4 ms·

And why do you have confidence that the judiciary is going to be better able to sort out the mess? I realize that there are grey areas, but the role of the jud

And why do you have confidence that the judiciary is going to be better able to sort out the mess? I realize that there are grey areas, but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. What are you going to do when the judiciary screws things up? Can't vote them out in most cases.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ska 5y ago
> but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. True, but in a common law system part of the role of the judiciary is to decide how the laws are interpreted. Civil system have a parallel set of problems; you can push the complexity around but you can't get rid of it.
- munk-a 5y ago
  The role of the judiciary is to clarify the grey areas left open for interpretation by the legislature. While none of these countries have passed "F off young people" laws I don't think it's fair to say the majority of these rulings (except the dutch one - that one is legally interesting) are really a reasonable interpretation of laws on the books. That all said, times are desperate so if law makers are going to stick-in-the-mud I'm happy to see them overruled by the will of the people. I feel like we've gone past the point where we can reasonably discuss alternative market based solutions to climate change like carbon credits - and most conservative political blocks are still against even such a soft idea.
  - eulenteufel 5y ago
    At least in the German ruling of the constitutional court they could refere to Article 20a of the German constitution Art20a, Roughly translated: The state, in responsibility for future generations, protects the natural means of subsistence and the Animals in the constitutional order by use of legislative, excecutive and judiciary measures. Of course this doesn't say verbatim to protect the climate but I think this is enough legislative basis to rule dangerous negligence on the matter of climate change unconstitutional.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
teachingassist 5y ago
> And why do you have confidence that the judiciary is going to be better able to sort out the mess? I don't. But, they have to decide cases. Part of the problem is that likely >>50% of people want some action to be taken to prevent climate change; and that likely >>50% of people don't support any particular specific action. Democratically elected representatives (i.e. legislatures; and in particular two-party legislatures) have internationally failed to resolve this contradiction, and many have effectively passed both sides of this into law, in pursuit of votes. Now, the judiciary must deal with this ambiguity. If you don't want this to happen, then pay closer attention when politicians are playing for both sides of an issue, and challenge it more. I'm unclear what you mean by 'sorted out' - there must ultimately be some outcome, as the judiciary in this case has given us. Don't like a judiciary's decision? The democratic option is to go back to your representative and work to change the legislation, so that it's no longer ambiguous.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ska 5y ago

> but the role of the judiciary isn't to be an legislature-of-last-resort. True, but in a common law system part of the role of the judiciary is to decide how the laws are interpreted. Civil system have a parallel set of problems; you can push the complexity around but you can't get rid of it.

munk-a 5y ago
The role of the judiciary is to clarify the grey areas left open for interpretation by the legislature. While none of these countries have passed "F off young people" laws I don't think it's fair to say the majority of these rulings (except the dutch one - that one is legally interesting) are really a reasonable interpretation of laws on the books. That all said, times are desperate so if law makers are going to stick-in-the-mud I'm happy to see them overruled by the will of the people. I feel like we've gone past the point where we can reasonably discuss alternative market based solutions to climate change like carbon credits - and most conservative political blocks are still against even such a soft idea.
- eulenteufel 5y ago
  At least in the German ruling of the constitutional court they could refere to Article 20a of the German constitution Art20a, Roughly translated: The state, in responsibility for future generations, protects the natural means of subsistence and the Animals in the constitutional order by use of legislative, excecutive and judiciary measures. Of course this doesn't say verbatim to protect the climate but I think this is enough legislative basis to rule dangerous negligence on the matter of climate change unconstitutional.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

teachingassist 5y ago

> And why do you have confidence that the judiciary is going to be better able to sort out the mess? I don't. But, they have to decide cases. Part of the problem is that likely >>50% of people want some action to be taken to prevent climate change; and that likely >>50% of people don't support any particular specific action. Democratically elected representatives (i.e. legislatures; and in particular two-party legislatures) have internationally failed to resolve this contradiction, and many have effectively passed both sides of this into law, in pursuit of votes. Now, the judiciary must deal with this ambiguity. If you don't want this to happen, then pay closer attention when politicians are playing for both sides of an issue, and challenge it more. I'm unclear what you mean by 'sorted out' - there must ultimately be some outcome, as the judiciary in this case has given us. Don't like a judiciary's decision? The democratic option is to go back to your representative and work to change the legislation, so that it's no longer ambiguous.