The famously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been forever changed by President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell
The president has appointed conservative judges with haste and Sen. McConnell has got them the votes to place them on the bench not only in the Ninth Circuit but across the nation.
This means that the judges deciding important cases are not liberal activists making decisions on what they want the law to be, but rather on what the law is.
But that even happened this week when an entirely Democrat appointed panel of the Ninth Circuit rendered a decision on a climate change case that was brought by children in 2015, who were 8 and 19.
The kids argued that they had a Constitutional right to be protected from climate change and wanted to compel the government to address it.
The plaintiffs said they had a right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
They blamed the federal government and oil companies for knowing for decades that fossil fuels were damaging the climate and not addressing it.
Children’s Trust attorney Julia Olson said the plaintiffs had a right to be protected from “catastrophic infringement” of human rights.
But the court decided in a 2 – 1 vote to dismiss the case and said that the young people had no legal standing to sue the United States, Science Magazine reported.
Judge Andrew Hurwitz, who was appointed by former President Obama, had to acknowledge the absurdity of the suit as he “reluctantly” dismissed it.
“The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to ‘phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2,'” Judge Hurwitz said in the opinion.
“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,” he said.
“Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government,” he said.
California District Judge Josephine Staton, appointed by former President Obama, dissented from her colleagues in the opinion.
“Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction,” she said.
“No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists,” she said. “The mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.”
The case was then sent back to the district court to be dismissed.