called the order unjust and said attorneys would be filing an amended complaint.

“When presented with a constitutional violation, there is no reason for a federal judge to throw up his hands and say nothing can be done,” Mat dos Santos, general counsel of Our Children’s Trust, said in a statement. “In doing just that, this order tells children that judges have no power to hear their complaints. Courts do, in fact, have that power.”

They keep saying “constitutional”, but, they never actually point to the part of the constitution, other than a vague notion

The children who filed Genesis v. EPA are asking the federal court to hear and weigh their evidence, then ultimately issue a declaratory judgment that the EPA has violated their fundamental constitutional rights to equal protection of the law and their fundamental rights to life.

The filed suit doesn’t actually explain how this violates “equal protection of the law”. And there is no fundamental right to life (which is interesting, because the same people astroturfing these suits surely believe in abortion on demand). They further assert that they have a fundamental right to a life-sustaining climate. They seriously try to cite things like Article II, but, it gets pretty squishy and more along the lines of “The EPA must Do Something because we say so!”

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Climate Kiddies Plan To Try And Sue In California Again”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    Where do they get this idea that the government (Specifically other people) OWES them a clean environment? None of the other kids on the planet have one. American kids, including ones in California are living in some of the cleanest environments on the face of the Earth, at a time that is cleaner than at any time in over a hundred years. They should be grateful instead of complaining.

    Ah, but there’s the rub. The kids aren’t complaining. Adult activists are complaining on their behalf and the kids are basking in the attention they are getting in the process. Something must feed the Twitter/TicToc content machine.

    Good thing the activists have nearly bottomless resources to do legal activism. A shame they couldn’t devote those resources to actual fixing something. [start grandfatherly voice] Back in my day, when kids complained about their environment, their parents would pack them off to the woods, shore, or river bank and make them pick up other people’s trash all day in the hot sun. They would never complain about that again.

  2. Dana says:

    The part that gets me is that all of these lawfare suits have behind them the notion that the courts can order the legislature and the government to tale a specific legislative action, yet the left claim that re-electing President Trump would end democracy.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    left claim …

    The left claims a great many things that are non-sensical, are easily refuted, and seem to be easily forgotten if they become inconvenient. The Left says them as if they are magic words that have the power to create reality if they say them loudly enough and often enough with true belief.

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The system works. The courts keep dismissing the suits for lack of standing.

    Speaking of lawfare, at last count ex-president Donald was involved in well over 4000 lawsuits, the majority as a plaintiff. The RNC (now run by a Trump!) spends millions on Donald lawsuits! Send your donations now!!

    Trump sued comedian Bill Maher for claiming Trump’s mother had mated with an orangutan. For an orange, Trump has surprisingly thin skin!!

    Musicians have sued Trump for using their itellectual property without permission. Trump has argued “absolute presidential immunity”, LOL.

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Tort law differs from criminal law. In civil suits the plaintiff(s) must demonstrate they’ve suffered a harm or loss as a result of actions or negligence of another. Tort law addresses private wrongs and has a central purpose of compensating the victim rather than punishing the wrongdoer. The compensation, while typically monetary, can also be injunctive relief, that is, forcing the offending party to change its actions.

  6. ckc2000 says:

    Besides having TDS you unAmerican piece of crap must have syphilis too.

  7. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Your wife has syphilis? Damn.

Pirate's Cove