"Lawfare" Suits

February 22, 2019

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.)  

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-lawsuit/u-s-judge-dismisses-boys-lawsuit-against-trump-climate-rollbacks-idUSKCN1Q92SA 

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.

LEAVE ME A COMMENT BY CLICKING HERE. I READ THEM!

More Stories

Jared Kushner correct: special counsel more damaging than Russia

Immutable laws of life

Leave A Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

Comments 1-2 of 2

  • Marvin L. White

    02/22/2019 05:40 PM

    In all the responses to the ridiculous proposal by freshman congress person AOC, I have not heard anyone mention that all ships of any size use fossil fuel for propulsion except nuclear powered ships and producing electricity and fresh water at sea. As a retired Nuclear operator of Navy Nuclear ships, I see a dilemma for the US Navy. All of our great aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered. Our carriers if there was any reason for them to deploy would not have any of our great fossil cruisers or destroyers to support them. They would not have any fuel to supply all of their fossil powered aircraft, so there would not be any reason to do ploy anyhow. Point is that all of our armed forces are powered by fossil fuel and would be useless. All our enemies would not be tied to this .

  • Carolyn J Blue

    02/22/2019 01:32 PM

    Regarding “Lawfare” Suits ......... Why would a 7 and 11 year old even be allowed to file a law suit Govenor??? There is no end to the foolishness of lawsuits against President Trump. It is getting to be so tiresome and distracting from all the good he has accomplished and will accomplish! How he gets through every day and is able to carry out his duties as Presidrnt of the United States is beyond me.