3 ms·

Courts rather than legislatures making climate policy is indeed "an agenda being shoved down our throats". Legislators who face elections are more likely to con

Courts rather than legislatures making climate policy is indeed "an agenda being shoved down our throats". Legislators who face elections are more likely to consider tradeoffs.

duxup 3y ago
Courts act based on ... something. You can agree with the reasoning or not but it's not simply an arbitrary policy based on nothing. In the Montana situation it is based on the rights of younger people who will take the brunt of choices made today. Courts make decisions all the time about balancing different people's rights.
lolinder 3y ago
It is widely accepted that one of the court's jobs is to determine whether the legislature's laws are in line with state and federal constitutions. This mechanism exists to make sure that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of a minority simply because they control the legislature. The ruling in this case is weirdly hard to find, probably because it's not a supreme court case yet, but the reports say that all the judge did was strike down one provision of a law that the legislature passed, according to a pretty reasonable interpretation of this provision in the state constitution [0]. [0] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_0010/section_0010/0000-0090-0010-0010.html https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...
- sophacles 3y ago
  Yes, but I think you're missing the point. The Montana constitution was adopted in 1972 in a constitutional convention. The people that were elected to that convention were not the legislature (because the previous constitution forbade someone from holding 2 elected offices at one time). The people elected were largely not even politicians, just regular people. Therefore it shouldn't matter at all - the parent post comes from a position of "the people must be ruled over" and the Montana constitution has a "will of the people" vibe.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I'm not sure what in your comment actually contradicts what I just said. OP argued that the court was out of line, I responded that the court was doing its job in interpreting the Constitution that the people of Montana put in place. What the grandparent poster may or may not have implied about people being ruled over seems immaterial to the question of whether the court was making policy or interpreting the Constitution. The way these systems are set up is that if the will of the people is united enough then they can modify the Constitution. As it is, the people of Montana clearly indicated their intention to protect the environment, and state laws prohibiting experts in the executive branch from even considering a specific class of environmental impact are pretty obviously out of line with the intent of the Constitution.
kibwen 3y ago
The courts in this case are interpreting the constitution of the state of Montana, which was written and ratified by the legislature. Quoted below: Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.
babypuncher 3y ago
This is the judicial branch upholding a law put in place by the legislative branch. That is exactly how our government is supposed to work.

Courts rather than legislatures making climate policy is indeed "an agenda being shoved down our throats". Legislators who face elections are more likely to consider tradeoffs.

duxup 3y ago

Courts act based on ... something. You can agree with the reasoning or not but it's not simply an arbitrary policy based on nothing. In the Montana situation it is based on the rights of younger people who will take the brunt of choices made today. Courts make decisions all the time about balancing different people's rights.

lolinder 3y ago

It is widely accepted that one of the court's jobs is to determine whether the legislature's laws are in line with state and federal constitutions. This mechanism exists to make sure that the majority cannot infringe upon the rights of a minority simply because they control the legislature. The ruling in this case is weirdly hard to find, probably because it's not a supreme court case yet, but the reports say that all the judge did was strike down one provision of a law that the legislature passed, according to a pretty reasonable interpretation of this provision in the state constitution [0]. [0] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_0010/section_0010/0000-0090-0010-0010.html https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...

sophacles 3y ago
Yes, but I think you're missing the point. The Montana constitution was adopted in 1972 in a constitutional convention. The people that were elected to that convention were not the legislature (because the previous constitution forbade someone from holding 2 elected offices at one time). The people elected were largely not even politicians, just regular people. Therefore it shouldn't matter at all - the parent post comes from a position of "the people must be ruled over" and the Montana constitution has a "will of the people" vibe.
- lolinder 3y ago
  I'm not sure what in your comment actually contradicts what I just said. OP argued that the court was out of line, I responded that the court was doing its job in interpreting the Constitution that the people of Montana put in place. What the grandparent poster may or may not have implied about people being ruled over seems immaterial to the question of whether the court was making policy or interpreting the Constitution. The way these systems are set up is that if the will of the people is united enough then they can modify the Constitution. As it is, the people of Montana clearly indicated their intention to protect the environment, and state laws prohibiting experts in the executive branch from even considering a specific class of environmental impact are pretty obviously out of line with the intent of the Constitution.

kibwen 3y ago

The courts in this case are interpreting the constitution of the state of Montana, which was written and ratified by the legislature. Quoted below: Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.

babypuncher 3y ago

This is the judicial branch upholding a law put in place by the legislative branch. That is exactly how our government is supposed to work.