“No big deal” are the words used by David Wojick, PhD, an independent analyst who reviewed the proceedings.
The ruling was much more limited than I understood. The kids won a little, but lost a whole lot more.
What they won: The judge ruled that a law passed by the state legislature, basically a gag order forbidding discussion of emissions in projects undertaken in the state, was unconstitutional. In other words, it is back to business as usual before the law was passed. There is no precedent here, as no other state has such a law in force.
What they lost: “The kids asked the Court to require Montana to make and implement an emissions reduction plan, all under Court supervision. The Court properly rejected that monster request.” Such matters properly rest with the legislature.
I knew nothing of that last paragraph, had no idea the kids had made such an outrageous petition, and see that the judge did right by us in knocking it down.
In my post on this matter, even given it was what I knew at the time, I was much too hard on the judge. There will be no appeals, as I see it, as the law that was struck down was an odd duck anyway. The larger matter of the courts overseeing environmental policies, well, let’s all hope it never comes to that.
Piece of Mindful 
So why was a photoshopped pic used to illustrate the story?
Interesting that the news article Big Swede linked us to didn’t mention specifically what the judge did and didn’t do. Seems plausible to me that the moronic Montana “gag order” forbidding discussion of emissions for state projects was put in place in order to beg a law suit that would normalize the idea that climate change activists are taking their grievances to court and winning. It’s actually great propaganda since you don’t have to lie, you simply have to take the truth–in this case, “climate activists win in court”–and take it out of context. Then sit back and sip your Scotch and watch the brain-addled unwashed masses scream ignorantly at each other from their various sides of the issue.
LikeLike
I did not see any local coverage of the case, but do remember that journalists are, for the most part, not very well schooled in climate and often get it wrong. I remember a gal working for the Casper WY newspaper wrote that forest fires had taken off and were going off the chart due to climate change. I sent here the actual details on forest fires nationwide, that the trend is downward, not necessarily fewer fires, but dramatically less acreage burning than even fifty years ago, a steep downward trend. Crickets. Another thing I know about journalists is that the profession is widely criticized (and is the easiest major available on campuses), so they tend to form a tight circle and become very smug. SO it would not surprise me that the Montana media overlooked the important aspect of the case.
About the gag order law put in place, that was just stupidity. Republicans have overwhelming majorities in the Montana legislature and the governor, Gianforte, is also a Republican, so it is a bit of anything goes up there, someone’s brain-dead idea actually became a law. That happens with super majorities.
LikeLike
I buy everything you’re saying. Then I look at that photoshopped pic and want my money back. lol.
LikeLike
So the italian journalist was right after all, glad about it.
LikeLike