Not The Onion

12272 readers

1911 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

328

Joe Biden’s DOJ Is Claiming “There Is No Constitutional Right to a Stable Climate” (jacobin.com)

submitted 1 year ago by JoeCoT@kbin.social to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In the same week large swaths of the US were under extreme heat warnings, Joe Biden’s Justice Department filed its most recent motion to dismiss a landmark climate case by arguing that nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to a secure climate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] soviettaters@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There isn't. That doesn't mean that this isn't a noble cause, but come on. There's no point in using the Constitution as the deciding factor of all that is good.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Americans are utterly obsessed with their constitution. They treat it like a holy book, despite (and perhaps sometimes because of) the fact that it's pretty much impossible to convince enough people to change these days, despite it also needing changes.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is a legal proceeding and the constitution is the fundamental basis for legal precedence in the US.

The government's argument is not that this right cannot exist but that it is not presently defined.

[–] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a legal proceeding and the constitution is the fundamental basis for legal precedence in the US.

Someone should tell that to the supreme court.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

While I very much disagree with many SCOTUS interpretations, many of the legitimate justices throughout the years have successfully espoused this policy

The current Supreme Court being largely a cruel joke does not falsify this claim

[–] JingJang@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Thanks.

I was going to say, that it's not an environmental document and climate science was barely a thing when it was written. (meteorology was but not climate science as we know it).