{"id":293463,"date":"2024-01-02T10:55:05","date_gmt":"2024-01-02T09:55:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293463"},"modified":"2024-01-02T10:55:08","modified_gmt":"2024-01-02T09:55:08","slug":"programming-judges-for-woke-climate-rulings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293463","title":{"rendered":"Programming Judges for Woke Climate\u00a0Rulings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Olivia Murray reports at American Thinker America\u2019s judiciary is quietly receiving \u2018training\u2019 from leftwing climate group<\/strong><\/a>.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With Enlightenment came\u00a0secularism<\/strong>, with secularism came\u00a0relativism<\/strong>, with relativism came\u00a0leftism<\/strong>, and with leftism comes\u00a0judicial activism.<\/strong>\u00a0No longer are Western courts viewed as a place of arbitration based upon absolute Judeo-Christian morality and standards of justice<\/strong>, but a vehicle to enact revolutionary change, where\u00a0fairness and righteousness are in the eye of the executor.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

According to\u00a0a new\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>published by Fox News today,\u00a0America\u2019s judiciary<\/span>\u00a0has been quietly\u00a0receiving climate change arbitration \u201ctraining\u201d<\/span>\u00a0from\u00a0 a \u201clittle-known judicial advocacy organization\u201d\u00a0financed by \u201cleft-wing nonprofits.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Here are the details, from the article itself:<\/em>

The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute\u00a0(ELI) created the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP)<\/span>\u00a0in 2018, establishing a first-of-its-kind resource to provide \u2018reliable, up-to-date information\u2019 about climate change litigation, according to the group.\u00a0The project\u2019s reach has extended to various state and federal courts, including powerful appellate courts\u2026<\/span>.<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Climate activists protesting outside the Supreme Court July 1, 2022 after the court announced its decision in West Virginia v. EPA. Francis Chung\/E&E News\/POLITICO<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

When you have a group of\u00a0people who don\u2019t believe in the foundational values of America,<\/strong>\u00a0this is what you get\u2014a covert operation to transform<\/strong>\u00a0what ought to be an unbiased and nonpartisan apparatus into a biased and partisan one. When the\u00a0courts become an instrument to advance an agenda,<\/strong>\u00a0it is a serious infringement on the right of a person or party to an impartial arbiter and the development is, naturally, alarming. When judicial minds receive\u00a0\u201cquiet training\u201d in pseudo-science to ensure \u201cclimate justice\u201d and \u201cequity\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0are taken into consideration the\u00a0threat of prejudiced decisions increases<\/strong>, and unconstitutional laws, and bureaucratic rules and mandates become \u201clegal\u201d despite any fact, reason, or authority to support their implementation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Fox also reports that in just five years, the CJP \u201chas crafted 13 curriculum modules\u201d and hosted dozens of events\u2014all in all,\u00a0\u201cmore than 1,700 judges\u201d have participated in CJP\u2019s \u201ctraining\u201d scheme.<\/span><\/em>

From\u00a0ELI\u2019s\u00a0website<\/a>\u00a0on its CJP<\/span>, we find this:As the body of climate litigation grows,\u00a0judges must consider complex scientific and legal questions<\/span>, many of which are developing rapidly. To address these issues, the Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute is collaborating with leading national judicial education institutions\u00a0to meet judges\u2019 need for basic familiarity with climate science methods and concepts.<\/span>Now this isn\u2019t a great analogy because\u00a0certain sciences\u00a0are\u00a0settled\u2014embryology<\/span>\u00a0establishes that life begins at conception,\u00a0ultrasounds<\/span>\u00a0unequivocally determine that\u00a0babies in the womb are actually living human beings<\/span>, and biological reality aligns with the real reality of two sexes (everything else is mental illness), etc.\u2014but\u00a0how would the left handle a pro-life nonprofit<\/span>\u00a0being a very real presence in law schools, presenting its curriculum as objective (even though it\u00a0actually\u00a0would be) and the institution requiring its students to take the course?\u00a0Or, a Christian outfit, asserting that humans are not gendered but sexed?<\/span>\u00a0Obviously, the useful idiots would lose their collective mind.<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I wonder\u00a0how we can expect those gas stove rulings to go?<\/strong>\u00a0What about when the tyrannical\u00a0government imposes a \u201ccarbon emissions\u201d limit<\/strong>\u00a0on all American subjects? And when the federal bureaucracy takes away the heating and cooling elements in our home?<\/strong>\u00a0What happens if legislators\u00a0dictate that grocery store chains can only sell a limited amount of beef\u2014or, none at all?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Will these illegal actions be upheld? Well, presumably yes,
because a \u201ctrained\u201d judiciary will be right there to rule the \u201cright\u201d way.<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Critical Climate Intelligence for Jurists (and others)<\/a><\/blockquote>