Teenagers take global warming to the courts
The youth — represented, pro bono, by the Burlingame, California, law firm of former U.S. Republican congressman Paul “Pete” McCloskey, a co-founder of Earth Day — filed the suit, Alec L. et. al vs. Lisa P. Jackson, et. al, in May of last year. Defendants include not only Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson but the heads of the Commerce, Interior, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture departments. This Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an Obama appointee, will hear arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint…
While teenagers serve as the public face of the lawsuit, the idea itself came from Julia Olson, an attorney based in Eugene, Oregon. Olson founded an organization called Our Children’s Trust after watching the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth while she was seven months pregnant. Her idea to invite kids to become plaintiffs in a suit against the government was partly inspired by her colleague Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon. Wood has spent her career studying the public trust doctrine, most recently devising a strategy she has dubbed Atmospheric Trust Litigation to apply that theory to the climate.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What an awesome waste of tax payers dollars to tie up the court system with this drivel.
vcferlita on May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM
Yes, I blame the parents.
CorporatePiggy on May 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM
I’m reading the full article, but I am still at a loss on WHY they are suing the Obama Administation or what they hope to gain from this lawsuit.
BigGator5 on May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM
I was not aware of the fact that the Republican Party had a communist faction.
NotCoach on May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM
About their future stake in the federal debt they say nothing?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM
It will be interesting to see them offer, in court, falsified data as proof of anthropogenic global warming.
Mitoch55 on May 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM
If they were really interested in preventing global warming, they wouldn’t be exhaling all that dangerous CO2 into the atmosphere by breathing.
malclave on May 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Alec was one of those kids who needed to be held down and have his hair cut in high school. He’d be a better person for it today.
Trafalgar on May 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Stop the Left on Left hate!
visions on May 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM
When will teenagers sue on account of the exploding debt bomb they stand to inherit?
steebo77 on May 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Between this story, and the one about the dumbass college student in Minnesota going on a hunger strike to demand “gender neutral” bathrooms – I think that this country is pretty much toast.
Defenestratus on May 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM
+1
If, for some reason this lawsuit works out for these kids, I’m gathering a group of teens to sue over the current government spending their future money.
JadeNYU on May 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM
No raging hormones there! Nope!
CurtZHP on May 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM
There’s a word for people who use children as human shields. Cowards. Stinking cowards, the both of them.
Mitoch55 on May 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM
This may explain why he is a FORMER US congressman.
BigGator5 on May 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM
This is a potential disaster.
Here’s the problem: The kids sued various federal agencies. The federal agencies agree with the kids.
I.e., the plaintiffs and defendants agree. The defendants can throw the case. The kids win.
That is why industry has sought standing to intervene: their interests are affected, but neither the kids nor the government want those interests defended.
HeatSeeker2011 on May 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Peculiar how you can get standing to bring a lawsuit for no other purpose than to push leftist hoax propaganda but no one has standing to clarify whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
Buddahpundit on May 10, 2012 at 3:22 PM
They’re trying to put policy beyond the reach of legislators and the executive. They sue now, Obama punts the case by assigning one of his incompetent DoJ hacks (or merely “settles”), and accepts a court-order to pursue a hard-core AGW agenda. Later, when saner people are elected, they can’t just change the policy without also overturning the consent.
cthulhu on May 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Leftist are shameless in using kids to push their political agendas.
Leftist EPA using kids for politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H1pwWjIHPYw
Leftist Blowing Kids up to promote their Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJTNN8oPTs&feature=related
Axion on May 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Dogs and Cats living together mass hysteria
“Sometimes I do ask myself, like is there really any chance to solve this problem?” Loorz acknowledged. “I feel a lot of despair sometimes, but when I talk to Dr. Hansen, he says there is still hope, so I have to trust that he knows more than I do about this.”
She has trust that a man (Hensen) that has been proven wrong, knows more about this than she does….yeah that’s what’s wrong with her in a nutshell.
Dr Evil on May 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM
I second this!
Esthier on May 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM
They’ve already lost since the inspiration was based on false information presented in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.
Add the fact that nothing the climate fanatics predicted since the 1970′s has even come close to coming true.
If they really want to take this to court it would be an excellent opportunity to flay the hoax of Global Warming wide open for everyone to see.
Fanatics don’t think clearly, and it’s obvious these climate fanatics didn’t.
darwin on May 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM
.
It’s California, land of fruit and nuts…
ExpressoBold on May 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM
lol wut
MadisonConservative on May 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM
The first teen to speak out publicly against the rising debt wins.
Blacksoda on May 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM
He served in Congress more than 30 years ago. Aside from the fact that he was virulently anti-Israel, I don’t remember much about him.
aunursa on May 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM
FWIW: Here’s more from Wikipedia on former Rep. McCloskey
He was the first member of Congress to call publicly for the impeachment of Nixon.
He was the first member of Congress to call for the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that authorized the Vietnam War.
He endorsed John Kerry in 2004.
He changed his political affiliation to Democrat in 2007.
aunursa on May 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM
He’s also pro-choice, supports assisted suicide, co-chair of the first Earth Day in 1970.and referred to the murder of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany as the “so-called Holocaust.”
aunursa on May 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Indeed.
Minor v. Happersett ruled that Minor was a citizen because she was a natural born citizen, born in the country of parents who were its citizens.
Minor v. Happersett construed Article II Section 1 “natural born citizen” as those “born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.
Minor v. Happersett intentionally avoided construing the 14th Amendment.
The Court, in Minor, acknowledged that there was doubt regarding whether or not those born in the country to non-citizen parents should even be considered citizens, but the Court did not rule on that as it was not necessary in the case of Minor, who was clearly a citizen because she was a natural born citizen.
The Court later addressed that in the case of Wong Kim Ark, which construed the 14th Amendment. In that case, the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen (not a natural born citizen) because he was born in the country to parents who were permanently domiciled here (and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States).
Per the Obama birth narrative, Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S., was never a U.S. citizen, and was a British subject, i.e., subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown. On his father’s side, Obama doesn’t even meet the standard that was set in Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen (though he does on his mother’s side), but he by no means meets the definition of “natural born citizen” as construed by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett. And the only way he could is if his father was a U.S. citizen. And if that is true, then the “Obama birth narrative” is a fraud.
ITguy on May 10, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Here’s more on the anti-Semitic background of their lawyer: Pete McCloskey
aunursa on May 10, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Thank you.
NotCoach on May 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin :
“Government By Judiciary”
ITguy on May 10, 2012 at 4:03 PM
“The first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers…”
pseudonominus on May 10, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Oh, for f%$# sake.
DFCtomm on May 10, 2012 at 4:14 PM
That’s as big a hoax as global warming. They aren’t going to have trillions of dollars hanging over their heads anymore than the seas are going to rise. The debt will be settled one way or the other way before that point. We may not have a country left but at least the debt will be settled.
DFCtomm on May 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Just prove causality.
“fossil fuels cause global warming”
Believing it, no matter how deeply, is not proof.
Highly paid (through US taxpayer dollars) “climate scientists” have been unable to do so without lying about their data. Even the Goracle has shut up about it.
No proof, no case.
BobMbx on May 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM
The comment above reveals total ignorance of the context of the Shakespeare’s words.
Here’s the “Rest of the Story” on the quote.
The quote is from Henry VI, Part II. It was spoken by a thoroughly evil character, Dick the Butcher. Dick was an anarchist and co-conspirator in Jack Cade’s rebellion. The rebels knew that for the rebellion to succeed, the anarchists would have to kill those who enforced the laws; hence, Dick’s bright idea, “first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
In other words, what Dick is saying is, “For anarchy to prevail, we’ll have to kill the lawyers, the guardians of freedom, first.”
I.e., although a lot of buffoons throw the quote out as an insult, it is actually quite the opposite; it is an accolade, because it reflects society’s recognition that the law and those who are sworn to uphold it are direct obstacles to those who would take away our liberties.
Pseudononymous, really, c’mon. Lame. LOL.
__________
Having said that, with regard to the kid bringing the case, to quote Rush: “I hope he fails.”
HeatSeeker2011 on May 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM
This kind of cr@p is precisely why we need to incorporate the “Loser Pays” doctrine in all of our tort laws.
In the meantime, how about a class action against these enviro-wacko blockheads for damages if they increase our cost of living?? It seems to me that it is EVERYBODY ELSE who actually bears the large and PROVABLY REAL costs of their unwarranted extreme and futile measures to prevent the UNPROVABLE AND PROSPECTIVE “global warming” costs which are not actually borne by anyone.
And “standing” should be a huge issue here: can anyone actually prove that they have been damaged by “global warming”??? No damage, no standing.
landlines on May 10, 2012 at 4:37 PM
I knew that.
But from the statwarts of Shakespeare’s time, Lawyers are now nothing but a class of legally sanctioned knaves.
pseudonominus on May 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Hey KIDS!
Nixon KNEW!!
“It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’ s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.
Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.”
Memo from Daniel P. Moynihan
September 17, 1969
http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf
They are being represented Pro Bono? Any relation to Chaz??
Wander on May 10, 2012 at 5:17 PM
To make the science behind AGW legally settled. IOW, all parties in this farce are in cahoots, there are no hostile parties. The plaintiffs are cute kids “we’re doing it for the kids “, the defendants are environuts. They will cop to not doing enough for the environment and make amends by issuing tighter regs. The judge will cover their six by denying standing to any skeptics.
When it’s all said and done, it will take both an act of Congress and SCOTUS to undo it. Meanwhile, Mittness will bow to the verdict and sign off on cap and trade and every other enviro wishlist – because the science is settled and the judicial branch has deemed it so. Quite simple. This is what democracy looks like when lawmakers shirk their duties and instead delegate them to unelected regulators. If you complain, Congress will say, “gee this is an outrage, but to change it, we need our friends across the aisle to help “. Not that they mean it, it’s just a little sweet nothing to make you go away. To whit, how many have had run-ins with TSA, yet it keeps on getting more draconian, to include roaming street squads? Another reason to repeal the 17th amendment.
AH_C on May 10, 2012 at 5:39 PM