BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 6, 2020 at 10:05 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, what does it take, if one is under the age of 18, to get the necessary standing in federal court to file a civil rights lawsuit against the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies alleging that the defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” and claiming that despite that knowledge, defendants, “(b)y their exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allowing atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history,” which actions by defendants violated their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations?

What harm must be done to these teenagers before finally the courts or somebody will step in to save their future for them?

What type of climatic outrage does it finally take to rouse the federal courts out of their torpor to protect these children from the executive branch of our federal government?

How about this:

II. Standing to Sue

“A threshold question in every federal case is … whether at least one plaintiff has standing.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Standing requires a plaintiff to allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers[.]” Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.

A Injury in Fact

In an environmental case, a plaintiff cannot demonstrate injury in fact merely by alleging injury to the environment; there must be an allegation that the challenged conduct is harming (or imminently will harm) the plaintiff. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (I’OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000).

Plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact.

Plaintiff Zealand B. alleges he has been unable to ski during the winter as a result of decreased snowpack. Id p.38.

end quotes

Yes, people, that’s it.

The United States government violated the civil rights of plaintiff Zealand B., who is too young to vote for public officials who would be more protective of his rights to plenty of snow on the mountain of his choice, by pursuing harmful policies that make impossible for him to be able to ski, because of decreased snowpack, instead of ending those harmful policies so the poor kid would be able to go skiing, something that as a child here in the United States of America, he is entitled to, and hence, the United States of America, which happens to be all of us over the age of 18, must be held to account by an unelected federal judge in Oregon who has determined that she has the right to set herself up in a custodianship position over our elected officials who have clearly violated this poor kid’s civil rights by failing to provide him with enough snow to ski on.

And no, I am not making that up!

Those words are straight from the Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants., Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, wherein Judge Aiken stated as follows:

“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”

end quotes

Said another way based on this decision, the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life for a teenager who wants to be able to ski whenever and wherever with plenty of snow just like he likes it always waiting for him is now fundamental to a free and ordered society, and it is therefore the obligation of the United States government to provide that climate for that child instead of violating his civil rights by denying him that climate.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215462
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 8, 2020 at 8:53 pm

Paul Plante says :

And what we are witnessing here with this 54 page Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, is a clear case of the liberal “living constitution” interpretation in action in that like a new island emerging from the sea, or a new star appearing in the firmament above our heads, a brand new Constitutional right which has never existed prior to this has come into existence, to the detriment of us older people in this country who now stand accused of aiding Barack Hussein Obama to willfully violate that new Constitutional right for those under the age of 18 in the United States of America, to wit:

A. Infringement of a Fundamental Right

When a plaintiff challenges affirmative government action under the due process clause, the threshold inquiry is the applicable level of judicial scrutiny. Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 2008).

The default level of scrutiny is rational basis, which requires a reviewing court to uphold the challenged governmental action so long as it “implements a rational means of achieving a legitimate governmental end[.]” Kim v. United States, 121F.3d1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted).

When the government infringes a “fundamental right,” however, a reviewing court applies strict scrutiny. Witt, 527 F.3d at 817.

Substantive due process “forbids the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) (emphasis in original).

Resolution of this part of the motions to dismiss therefore hinges on whether plaintiffs have alleged infringement of a fundamental right.

Fundamental liberty rights include both rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution and rights and liberties which are either (1) “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or (2) “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 767(2010).

The Supreme Court has cautioned that federal courts must “exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into” judicial policy preferences. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

This does not mean that “new” fundamental rights are out of bounds, though.

When the Supreme Court broke new legal ground by recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote that:

“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.”

“The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights … did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

“When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2598 (2015).

Thus, “(t)he identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution … [that] has not been reduced to any formula.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

In determining whether a right is fundamental, courts must exercise “reasoned judgment,” keeping in mind that “(h)istory and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” Id.

The genius of the Constitution is that its text allows “future generations [to] protect … the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” Id.

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53 (1973), the Court exhaustively chronicled the jurisprudential history of the fundamental right to privacy – another right not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.

Roe’s central holding rests on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 153.

But the Court also found “roots” of the right to privacy in the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, and the Ninth Amendment. Id. at 152.

Similarly, in Obergefell, the Court’s recognition of a fundamental right to marry was grounded in an understanding of marriage as a right underlying and supporting other vital liberties. See 135 S. Ct. at 2599 (“(I)t would be contradictory to recognize a right to privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is at the foundation of the family in our society.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); id. at 2601 (“(M)arriage is a keystone of our social order.”).

Exercising my “reasoned judgment,” id at 2598, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.

Just as marriage is the “foundation of the family,” a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation “of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Id (quoting Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888)); cf Minors Oposa v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Envt’l & Natural Res., G.R. No. 101083, 33 I.L.M. 173, 187-88 (S.C., Jul. 30, 1993) (Phil.) (without “a balanced and healthful ecology,” future generations “stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”).

Plaintiffs do not object to the government’s role in producing any pollution or in causing any climate change; rather, they assert the government has caused pollution and climate change on a catastrophic level, and that if the government’s actions continue unchecked, they will permanently and irreversibly damage plaintiffs’ property, their economic livelihood, their recreational opportunities, their health, and ultimately their (and their children’s) ability to live long, healthy lives.

Echoing Obergefell’s reasoning, plaintiffs allege a stable climate system is a necessary condition to exercising other rights to life, liberty, and property.

In this opinion, this Court simply holds that where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation.

To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government’s knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink.

Plaintiffs have adequately alleged infringement of a fundamental right.

end quotes

And thus, like gay marriage in America, a new Constitutional right for those under 18 who are demanding the federal government provide them with the climate they demand, when they demand it, has been created by this unelected federal judge appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.

And based on that newly created Constitutional right for those under 18 here in the United States of America, according to Judge Aiken, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to “order Defendants to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out C02 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric C02 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”

In other words, according to this federal judge, not only has a new Constitutional right been established, but at the same time, a new Constitutional duty has been imposed on the federal government, that duty being to provide the children of America with the climate each of them feels they are entitled to, when they want it, which takes us back to these words from the judge, as follows:

Plaintiffs have alleged a causal relationship between their injuries and defendants’ conduct.

At this stage, I am bound to accept those allegations as true.

Plaintiffs allege that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global C02 emissions. First Am. Compl. para.151.

end quotes

Yes, people, not only has our Constitution been changed by judicial decree, but our history has been, as well, given that according to this federal court judge, and she would know our nation’s history better than any of the rest of us, the United States of America have been in existence since 1751, not 1776 as we older people in this nation previously thought, and you know?

Why not have it be 1751 instead of 1776?

Does it really make a difference?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216037
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 9, 2020 at 7:27 pm

Paul Plante says :

Staying for the moment with this 54 page Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, which decision, actually written not by the unelected federal judge, but according to footnote 1 was a creation out of whole cloth by student externs who worked on each stage of the preparation of the opinion, from initial background research to final copy edits, with Judge Aiken formally acknowledging the real authors of the decision as Daniel Bodden (University of Kentucky), Elizabeth Jacklin (University of Oregon School of Law), Ann Richan Metler (Willamette University College of Law), James Mullins (University of Washington School of Law), Jessy R. Nations (University of Washington School of Law), Lydeah Negro (Lewis & Clark Law School), and Eleanor J. Vincent (University of Oregon School of Law), is a clear case of application of the liberal “living constitution” interpretation in action, in that like a new island emerging from the sea, or a new star appearing in the firmament above our heads, a brand new Constitutional right which has never existed prior to this has been created, to the detriment of us older people in this country who now stand accused of aiding Barack Hussein Obama to willfully violate that new Constitutional right for those under the age of 18 in the United States of America, as an American citizen born after WWII, who today is a grandfather, I find this following statement from that decision to be incredible not only in the fact that these children suing Hussein Obama for gross negligence which borders on criminal conduct on his part and the type of misdemeanors and high crimes that would constitute impeachable offenses were they committed by someone else who are obviously quite confused as to when the United States of America did or did not exist as a legal entity are making it, but that it managed to sail right by Obama’s lawyers, who never challenged it, perhaps like Obama not knowing any better, leaving the falsehoods to stand as fact, to twist and warp the minds of young people in America today by giving them a false history of our nation, to wit:

Plaintiffs allege that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global C02 emissions. First Am. Compl. para.151.

end quotes

Now, because they are children who are not responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, they can allege and assert that blatant falsehood with impunity, and the federal court let them do just that, which takes us to this:

Plaintiffs do not object to the government’s role in producing any pollution or in causing any climate change; rather, they assert the government has caused pollution and climate change on a catastrophic level, and that if the government’s actions continue unchecked, they will permanently and irreversibly damage plaintiffs’ property, their economic livelihood, their recreational opportunities, their health, and ultimately their (and their children’s) ability to live long, healthy lives.

end quotes

Nowhere is there any proof to support these wild and sensational and extravagant charges that the federal government has caused “climate change on a catastrophic level,” but since these are children, and the purpose of this case was to create a whole new family of constitutional rights for children in America, the enforcement of which will keep swarms of lawyers in bidness for years to come, vindicating the civil rights of new generations of American children when they look out the window and see a climate out there that they don’t like, which is a sure sign the federal government is guilty of failing to protect them, that incredible claim was allowed by the Court and the Obama administration to sail right through, as was this:

Plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their due process rights by “directly caus[ing] atmospheric C02 to rise to levels that dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required alike by our nation and Plaintiffs[,]” First Am. Compl. ~ 279; “knowingly endanger[ing] Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion,” id. ~ 280; and, “(a)fter knowingly creating this dangerous situation for Plaintiffs, … continu[ing] to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels,” id. ~ 284.

end quotes

Except according to a 2007 scientific paper by James “Jimmy” Hansen, who was a part of this lawsuit as a guardian for future generations of American children, the conclusion was that CO2 levels above 450 ppm were considered dangerous.

And according to a NASA article entitled “A Year in the Life of Carbon Dioxide” September 6, 2014 – September 6, 2015, we are not at or near that level, nor is that carbon dioxide uniformly distributed or at a constant level, to wit:

Since the beginning of the industrial age, the global concentration of CO2 has increased from roughly an average of 280 parts per million to an average of 400 parts per million.

One recognizable pattern over the year is the annual uptake and release of carbon as each hemisphere passes through the seasons.

In the winter, carbon dioxide levels are at their peak in the northern hemisphere, when there is little plant or phytoplankton growth to offset emissions from human activities and natural sources.

At the same time, CO2 concentrations drop in the southern hemisphere, which is bathed in summer sunlight and heat.

The pattern reverses as the hemispheres change seasons.

According to the new measurements, atmospheric CO2 changes by 8 to 12 parts per million (2 to 3 percent) from winter through the “spring drawdown” in the northern hemisphere.

Over the course of a year, it is also clear that CO2 levels are generally higher over the northern hemisphere — where there are more people and more emissions — than in the southern hemisphere.

Both phenomena are well known to scientists, but OCO-2 now lets us see those patterns more clearly.

end quotes

But notwithstanding, these are children making these claims, afterall, so we should not be bullying them by actually demanding some objective proof of their assertions in their complaint which allege that “(t)he present level of C02 and its warming, both realized and latent, are already in the zone of danger,” and “our country is now in a period of carbon overshoot, with early consequences that are already threatening and that will, in the short term, rise to unbearable unless Defendants take immediate action[.],” especially when those assertions by the children are totally refuted by actual scientific evidence, and here, I point to a paper entitled “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom – Analyses of a set of NASA data shows that water vapor greatly amplifies global warming, and carbon dioxide doesn’t mix in the atmosphere as quickly as assumed” by Ucilia Wang dated December 15, 2009, which gives us some real science, as follows:

SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.

The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.

Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere (see multimedia presentations).

The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.

For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.

Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.

The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.

“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.

“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”

AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.

The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.

How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.

And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.

Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.

“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.

end quotes

But, hey, people, these are children, so really, should we expect them to know any of these things?

For if they did, and if the Obama administration had bothered to challenge them they wouldn’t have this federal lawsuit in their favor, and so, they would be deprived of this new civil right in America for children under the age of 18, and what a shame that would be, alright!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216337
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 10, 2020 at 8:01 pm

Paul Plante says :

Not surprisingly, the group behind this KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants lawsuit have a nice, glossy website which starts out as follows:

SECURING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO A SAFE CLIMATE

AND A HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE FOR ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS


donate now

Leading the game-changing, youth-driven, global climate recovery campaign to secure the legal right to a stable climate and healthy atmosphere.

end quotes

Yes, people open up your wallets and pour your hard-earned money into this children’s crusade to secure their constitutional right to a stable climate, and then sit back and wait for it to happen.

And while you are waiting for the federal government to finally get off the pot and provide these children with the stable climate everybody now knows they are entitled to, ask yourself this question of what exactly is a “stable” climate, and exactly how is the federal government going to provide each child in America with the climate they personally feel they are entitled to?

Consider this from that lawsuit, to wit:

II. Standing to Sue

“A threshold question in every federal case is … whether at least one plaintiff has standing.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Standing requires a plaintiff to allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers[.]” Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.

The most recent allegations of injury appear in the supplemental declaration of plaintiff Jayden F., a thirteen-year-old resident of Rayne, Louisiana.

Jayden alleges that at five o’clock the morning of August 13, 2016, her siblings woke her up. Decl. Jayden F. 5 Sept. 7, 2016 (doc. 78).

She stepped out of bed into ankle-deep water.

By the end of the day, Floodwaters were pouring into our home through every possible opening.

We tried to stop it with towels, blankets, and boards.

The water was flowing down the hallway, into my Mom’s room and my sisters’ room.

The water drenched my living room and began to cover our kitchen floor.

Our toilets, sinks, and bathtubs began to overflow with awful smelling sewage because our town’s sewer system also flooded.

Soon the sewage was everywhere.

We had a stream of sewage and water running through our house. Id p8.

With no shelters available and nowhere else to go, the family remained in the flooded house for weeks. Id p10.

The floodwaters eventually receded, but the damage remains: the carpets are
soaked with sewage water. Id p.12.

The water-logged walls must be torn down to prevent the growth of black mold. Id

The entire family sleeps together in the living room because the bedrooms are uninhabitable. Id p.15.

Jayden alleges the storm that destroyed her home “ordinarily would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change.” Id p.2.

end quotes

And here we are, back to the fact that these are children filing these complaints, not adults, so we cannot hold these children to account for truthfulness as if they are adults, because they are not – they are just children, so if they say without any proof that the storm which destroyed this child’s home “ordinarily would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change,” then like their claim that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global CO2 emissions, we adults simply have to accept it as true, even if all the evidence to the contrary shows it is actually quite false.

Consider the article “Hurricanes: History” by Barbara McCarragher, where we are informed of the following high school history on hurricanes and Louisiana, where this little girl lives in a town called Rayne, a city in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, known as the “Frog Capital of the World,” to wit:

Hurricane Katrina may be the most memorable storm in New Orleans history, but its trajectory across the Pelican State was far from unique.

Louisiana was hit by 49 of the 273 hurricanes that made landfall on the American Atlantic Coast between 1851 and 2004.

On average, one major storm crosses within 100 nautical miles of New Orleans every decade (King, 2006).

end quotes

Notwithstanding, we are to believe that what happened to this poor little girl who happens to live in a federal flood zone never happened before in Louisiana, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, this storm would not have happened but for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because everybody knows these types of serious storms never happened before the United States started pouting all that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

As to Rayne being in a flood zone, a review of federal government records provides as follows:

FEMA

Flood Insurance Study: city of Rayne, Louisiana, Acadia Parish; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 1980

end quotes

But of course, this little girl is only 13, so she would be totally unaware of something that happened before she was born, especially since it was in the last century way back in 1980.

So, please, people, open your wallets wide and send your hard-earned dollars to Our Children’s Trust, a law firm, of course, so that finally, they can put an end to these hurricanes that have been striking the coast of Louisiana since time immemorial so that finally this little girl can have the stable climate without hurricanes that she was born entitled to as a young American and thanks to your efforts, the world for her can finally be made right:

Reach out to our team in the following ways:

press@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all media and press inquiries.

organizing@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all organizing and partnership inquiries.

development@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all donation and fundraising inquiries.

info@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all remaining inquiries.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216749
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 15, 2020 at 10:05 pm

Paul Plante says :

“In an extensive country, it will of course be expected that the climate is not the same in all its parts.”

“It is remarkable, that proceeding on the same parallel of latitude westwardly, the climate becomes colder in like manner as when you proceed northwardly.”

“This continues to be the case till you attain the summit of the Alleghaney, which is the highest land between the ocean and the Missisipi.”

“From thence, descending in the same latitude to the Missisipi, the change reverses; and, if we may believe travellers, it becomes warmer there than it is in the same latitude on the sea-side.”

end quotes

That, of course, was United States president Thomas Jefferson making those remarks in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” in 1781 about the indisputable fact that in the United States of America, there is no such thing as a “stable climate,” nor is there a such a thing as a climate that is common to all places in the United States of America.

So what can we then say when we are confronted with the following from the conclusion to the 54-page decision in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, to wit:

A deep resistance to change runs through defendants’ and intervenors’ arguments for dismissal: they contend a decision recognizing plaintiffs’ standing to sue, deeming the controversy justiciable, and recognizing a federal public trust and a fundamental right to climate system capable of sustaining human life would be unprecedented, as though that alone requires its dismissal.

end quotes

Recognizing a fundamental right to climate system capable of sustaining human life would be unprecedented precisely because it is impossible for the federal government, or a district court judge in Oregon, for that matter, who is engaging in judicial legislation, making new laws and rights from the bench, and thereby usurping the responsibilities of the legislative branch and executive branch, to provide such a climate!

So, why didn’t the Obama administration simply make that point to the judge, instead of laying down and taking a dive and allowing this lawsuit to continue, which only serves to further warp and twist the minds of these young people in America who now believe that they have a constitutional right to the climate they desire, which the federal government has a duty to provide to them?

Consider the statements of the various child litigants in the lawsuit, to wit:

“I believe that climate change is the most pressing issue my generation will ever face, indeed that the world has ever faced.”

“This is an environmental issue and it is also a human rights issue.”

end quotes

Except the truth is that the earth does not give a damn about human rights, and climate change has been going on for literally thousands of years, so it is hardly the most pressing problem the world has ever faced, given that the earth’s changing climate is probably the only real constant we have in life.

And then we have this dramatic statement, to wit:

“Our government refuses to protect our basic rights to life.”

“If those we have put in power aren’t protecting our necessities, what purpose are they serving?”

end quotes

That, of course, is hysteria, which takes us to this, to wit:

“Our federal government has not been held accountable for their gross failure to protect the life and the future life on this earth, forcing us children to take drastic actions to procure the needed motivation in order to save life on this planet.”

And this:

“I want my government to understand that climate change is real, changes are happening right now, and things aren’t going to get better on their own.”

“Climate change should be the government’s first priority.”

end quotes

Personally, I feel sorry for these children that they have been so misled by these lawyers, the federal judge, and the Obama administration which bears the greatest responsibility for warping and twisting the minds of these children so that they actually think the federal government can change the climate of the United States of America at will.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-218729
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

BUSINESS INSIDER

"A landmark lawsuit in which kids sued the US government over its contribution to climate change has been dismissed after a 5-year fight"


Aylin Woodward

17 JANUARY 2020

* In 2015, 21 young people sued the US government, alleging it was violating their constitutional rights by contributing to climate change despite knowledge of its dangerous consequences.

* The Obama and Trump administrations both attempted to get the case thrown out.

* On Friday, the US Appeals Court dismissed the lawsuit.

* "The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs' case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate," two judges wrote in the decision.


Five years ago, 21 young people sued the US government, alleging that by contributing to climate despite knowledge of its dangerous consequences, it was violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

The kids were asking the court to compel the government to end fossil-fuel subsidies and adopt policies that would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.


But on Friday, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the case, known as Juliana vs. the United States.

"The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs' case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large," the 32-page opinion said.

Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, one of the two judges behind that decision, wrote that although the plaintiffs "made a compelling case that action is needed," it was beyond the court's power to "order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs' requested remedial plan."

That's because doing so would require "a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches," he said.


The decision reverses a ruling by Oregon district court judge Ann Aiken, who found that the case had legal standing.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations had tried multiple times to get the lawsuit dismissed.

Our Children's Trust, the non-profit law organization representing the youth plaintiffs, said its fight was not over, though.

"We will be asking the full Ninth Circuit to review the determination that federal courts can do nothing to address an admitted constitutional violation," Andrea Rodgers, the plaintiffs' co-counsel, said in a statement.

Another judge, Josephine L. Staton, wrote the dissenting opinion.

"It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses," she wrote.

"Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the nation."

https://www.businessinsider.com/juliana ... sed-2020-1
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

VOX

"21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate."


By Umair Irfan

Jan 17, 2020, 4:10 pm EST

A three-judge panel in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to dismiss the Juliana v. US lawsuit on Friday, a seminal case involving 21 young people who sued the federal government for violating their right to a safe climate.

The decision is a blow to climate activists and shows the limits of the courts’ willingness to assign legal responsibility to the government for the harms caused by greenhouse gases.

The judges all agreed that climate change is an urgent, threatening problem, but ruled that the plaintiffs, who were between the ages of 8 and 19 when the suit was filed, didn’t have standing to sue.

They also said that climate policies must come from the legislative branch.

“The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,” according to the ruling.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Court Judge Andrew Hurwitz conceded that climate risks are growing and that young people stand to suffer the worst impacts of rising average temperatures, like increasingly destructive floods and fires.

“In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were ‘on the eve of destruction,’” he wrote.

“The plaintiffs in this case have presented compelling evidence that climate change has brought that eve nearer.”

Andrea Rodgers, a senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit backing the youth who filed the lawsuit, described the decision in an email as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of justice.”

Her organization has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks.

As politicians have failed to deliver adequate climate policies, courtrooms have emerged as a prominent venue for advancing an agenda to limit emissions, and the Juliana case was one of a number of climate change lawsuits working their way through various US courts.

More than a dozen cities and counties have filed suit against companies like Exxon for the climate-related harms caused by their products.

But the Juliana case stood out among climate lawsuits because it challenged the federal government rather than fossil fuel companies.

Despite proposing a novel legal theory — that a safe climate is a civil right and that the government has violated it through policies like leasing public lands for coal mining — the suit managed to get surprisingly far.

It survived several motions to dismiss and intervention by the US Supreme Court.


But what the plaintiffs wanted — a government plan to phase out fossil fuels and pull greenhouse gases back out of the air — was not something the courts could provide.

“Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power,” Hurwitz wrote.

However, District Court Judge Josephine Staton thought otherwise and did not mince words in her dissent.

“It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses,” she wrote.

“Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”

The Juliana case has been the highest-profile lawsuit filed by Our Children’s Trust, but the group has also filed similar climate change civil rights suits on behalf of young people in state courts.

While the 9th Circuit ruling was a setback for climate activists, many are undeterred from using the courts to fight climate change and hold polluters accountable.

Recently, some law students have also begun to protest against the law firms representing fossil fuel companies in these climate suits, pressuring firms to drop them as clients and urging classmates not to work for them.

Climate litigation has also emerged as an issue in the 2020 campaign for president.

Many of the Democratic contenders have called for fossil fuel companies to be held liable for climate damages and for sowing disinformation.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone as far as to call for criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters.

All the while, more suits and legal complaints are being filed.

On Thursday, a group of four indigenous tribes in Louisiana filed a human rights claim at the United Nations.

They argued that the US government, through its contributions to climate change and its failure to stop it, has violated the rights of these groups, who are seeing lands eroded by rising seas.

So climate change still has many more days in court to come.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21070810/ ... th-circuit
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 16, 2020 at 6:58 pm

Paul Plante says:

Ah, dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, words cannot express the sheer joy I felt this morning when I sat down with my morning coffee, made by pouring boiling water from a kettle through coffee grounds in a paper filter in a cone above a regular plain old coffee pot for a negligible to zero carbon footprint compared to a latte, and opened up the morning edition of the Cape Charles Mirror to find this quite eloquent dissertation of yours above here on the crimes of your generation, Chas, when it comes to treatment of the environment, the ecology and the climate, and your sincere apology to young Nick and his generation for totally ******* up the world his generation is now stuck with, as follows:

“That said, the legacy of our having done little to nothing to curb an exacerbating climate situation will fall on our children to deal with.”

end quotes

One can feel the pain of your guilt there, Chas, truly so, and what a terrible burden it must be, to know that you are responsible for stealing the childhood of not only Greta Thunberg, but countless millions of children, some or many yet unborn, who are now in the same fix as is Nick, especially when you know that it was your support for Hussein Obama, who was impeached by a federal judge on November 16, 2016 for what I consider to be criminal negligence and high crimes and misdemeanors for which he should have been removed from office in a more perfect world.

So it is good for your immortal soul, Chas, that you are in here unburdening yourself to Nick.

And Chas, when it comes to a total lack of climate justice here in the United States of America, where since 1751, this nation has been spewing gobs of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere in complete and blatant disregard of Greta Thunberg, and Nick’s generation, and a real American people getting a real crappy climate, as a result, consider what these poor people had to go through, to wit:

Floods were a frequent occurrence along the Poesten Kill, as spring run-off annually flooded low-lying fields and the threat of ice dams was ever present.

Major flooding occurred along the Poesten Kill, or on the Hudson at the mouth of the kill, in 1852, 1857 (highest flood ever recorded at Albany, almost twenty-two feet), 1869, 1871, 1874 (when a portion of the Congress Street bridge fell in), 1890, 1891, 1913 (which did a great amount of damage along the Poesten Kill in Troy), 1914, 1918, 1922, 1927, 1936, 1938 (which damaged the mills on the lower Poesten Kill), 1948, 1949, 1955 and 1977.

About 2:00 a.m. on September 18, 1890, the dam at the outlet of Bonesteel Pond in East Poestenkill gave way “and water rushed down through the narrow valley, tearing up trees and carrying away everything standing in its course.”

According to the New York Times, six bridges were destroyed, along with three sawmills and the barns and shed of George Cottrell.

At the hamlet of Barberville, John Randall’s shoe shop was demolished but the water spread out along the flats there, saving the rest of the hamlet from destruction.

At the village of Poestenkill, the streets were flooded and Wheeler’s shoe shop was washed from its foundation.

In Troy, the water “rose alarmingly, but did not flood its banks, even though Bonesteel Pond was completely drained of its water.

John Randall rebuilt his shop at Barberville but less than a year later it was washed away again, this time in a much more destructive storm.

It began the day before when a heavy rain swelled both the Poesten and Wynants Kills.

Already the locals were worried, and the next day, when news of a large storm was received, “several men immediately mounted horses and proceeded to the farm houses on the banks of the creek and gave the alarm.”

By 7:00 p.m., the water had risen considerably and carried away several bridges and sluices, including the iron bridge near Hammond Herrington’s in East Poestenkill.

“Mr. Herrington’s large flats are completely submerged,” the New York Times reported the next day, “completely destroying a large crop of potatoes and almost ruining the flats.”

“A barn occupied by Porter Herrington, who lives in the house, was carried away.”

“The roads are all gullied or washed out so as to be almost impassable, especially on the hills.”

end quotes

And that story of flooding goes on and on up to this present day!

So believe me, Chas, when Nick talks about the streets of Cape Charles flooding that same way, we feel his pain, because that is the history I grew up with, Chas, which gives me a real healthy respect for the power of Mother Nature when she is in a rampage, which happens often enough if you ended up in a place with a real crappy climate compared to that of Monticello or Cape Charles like those poor people of Poestenkill did, all because since 1751, the United States of America spewed tons upon tons of carbon dioxide into the air to cause all of that flooding in Poestenkill to happen the way it did.

And Chas, I am glad you are feeling remorse here, it is good for your soul, but don’t take all the burden of guilt on your shoulders when it is Hussein Obama who is the truly guilty party, that according to a federal court judge who should know what she is talking about when she proclaims Hussein guilty of destroying the ecology with his wanton and wasteful policies that encouraged people to make more carbon dioxide instead of less, and your sin was merely supporting him, perhaps out of ignorance and blind faith and devotion.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-219080
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 21, 2020 at 10:46 pm

Paul Plante says :

And speaking of the insanity not only not being over, but instead being accelerated at what might be blinding speed which is going to further warp and twist the minds of America’s youth who are already suffering psychological problems because of all the hype and hysteria about “climate change,” and the end of the world coming, we have this addition to the hysteria from the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School and who on February 4, 2010, was nominated to the federal bench by Hussein Obama, a chief defendant in Juliana, to wit:

In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.

It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.

Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.

end quotes

When she refers to the “government” there, she is referring to Hussein Obama.

Continuing on with the hysteria that is destroying the minds of America’s children, she states:

My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.

On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists.

But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.

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.

So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.

end quotes

There is where we are, people – it is now a matter of the willful destruction of the United States itself, and nothing less, as we can see by returning to that dissent as follows:

And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.

Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

I. As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.

end quotes

Now, right there, we in here in the Cape Charles Mirror who are daring to disbelieve any of this, and to question it, have just been made into heretics there, with that statement by this federal judge that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet.

Whether that is true or not, by judicial decree, it is now true, and woe to us who think or can prove otherwise.

Getting back to that dissent:

According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”

Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.

To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.

So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.

end quotes

So, are we who dare to question then next going to be accused of being for the destruction of the United States as we currently know it?

Will that require us to be punished for thinking heretical thoughts along the lines of that is unscientific bull****?

Will we need re-education at hard labor to correct our flawed thinking?

Getting back to the dissent:

What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.

The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.

But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.

Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”

“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).

Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).

In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.

According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.

In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.

end quotes

So, I guess afterall the Guardian was really right – the world is ending.

And the hype and hysteria beat goes on!

Incredible is all I can say.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-221236
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 22, 2020 at 7:46 pm

Paul Plante says:

And Chas, dude, speaking of the horrendous harm that has been done to Nick and Greta and their generation, who have really gotten a damn poor deal with this run-away climate change that is going to destroy a good chunk of America, including Cape Charles, along with causing the dissolution of the nation itself, on purpose, we find as of 17 January 2020, the news is now out, all over town, and it is not good for Obama at all, nor is it good for his mindless devotees who let him get away with anything he wanted because he was “black,” and so, operated by a “different” set of standards from what the white folks were used to, and no Chas, we are not talking Republican talking points, or mindless raving by Trump; no, quite to the contrary, we are speaking of the pellucid insight into the workings of reality itself when it comes to Washington politics in the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School, to wit:

In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.

It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.

Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.

end quotes

So, Chas, when the judge states that the “government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation,” she is referring directly to Hussein Obama, because he is the dude the lawsuit was levied against, the CHIEF PERPETRATOR, and it is his policies that have caused the world Nick is to inherit to be crumbling, and this accordinfg to a federal judge who is as good a Democrat as they come, not some Republican slug or hack whose writings on the subject of Obama you would dismiss out of hand as Republican talking-points, a favorite dodge of yours, by the way, dismiss stuff as being Republican talking-points which makes it of no consequence, except this is a Democrat judge speaking, to wit:

According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.

In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.

end quotes

A wasteland, Chas – according to that judge, and she did go to Harvard, that is Obama’s true legacy to the people of America, including those not yet born – a wasteland, so no wonder young people like Nick and Greta Thunberg feel real visceral anger, and my goodness, Chas, how could they not when Barack Hussein Obama destroyed the world before they even had a chance to live in it, and willfully so, as we see in this footnote, to wit:

My asteroid analogy would therefore be more accurate if I posited a scenario in which the government itself accelerated the asteroid towards the earth before shutting down our defenses.

end quotes

And that, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, is MONSTROUS!

Yes, monstrous, Chas – I can think of no other word for it!

Talk about high crimes against humanity and misdemeanors towards Nick and his generation who are going to have to pay the penalty, there it is in plain sight, and from the pen of a federal judge just five (5) days ago, which takes us back to that decision, as follows:

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.

So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.

end quotes

Plainly stated, dear friend Chas, these aggrieved children whose lives have been turned upside down by the policies of Hussein Obama which are causing the nation to crumble brought suit against Hussein in an attempt to prevent the willful destruction of the nation that Obama was causing as we see by returning to that decision, to wit:

And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.

As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.

According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”

end quotes

And who we all have to thank for that horrible future, Chas, is Barack Hussein Obama, and all I can say is that I hope some young person like Nick with his education can bring Obama up on criminal charges for these crimes of his against humanity, to wit:

Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.

To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.

So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.

end quotes

Many of us, Chas, warned over and over that Obama was a Marxist intent on bringing down our Republic so Obama could replace it with a socialist state, and there, we finally have a federal judge confirming what we rational people in this country have known all along, that Obama was intent on destroying the United States as we currently know it, while people like yourself cover up for him and by doing so, cheer him on, which takes us back to the decision as follows:

What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.

The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.

But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.

Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”

“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).

Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).

In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.

end quotes

Thanks, Obama, for destroying the world before Nick got his chance to enjoy it!

The candid world will certainly remember your name for what you have left the future generations of America which is a great big ******* mess.

And Chas, as the earlier judge pointed out, Obama is impeached and convicted by his own mouth in his 2015 SOTU, so yes, he is the guilty party here, and should be considered so and treated as so by Nick’s generation and all these younger children including my granddaughters who are the parties so callously harmed and deprived of their future by Democrat Barack Hussein Obama whose actions were so reprehensible even another Democrat wouldn’t give him political cover.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-221628
Post Reply