9th Circuit Delivers A Win: Climate Change Teens Have Case Against Trump Admin Booted

FILE – In this July 18, 2018, file photo, lawyers and youth plaintiffs lineup behind a banner after a hearing before Federal District Court Judge Ann Aiken between lawyers for the Trump Administration and the so called Climate Kids in Federal Court in Eugene, Ore. The U.S. government is trying once again to block a major climate change lawsuit days before young activists are set to argue at trial that the government has violated their constitutional rights by failing to take action climate change. On Thursday, Oct. 18, 2018, the Justice Department for a second time this year asked the U.S. Supreme Court to dismiss the case. The high court in July denied the request as premature. (Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard via AP, File)

 

The Trump administration is slowly but surely changing the federal courts in the nation.

After the years of the Obama administration, with many activist judges appointed, this is an incredibly welcome change to return to the Constitution and interpreting law, not trying to make law.

One of the places where President Donald Trump’s appointments have felt the most positive change is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Long known for being the “crazy Ninth,” it’s been turning around. With recent appointees, Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, now Trump has named nine to the Ninth Circuit.

The federal judiciary change is one of the big reasons that many voted for Trump and that vote is paying off.

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit ruled that children who sued the government, claiming a right to a stable climate did not have standing to sue the Trump administration.

The Court held that the president has purview over climate policy, not the court system and therefore they could dictate.

From Daily Caller:

“The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,” the panel of judges noted.

“The political branches might conclude—however inappropriately in the plaintiffs’ view—that economic or defense considerations called for continuation of the very programs challenged in this suit,” the court noted, citing the government’s concerns that unforeseen factors complicate such policies.

The 21 young people involved in Juliana v. United States sought a court order requiring the government to implement an “enforceable national remedial plan” phasing out carbon emissions in an effort to stabilize the climate. The case has survived several attempts by the government to torpedo the case after it was originally filed in 2015.

The plaintiffs were trying to stop the government from letting people grant oil extraction licenses from the Gulf of Mexico.

If they want to address it, the Court is saying actually go the political route and change people’s minds they way that laws are supposed to be enacted rather than thinking you can impose your unelected will on the people.

There was a dissent in the case, according to the National Review. Judge Josephine L. Staton, a district judge sitting by designation on the Ninth Circuit panel. Her most revealing statement was “Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”

No, more exactly, you don’t get to decide the policy which is the purview of the executive branch and the president of the United States.