You won't get any arguments from me that many in the leg are "wacko". I didn't say they were children, but the OP did, and I would agree. The plaintiffs range from ages 5-22. I pulled the tooth out of my 5 year old's mouth yesterday. There's children in there.
That's really neither here nor there though. In the AP article I read yesterday, it said a victory would result in no meaningful change. I think that is really what makes me wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze.
In prior rulings, State District Judge Judge Kathy Seeley significantly narrowed the scope of the case. Even if the plaintiffs prevail, Seeley has said she would not order officials to formulate a new approach to address climate change.
Instead, the judge could issue what’s called a “declaratory judgment” saying officials violated the state Constitution. That would set a new legal precedent of courts weighing in on cases typically left to the government’s legislative and executive branches, environmental law expert Jim Huffman said.
Still, such a ruling would have no direct impact on industry, said Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.
“A declaratory judgment would be a symbolic victory, but would not require any particular action by the state government. So the state could, and likely would, proceed as before,” he said.
It’s the first trial of its kind in the U.S., and legal scholars around the world are following its potential addition to the small number of rulings that have established a government duty to protect people from climate change.
www.nbcnews.com
I don't have strong feelings about it either way.
