Rewriting The Constitution For Global Warming

Did I catch that correctly? The judicial branch making laws?

She said that hope rests in the judicial branch to make laws to protect citizens from the effects of global warming.

It is good to see these global warming jihadists showing their true colors. They see the US and its laws as a threat.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Rewriting The Constitution For Global Warming

  1. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    The “Next Al Gore”. Does that mean Al Gore is over lol?

    • Amino says:

      No. It means the next guy that causes snow and cold everywhere he goes, “Gore Effect Jr.”. 🙂

      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

        Well he’s got the next 20-30 years of cooling to be right, now the problem, he just has to start saying an ice age is coming again after 30 years saying it’s warming 😛

  2. ChrisD says:

    It’s good to know that none of the “skeptic” writers ever make a mistake. And it’s especially heartening to know that skeptic writers who are students never make mistakes in student newspapers.

    • James Sexton says:

      Chris, it wasn’t a mistake in the sense she incorrectly thinks the judicial branch should make laws, judicial activism it part and parcel to the attempts to re-write our constitution. The mistake is the belief that the constitution allows for the judicial activism. It doesn’t, but in the words of Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is…”.

      Judicial activism has long been a threat to the written words of the Constitution. It usurps authority specifically given to other branches of our government and it erodes the checks and balances designed within the framing of our constitution.

      • ChrisD says:

        The point is that this is an error by a student writer in a student newspaper that is supposed to be “global warming jihadists showing their true colors”.

        This is just pathetic.

      • James Sexton says:

        You’re asserting the writer quoted Mary Wood incorrectly? Do you have any evidence of that?

      • ChrisD says:

        No more evidence than you have that it is accurate. 🙂

        That said, Mary Wood is described as “a law professor.” It strikes me as highly unlikely that a law professor actually thinks that the judiciary makes laws.

        Norm is right, the sensible thing to do is to ask.

      • Paul H says:

        It sounds more like sloppy thinking to me on the part of Mary Wood (or wishful thinking.)

        However in England we continually see judicial activism resulting in decisions that Parliament never intended.

      • ChrisD says:

        It’s possible, but I’d be pretty shocked to find a law professor who actually thinks that the judiciary makes laws. I think it’s far more likely that the student author misinterpreted something she said.

      • James Sexton says:

        So, my post about judicial activism didn’t warrant a simple Google check? Go here,

        Click to access NTIntroNatResLJFall09.pdf

        “The lakebed at issue in Illinois Central, along with other navigable waterways, thus served such paramount public interests that the Supreme Court classified them as
        reserved assets of the people’s sovereignty that could not be conveyed away by any one legislature.”

        “A handful of cases relating to streambeds and beach
        fronts recognize the ecological obligations of landowners by presenting the trust as a public encumbrance on title that thwarts Fifth Amendment takings claims.”

        “To be effective, a Nature’s Trust framework must create a robust role for the judiciary, one that does not fall easily to traditional defenses.”

        No need to ask, she’s pro judicial advocacy.

        Chris, you owe me big time, I was trying to eat lunch while sorting through her drivel, it sucks to be laughing and nauseated at the same time! This is one scary chick!

  3. Norm Milliard says:

    The simple solution to the validity of the statement ” hope rests in the judicial branch to make laws to protect citizens from the effects of global warming” is for the article’s reporter or the speaker to correct the statement. I will ask for clarification.

  4. Russell C says:

    These folks are trying any which way they can to cause the courts to do something about global warming. In the Comer v. Murphy Oil case ( ) it says on page 15, “The API (American Petroleum Institute) and other Oil Company Defendants have engaged in concerted financial activity—far in excess of $1 million—in furtherance of a tortious civil conspiracy to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.”

    Big problem — the “reposition global warming” phrase has literally no connection to the API or the organization API partnered with, the Global Climate Coalition……. and I wrote about the oddball attempts to connect the “reposition” phrase with the GCC / API back in August, see “Unending Problems with Accusations Against Skeptic Scientists – When Anyone Digs Into Them”

    That was back when I hadn’t seen the Comer v. Murphy case, or another bit I ran across within the last couple of weeks where there was an attempt to associate the “reposition” phrase with the GCC. Seems to be far too much coincidental effort to do this……..

  5. Charles Higley says:

    We need to marginalize Dr Hansen just as he would marginalize us. He is an activist and, as he is pushing junk science and adulterated data, he is not a scientist.

    He can stump all he wants, but all he is doing is misinforming the public. It is his goal to turn the children against the adults.

  6. PhilJourdan says:

    ChrisD – you have not heard what kagan or Ginsberg have said then have you? Did she have a slip of the tongue? Or is that what she truly believes? The latter more likely since many liberals believe exactly that – judges should make laws for the “good” of the stupid man.

    Oh, and for the record, once the document is entered into evidence, it then becomes the burden of the defense to prove the document is false (in this case the quote from the moonbeam professor). So no one has to prove it is correct, you have to prove it is false.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s