> 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 prob

> 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.