The Montana climate kidsand judicial activism

By Craig Rucker

The Montana climate kids
and judicial activism 

Stephen,

Montana is an energy powerhouse that has been at the forefront of American efforts to break dependence on foreign oil. 

Montanans know it.

Montana is not the state you would expect to hand an outliying judicial victory to a climate pressure group that uses kids as props.  Particularly, after other jurisdictions rejected similar attempts.

Yet that is what District Court Judge Kathy Seeley did when she held that Montana's greenhouse gas emissions are a "substantial factor" which impact Montana's weather and harm the young class action plaintiffs.

The actual fact is that Montana's share of greenhouse gas emissions is small and globally insignificant.  

That didn't stop lead plaintiff Rikki Held from testifying that "droughts have left 'skinny cows and dead cattle' on her family's ranch in eastern Montana and wildfires have made ash fall from the sky."

Sorry, Rikki, what your family experienced was called natural "weather."  Your family's cattle (watch out btw, the climate crusaders are after them too) would have fared the same even had Montana produced no energy at all.

The Montana Attorney General's office rightly described Judge Seeley's decision as "absurd," describing Seeley as an "ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward."

"Judicial activism" is where judges use their power to make policy decisions that properly belong to the legislature.  Judge Seeley is guilty of just that.

Montana plans to appeal and has a very strong case to bring to the state Supreme Court.  Montana's supposedly nonpartisan judicial system, however, has been recently influenced by partisan maneuvering.  In the 2022 election, the Montana Democratic Party funded the election victories of two Supreme Court candidates with the intention of influencing the Court's future decisions on abortion.  That effort may impact the Court's decision on the kids' climate case as well.

David Wojick posted his opinion that the Montana climate case will not hinder present or future energy and development projects to CFACT.org. Wojick notes that the Judge's main ruling is that state regulators must consider climate when making energy decisions.  If state regulators stick to rational analysis of the facts there will be no climate bar to future development.  

David makes an informed and interesting point.

We can't help but be dismayed, however, by the radical jurisprudence being taught in our law schools that is now being exploited by the Left.

For nature and people too, 

Craig Rucker
President