9 ms·

The fact that these battle are being fought in the courts rather than the legislature shows how ridiculous judicial overreach has become.

Bluestein 5y ago
I am split on the "judicial overreach" issue ... ... if lawmakers / govt. is not doing it for you, and you are aggrieved, aren't courts just another available means at a citizen's disposal, to effect change?
- dominotw 5y ago
  > at a citizen's disposal sorry but how are courts at my disposal?
  - Bluestein 5y ago
    ... as in, you have them available to you?
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    Prosecutors and regulators have discretion to ignore any harms you suffer. But you still have the right to file a lawsuit.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  The purpose of various government bodies are not simply to all be equal tools for citizen desires. At least in the United States, each branch is "co-equal," and "checked and balanced." This is on purpose. A particular branch has the power to perform certain activities, while other branches don't.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- cm2187 5y ago
  No, courts aren't there to bypass the democratic process when the policy of the country doesn't fit your own politics. They are not elected, are usually pretty much unaccountable. They should not issue laws or make policy.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  As far as I can see, the court is not doing here anything else than interpreting the law. Literally, the whole ruling is explaining pieces of the law step by step. > The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of “national environmental significance”: s 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) states that a further object is the promotion of “ecologically sustainable development” through the conservation and “ecologically sustainable use” of natural resources. > The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development: > (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;
teachingassist 5y ago
You could say the same sentence but replace 'judicial overreach' with 'legislative incompetence'. I suggest the problem is that the legislature is filled with cognitive dissonance on this issue, prepared to say one thing [in law] - for the votes - and do another - for the votes. That requires the judiciary to sort out the mess.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  That the legislature is not following your wishes does not mean that they are incompetent. They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population, which simply does not view carbon emissions as being particularly important nor do they believe there is any crisis to address here.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    You make a separate point. My point was that the legislature is writing law which is in conflict with itself. The quote "future generation" hasn't come from the judiciary - it is written into the law, for the judiciary to deal with the consequences.
  - ska 5y ago
    Similarly, 'judicial overreach' is (most?) often just used to mean 'I don't like the courts decision'. Especially in a common law country, this terminology is often off target.
  - jbay808 5y ago
    Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been born yet.
  - glial 5y ago
    > They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population Citation seriously needed.
    - etrabroline 5y ago
mikepurvis 5y ago
I think it depends how you view the relationship between the judiciary and the rest of government. For example, the judiciary can be seen in part as the voice of the past— they're appointed by previous generations of politicians, part of their role is to apply and interpret the laws accumulated by previous governments, and they're free from having to pander to voters every election cycle. If the present day government has become ineffective or gridlocked, then it makes sense to me that the judiciary may have a role to play not in setting new policy, but at least in recognizing the intent of past leaders as encoded in existing laws.
vkou 5y ago
No, what it shows is how incapable the legislature is of dealing with a crisis.
Corazoor 5y ago
The ruling by the german constitutional court was definitely not judicial overreach. For one because rejecting laws on constitutional grounds is the main purpose of that court. But more importantly, the court started it's argument with the observation that the german goverment and parliament committed themselves to the goal of co2 reduction, by signing and ratifying the kyoto protocol. From that follows that it is quite unfair (unconstitutional even) to put the major portion of reductions towards the end of the deadline, effectively pushing the burden on younger generations. Measured by their own standards and all that...
Isinlor 5y ago
Where do you exactly see the overreach? I'm reading the ruling and I see there only interpretation of the Australian law. Things like: 150 The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of “national environmental significance”: s 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) states that a further object is the promotion of “ecologically sustainable development” through the conservation and “ecologically sustainable use” of natural resources. Each of those terms used in s 3(1)(b) is defined. Section 528 provides the meaning of “ecologically sustained use” as the “use of the natural resources within their capacity to sustain natural processes while maintaining the life-support systems of nature and ensuring that the benefit of the use to the present generation does not diminish the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”. The principles of “ecologically sustainable development” are given meaning by s 3A which provides: Principles of ecologically sustainable development The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development: (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; (e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.
wvenable 5y ago
These decisions can easily be legislated either way completely invaliding most "judicial overreach" after the fact. It's just the legislation branch in a lot of countries are quite happy to not be involved in these kind of big decisions.
notanormalnerd 5y ago
If you watch close and have a look at the demografics of germany, than this is not judical overreach but a reminder for the baby boomer generation (over 40% of voters) that they indeed have to take care not to leave an unlivable planet. The young generations (below 35) have basically no real demografic power and are underrepresented in politics. You saw that with covid and who was impacted the most and who will pay at the end of the day.
- msrenee 5y ago
  Off topic: I love that you're using an "f" in the word demografic (standard spelling is demographic). I've been learning a lot about how all the weird spelling exceptions came into the English language and the fact that we still use "ph" to make an "f" sound is just super interesting to me. It's mostly present in words that came from Greek through Latin, which represents the sound of the Greek letter "phi" as "ph". Then, as far as I can understand, the spelling remained unchanged even after all those words began to be pronounced with our current "f" sound.

Bluestein 5y ago

I am split on the "judicial overreach" issue ... ... if lawmakers / govt. is not doing it for you, and you are aggrieved, aren't courts just another available means at a citizen's disposal, to effect change?

dominotw 5y ago
> at a citizen's disposal sorry but how are courts at my disposal?
- Bluestein 5y ago
  ... as in, you have them available to you?
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  Prosecutors and regulators have discretion to ignore any harms you suffer. But you still have the right to file a lawsuit.
nathanaldensr 5y ago
The purpose of various government bodies are not simply to all be equal tools for citizen desires. At least in the United States, each branch is "co-equal," and "checked and balanced." This is on purpose. A particular branch has the power to perform certain activities, while other branches don't.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cm2187 5y ago
No, courts aren't there to bypass the democratic process when the policy of the country doesn't fit your own politics. They are not elected, are usually pretty much unaccountable. They should not issue laws or make policy.
Isinlor 5y ago
As far as I can see, the court is not doing here anything else than interpreting the law. Literally, the whole ruling is explaining pieces of the law step by step. > The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of “national environmental significance”: s 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) states that a further object is the promotion of “ecologically sustainable development” through the conservation and “ecologically sustainable use” of natural resources. > The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development: > (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

teachingassist 5y ago

You could say the same sentence but replace 'judicial overreach' with 'legislative incompetence'. I suggest the problem is that the legislature is filled with cognitive dissonance on this issue, prepared to say one thing [in law] - for the votes - and do another - for the votes. That requires the judiciary to sort out the mess.

rsj_hn 5y ago
That the legislature is not following your wishes does not mean that they are incompetent. They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population, which simply does not view carbon emissions as being particularly important nor do they believe there is any crisis to address here.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  You make a separate point. My point was that the legislature is writing law which is in conflict with itself. The quote "future generation" hasn't come from the judiciary - it is written into the law, for the judiciary to deal with the consequences.
- ska 5y ago
  Similarly, 'judicial overreach' is (most?) often just used to mean 'I don't like the courts decision'. Especially in a common law country, this terminology is often off target.
- jbay808 5y ago
  Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been born yet.
- glial 5y ago
  > They could be reacting to the wishes of the majority of the population Citation seriously needed.
  - etrabroline 5y ago

mikepurvis 5y ago

I think it depends how you view the relationship between the judiciary and the rest of government. For example, the judiciary can be seen in part as the voice of the past— they're appointed by previous generations of politicians, part of their role is to apply and interpret the laws accumulated by previous governments, and they're free from having to pander to voters every election cycle. If the present day government has become ineffective or gridlocked, then it makes sense to me that the judiciary may have a role to play not in setting new policy, but at least in recognizing the intent of past leaders as encoded in existing laws.

vkou 5y ago

No, what it shows is how incapable the legislature is of dealing with a crisis.

Corazoor 5y ago

The ruling by the german constitutional court was definitely not judicial overreach. For one because rejecting laws on constitutional grounds is the main purpose of that court. But more importantly, the court started it's argument with the observation that the german goverment and parliament committed themselves to the goal of co2 reduction, by signing and ratifying the kyoto protocol. From that follows that it is quite unfair (unconstitutional even) to put the major portion of reductions towards the end of the deadline, effectively pushing the burden on younger generations. Measured by their own standards and all that...

Isinlor 5y ago

Where do you exactly see the overreach? I'm reading the ruling and I see there only interpretation of the Australian law. Things like: 150 The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of “national environmental significance”: s 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) states that a further object is the promotion of “ecologically sustainable development” through the conservation and “ecologically sustainable use” of natural resources. Each of those terms used in s 3(1)(b) is defined. Section 528 provides the meaning of “ecologically sustained use” as the “use of the natural resources within their capacity to sustain natural processes while maintaining the life-support systems of nature and ensuring that the benefit of the use to the present generation does not diminish the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”. The principles of “ecologically sustainable development” are given meaning by s 3A which provides: Principles of ecologically sustainable development The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development: (a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; (e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

wvenable 5y ago

These decisions can easily be legislated either way completely invaliding most "judicial overreach" after the fact. It's just the legislation branch in a lot of countries are quite happy to not be involved in these kind of big decisions.

notanormalnerd 5y ago

If you watch close and have a look at the demografics of germany, than this is not judical overreach but a reminder for the baby boomer generation (over 40% of voters) that they indeed have to take care not to leave an unlivable planet. The young generations (below 35) have basically no real demografic power and are underrepresented in politics. You saw that with covid and who was impacted the most and who will pay at the end of the day.

msrenee 5y ago
Off topic: I love that you're using an "f" in the word demografic (standard spelling is demographic). I've been learning a lot about how all the weird spelling exceptions came into the English language and the fact that we still use "ph" to make an "f" sound is just super interesting to me. It's mostly present in words that came from Greek through Latin, which represents the sound of the Greek letter "phi" as "ph". Then, as far as I can understand, the spelling remained unchanged even after all those words began to be pronounced with our current "f" sound.