In a welcome court ruling, a federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed a lawsuit by two boys, ages 7 and 11, backed (some might say “used”) by environmental groups, against President Trump for rolling back Obama-era climate change regulations. The suit claimed that Trump’s decisions on how to deal with the issue violated their Constitutional due process right to a “life-sustaining climate system” and were responsible for their asthma and allergies (reminder: he’s been in office for only two years.)
The judge ruled that the Constitution does not guarantee what they claim and they can’t prove Trump’s policies caused their health problems, so they don’t have standing to sue (those points, and the sheer absurdity of the suit, would seem obvious to any reasonable jurist, but that didn’t stop a federal judge in Oregon from going along with it.)
The best part of the ruling wasn’t the specifics of why Judge Paul Diamond dismissed it, but his note on a larger issue that applies to all of these “lawfare” suits against Trump (a term coined to describe using nuisance lawsuits as a form of warfare to block the President from exercising his Constitutional powers.) Diamond wrote:
“Plaintiffs’ disagreement with defendants is a policy debate best left to the political process. Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch, I will grant defendants’ motion” (to dismiss.)
I propose that those words be carved into stone and hung over the benches of every federal court in America. And make them three times bigger in the 9th Circuit Court.