Montana kids in court
- Thread starter marshman
- Start date
SAJ-99
Well-known member
And you are supposed to be the shining beacon of hope for the rest of us.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
What % of the Montana legislature would even acknowledge Climate change as a real thing? I suspect about the same % that understands the laws they write. Not sure this decision will change their mind. I suspect the judge will just be labeled as "liberal" and they will largely ignore it.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
It's gonna be a low percentage, but still a higher percentage than the percent of kindergartners listed as plaintiffs in this case who even understood what the hell they were involved with, and higher still than the difference this will make in the larger discussion, and addressing of, climate change.
If you follow along with conservative groups in Montana - their social media, what their members say, what they've done the last two sessions, etc. I think Ben is spot on that MEPA, and the ability of Montanans to be involved in their government, is in the crosshairs. MEPA is increasingly being framed as a PIA obstacle to getting things done. As is our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment. "Liberal judges" will absolutely be a part of the conversation too, but that's just a chunk of their position and hope for change.
I'm not validating any of those positions at all, and wouldn't, and I've probably said enough, but I feel strongly this case is an example of parental catharsis superceding a mature evalution of "choosing one's battles."
Elky Welky
Well-known member
A lot of pessimism on here about the attorneys making money and nothing being done or this only making things worse. I disagree.
Two horrible statutes that very clearly violated Montanans' constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment have been permanently enjoined as a result of this ruling. This was, what attorneys who do this kind of thing call, a "test case" in a small state for when they bring these kind of suits in bigger venues. It's the same process that, over many years, got women the right to vote and more equal standing in society. Pick any other cause that takes years to sway hearts and minds, and you'll see how this seemingly small step was an extraordinary event.
Further, in closing arguments, the state's attorney had the audacity to claim that if the kids wanted a remedy, they should have asked for it from their legislature. Nevermind the fact that they are underage and can't vote. Sometimes the courts are where people need to seek a remedy.
I'm proud of these kids for standing up in the face of the kind of criticisms I'm seeing even here, among people who rely on MT's clean and healthful environment to keep doing what we love to do.
Two horrible statutes that very clearly violated Montanans' constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment have been permanently enjoined as a result of this ruling. This was, what attorneys who do this kind of thing call, a "test case" in a small state for when they bring these kind of suits in bigger venues. It's the same process that, over many years, got women the right to vote and more equal standing in society. Pick any other cause that takes years to sway hearts and minds, and you'll see how this seemingly small step was an extraordinary event.
Further, in closing arguments, the state's attorney had the audacity to claim that if the kids wanted a remedy, they should have asked for it from their legislature. Nevermind the fact that they are underage and can't vote. Sometimes the courts are where people need to seek a remedy.
I'm proud of these kids for standing up in the face of the kind of criticisms I'm seeing even here, among people who rely on MT's clean and healthful environment to keep doing what we love to do.
I am unsure how you export this to a state that doesn't have a state constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. How is this a test case for other states?
The legislative remark is close, but I've seen school kids get bills passed. There is no age requirement for asking people to introduce bills. The state's argument is akin to "stop hitting yourself" however.
And my comment about the attorneys was simply that they will qualify for reimbursement from the state since they won and I didn't know what the kids were seeking. It's the other consultants that will make money over-selling the drama here on both sides. And for the record, I'm all for attorneys getting paid and if you have to sue the gov't to get them to follow their own damned laws, then the gov't should pay when they lose.
During the session, I don't think many thought this bill (SB 557) or it's kissing cousin, HB 691, would withstand litigation. Some of the environmental attorneys I know in Helena had already drafted the complaint on one of the two bills about 4 hours after it passed.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
To the first question: it's not just the standard they brought it under here, but the arguments that they made and the evidence they put on, how the questions were asked, and what stuck and what didn't when they called their experts forward. How it was received by the public, what kind of arguments opponents made, etc. All of that is useful data for future cases, and also a ruling like this opens the door. Sure, they can't make the specific argument under Montana's unique constitutional language, but (and here the State's attorney was correct) they did throw a lot out there that wasn't particularly relevant to the case at bar, but instead part of the long game.
And yes, kids can sponsor legislation, but they can't vote for the representatives that hold those offices and ultimately decide their fate.
I've attached the order, which details the remedy the kids were seeking and what they got, which really was that the state can't be exempted from considering GHG emissions and climate impacts for projects.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
That sounds like "Don't poke the bear" argument. We will see how this works out. I tend to agree that MT will just go more extreme, but that was the trend anyway. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant in politics.
Julia Olson, Environmental Attorney and Founder of "Our Children’s Trust" used her Climate Change children to successfully push her agenda.
Adults place children faces on the the theme of climate change for a purpose. It emotionally grabs a few more inches than they were able to gain w/o.
Good on the Montana children for inspired lawful and in this case successful activism.
This country really needs a hero
Well, I'm f'ing useless so someone else needs to step up!
RobG
Well-known member
I hear what you are saying, but the legislature is going after environmental laws no matter what. It's one thing when they create a legitimate law, but it doesn't seem right to stand back when they create a law so obviously unconstitutional.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
If these kids had sued the state and won for not following the EMP or properly managing wildlife held in trust they would be considered heroes by all of HT.
But that's not what their parents wanted. mtmuley
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I don't disagree, and I think my concern with the backlash this might bring is really secondary to the theatre.
I'm reticent to criticize other parents, because I don't know WTF I am doing as a dad and being one is hard, but I find something gross in an out of state group drafting Montana parents willing to put their Montana children front and center in the media and courts so this outfit can try for their nth attempt at a similar lawsuit here. Someone earlier mentioned the word "unserious" and it fits. No doubt, the kids will be praised as bold by the likeminded circles those families run in, and hubris - because for damn sure a kid with single digit years on the planet doesn't have much to say about such a complicated issue - is being praised.
In the end, the legislature will keep being anti-environmental and blind to contemporary facts and would've been anyway, and this will do absolutely nothing to curb climate change and our behavior and policies toward it in Montana. Maybe it's just a nothing burger that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
Perhaps I'm just one of those "like-minded" folks that is happy to see this as a first step towards meaningful changes in state sponsored pollution. I can't speak as a father because I'm just an uncle. But I love my nieces very much and maintain my pride in the kids that were willing to stand up to their government here. I like to think they spoke for my nieces too.
So with that in mind, I think some of the agency of these kids is being denied when we talk about them as "being used." They are passionate advocates for their future. They made their choices, no doubt with guidance from their parents, but when they took the stand they spoke for themselves. The fact that they are young doesn't mean their voices shouldn't be heard or that they are being used by anyone. And I'd assume all of us were once teenagers; how many teens really do what their parents want them to do?
And I don't doubt many in the MT legislature will continue to do all they can to extract every dollar out of the land that they can to the detriment of the world, but this ruling does actually make that more difficult. It could set a precedent (after the MT Supreme Court has their say, and maybe SCOTUS) and show that the court will strike down legislation that goes too far. No doubt some legislators will keep attacking MEPA and any other law that gets in their way, but they won't make the same mistake twice.
Similar threads
