- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge rules in favor of activists in climate trial
Posted on 8/14/23 at 2:31 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/14/23 at 2:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We could argue all day about whether including this language in the state constitution constitutes good policy, but (given that it IS there) is the ruling entirely unreasonable?
How did did I know Hanky would be in here sucking the judge's arse?
Yes Hanky, it is entirely unreasonable in that there is no evidence that "fossil fuels" have frickall to do with global warming. It is also entirely unreasonable, in that even if fossil fuels were proven to have frickall to do with global warming, given that it is GLOBAL warming how does Montana do anything about the fossil fuels being burned by President Biden, Nancy Pelosie, Chuck Schumer, all the rest of the elite climate alarmists flying around on their private jets to educate us of the dangers of fossil fuels, not to mention China and India?
This post was edited on 8/14/23 at 2:32 pm
1
Posted on 8/14/23 at 2:35 pm to troyt37
quote:An interesting rant that has no relationship whatsoever to the court's ruling.
it is entirely unreasonable in that there is no evidence that "fossil fuels" have frickall to do with global warming. It is also entirely unreasonable, in that even if fossil fuels were proven to have frickall to do with global warming, given that it is GLOBAL warming how does Montana do anything about the fossil fuels being burned by President Biden, Nancy Pelosie, Chuck Schumer, all the rest of the elite climate alarmists flying around on their private jets to educate us of the dangers of fossil fuels, not to mention China and India?
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:00 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
An interesting rant that has no relationship whatsoever to the court's ruling.
In a case that could have legal reverberations for other climate litigation, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that Montana’s continued development of fossil fuels violates a clause in its state constitution that guarantees its citizens the right to a “clean and healthful environment.” Montana is one of several states that have explicit environmental guarantees written into their state constitutions.
I guess I'll post it again, for Hanky. He loves to see me post.
If fossil fuels have no effect on a "clean and healthful" environment, then the judge's ruling is unreasonable, because she is buying into a pseudo-science religion replete with quackery, distortions of the facts, and outright lies.
If fossil fuels do have global impact on a "clean and healthful" environment, then the judge's ruling is unreasonable because there isn't a fricking thing that the judge or anyone else can do about the globe's worst polluters by orders of magnitude, China and India, not to mention all the climate hypocrites who burn more fossil fuels flying to one climate crisis meeting than all of the people of Montana will burn combined in their lifetimes.
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:14 pm to troyt37
quote:I DO. Your posts always make me laugh. Laughter is good for you.
I guess I'll post it again, for Hanky. He loves to see me post.
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:17 pm to WPBTiger
quote:Good!
“This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial,” Flower said. “Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. The State will appeal.”
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states.
No doubt Hanky will be back telling us all how unreasonable the higher court's ruling is, once they smack this idiot judge around.
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:28 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
Montana judge handed a significant victory on Monday to more than a dozen young plaintiffs in the nation’s first constitutional climate trial
He should visit the Train Station
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:34 pm to deltaland
quote:Yellowstone reference? I hear that's a real place used as described in the show.
He should visit the Train Station
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
What is the point HAVING a Constitution, if the legislature can just ignore it.
You are helping make my point. First we get poorly written and non-specific laws that lawyers twist to fit whatever their agenda is.
We also have justices that use perverted reasoning to apply said laws or maybe to just create them out of thin air.
Then appeal courts have some crazy decisions.
Then we get Supreme Court decisions that always seem to come down political lines.(as did many of the Appeals courts decisions)
And, we have people advocating to ignore these decisions or to look for "loopholes" to work around these decisions.
All of this hiding behind "the law".
Posted on 8/14/23 at 3:52 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
Emily Flower, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Austin Knudsen, described the trial as a “publicity stunt staged by an out-of-state organization that is exploiting well-intentioned children.” The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon environmental group that has filed similar lawsuits in every state since 2011 and raised more than $20 million in contributions. None of the previous cases had reached trial.
LINK
That sounds about right...
Posted on 8/14/23 at 4:36 pm to WPBTiger
I just don't care anymore I'm conservative but I'm not gonna live my life this way they are all brother and sisters I'd rather be a peacemaker
Posted on 8/14/23 at 4:45 pm to MasonTiger
quote:
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley
She definitely smells like patchouli, drives a Subaru, and is riddled with white guilt.
This post was edited on 8/14/23 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 8/14/23 at 4:48 pm to WPBTiger
quote:
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that Montana’s continued development of fossil fuels violates a clause in its state constitution that guarantees its citizens the right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
Did these plaintiffs contribute to this unhealthy environment by using fossil fuels themselves? If so, how can they sue?
Posted on 8/14/23 at 4:52 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We could argue all day about whether including this language in the state constitution constitutes good policy, but (given that it IS there) is the ruling entirely unreasonable?
Yes.
If you pee in the pool, you cannot complain about the concentration of urine in the pool.
These young plaintiffs contributed to the "problem".
Posted on 8/14/23 at 4:54 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
activist lawyers
Federally funded by your tax dollars. Look at all the pork in the IRA (the true definition of a misnomer). There’s $3 BILLION in there to address “Environmental Justice” which is undefined in any statutes or regulations, so this money will go to radical NGO’s that are claiming climate change is racist so they can get a twofer and a pile of money. That money is funneling to The Sierra Club, Earthjustice and other whacko groups and is already being used to try and block permits for petrochemical, oil and gas and power generation facilities. There is a LOT of money flowing into Louisiana from EPA, the IRA and Bloomberg’s $85M specifically targeted to declare war on fossil fuels.
We need an administration change stat
Posted on 8/14/23 at 4:59 pm to WPBTiger
US constitution does not guarantee a clean environment. Might guarantee freedom from death or injury w/o due process but this will be over turned. People need to stop thinking that government is their protector. The US was founded in the belief that the power and this the responsibility remained with the people not the crown.
Posted on 8/14/23 at 5:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
constitutional republic.
Can a constitutional republic ban political parties that are a threat to democracy?
What if the party does not recognize the consituational republic, and falsely claims the host nation is a democracy?
Can the party be banned then?
Posted on 8/14/23 at 5:03 pm to Sixafan
quote:How is this relevant to the case?
US constitution does not guarantee a clean environment.
The state constitution guarantees its citizens the right to a “clean and healthful environment,” and the case was decided under state law.
Did the judge properly-apply that provision of the state constitution? I don't know, but the analysis is does not appear to be entirely unreasonable based upon the plain language of the documents in question.
This post was edited on 8/14/23 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 8/14/23 at 5:05 pm to bhtigerfan
I wonder if this ideological fool can be impeached.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News