Ninth Circuit finally puts the idiotic "kids" climate suit to rest (dismisses for lack of Article III standing)

Decision of a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissing Juliana v. United States for lack of Article III standing.

Of course, it is still an embarrassment that this case ever made it to the Ninth Circuit in the first place. The United States District Court should have dismissed this case as soon as it was first filed.

This was nothing more than a cynically attempt to hide behind children and use the courts to enact public policy. The Ninth Circuit properly recognized that it is not their business to enact public policy and instead recognized that Congress and the President together have that exclusive prerogative.

The final line of the majority decision sums it up:

That the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.

United States Circuit Judges Mary H. Murguia and Andrew D. Hurwitz, comprised the majority, with Hurwitz writing the decision. United States District Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California, sitting by designation, dissented.

By the way, all three Judges on the panel were Obama appointees. :smile:

Glad to see Obama Judges that can recognize TRUE judicial activism and put a stop to it.

This is an absolutely ******* excellent decision by the Ninth Circuit.

only Adults can sue the government.

Adults CAN sue the government. :smile:

The adults in question were just cowardly hiding behind children, using them as human shields.

But the fact that the named Plaintiffs were children, rather than adults, is really irrelevant.

The only relevant fact is that this suit was an attempt to drive policy.

That is the exclusive domain of the political branches.

When these kids reach adulthood they can vote and run for office. THAT is how they need to push their political agenda.

I would rather NOT involve her in the thread.

She has been discussed ad nauseam in several threads on this board.

I would prefer to keep the discussion on the issue at hand and avoid distractions.

She is the example of adults hiding behind children. But as you wish.

I know.

I just don’t want to see the thread diverted to a discussion of her. :smile:

But…kids. Why do you hate kids? I bet you even hate Greta.

Nah…she has autism…I love all people with Autism. It was the people who tried to use her that I dislike. And it does kind of appear that they did.

From the point of view of someone who knows Autism…She was a Rock Star for being able to do what she did. Misguided or not.

Gentlemen, we have been asked nicely.

Some commentary by Ed Whelan at National Review.

His piece reminded me that the OBAMA administration had requested this case be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

He also mentioned that the Supreme Court had made a subtle hint sometime back about the proper disposition of the case, even while refusing at that time to dismiss the case itself on the grounds that the government still had available redress at the Ninth Circuit.

Don’t make me use my cat launcher I inherited from the late, great Mayor Adam West. :smile:

1 Like

Should have been dismissed with prejudice and sanctions.

The dismissal will be with prejudice for lack of standing.

Sanctions are not appropriate here. No behavior that rises close to sanction-able.

Just filing a lame case is not a violation of ethics stands.

The REAL Plaintiffs, the ones that hold the children’s puppet strings, have likely run up thousands of dollars in court costs and attorney’s fees, all for nothing. So at least they have drained a small portion of their assets in this totally fruitless effort.

Filing a frivolous lawsuit is a matter of ethics and should be sanctionable.

Damn…I didn’t think they were capable? Great news.