Global Warming and Public Nuisance III

A reader of my last two entries describing articles on nuisance suits and global warming has suggested that one of the articles does not sufficiently respect the dangers of global warming on the merits of existing scientific evidence.  On one basic level, the response to this suggestion is easy:  whatever one thinks about the dangers of global warming, the point of my entries was to note that the judicial branch is not the appropriate forum to address the issue, as the case law to date has held.  On another level, however, the suggestion is useful because it highlights one reason why these court cases nevertheless keep getting filed:  because people frustrated with the responses from the governmental branches that are appropriate and equipped to address broad policy issues, i.e. Congress and the Executive Branch, start looking elsewhere.  The more critical someone thinks a policy problem is, the more likely they are to resort to any avenue for help, including the courts.  

This resort to the courts because one thinks that the existing laws and regulations are inadequate, or thinks that policymakers have abdicated their responsibilities, however, again just underscores why these lawsuits do not make legal sense.  Courts enforce the law, in adjudicatory settings; they don't make the law.  Their job is not to stand in for policymakers, or make different policy when someone doesn't like the policy in place.  Trying to distort existing law to obtain a forum not meant to address a problem, because one thinks that the governmental bodies who are supposed to be addressing it are not doing an adequate job, does not make good law.

In sum, the more dangerous one thinks global warming is, the more one should be seeking change in Congress or the appropriate regulatory bodies.  It's easy to see why people who think the situation is critical will look to any forum for help, but trying to make our courts something they are not, or should not be, is not the answer.  Not only is a court not equipped to create broad policies in areas in which everyone is affected, but we have Congress and the Executive Branch make those policies because they're the ones elected and closer to the people.  And finally, we don't want to create bad precedent outside the particular issue, whether it's global warming or any other, because once you distort a court into something it's not for one cause, you're left with a distended court making policy relating to whatever other causes for which others may similarly seek policy redress.