Appealing to the decision of Montana’s Supreme Court does little to refute whether coal production in their state produces an imminent danger to your children. If you are a Montanan then excuse me.
I don't understand this refute at all. Coal cannot stay confined to Montana's borders in any real sense. The coal is mined to export, and it is then burned in coal plants, which are very bad.
asynchronous's comment was about whether coal jobs in Montana yield any measurable risks to your children, wherever you are. Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is a weak counterargument.
This is the opposite of a weak counterargument! Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is called stare decisis or legal precedent. Montana's supreme court decision can absolutely guide decisions beyond Montana's border.
This implies that every state constitution has provisions similar to the ones in Montana’s state constitution that were used to uphold the decision and have already given it the distinction of precedence. The ruling on its own is not legally binding on other states, they can refer to it at their own discretion.
This isn’t a question of the decision’s influence in the future or its likelihood. It’s about the decision’s effect today. Either way, as far as I could find, the text of the ruling does nothing to convey concern for the measurable effects that Montana’s coal industry could have on you or your children elsewhere. That’s what we’re talking about.
By law, your self interests were not referred to at all. The "good news" is that your country is governed by self interests, and I’m inclined to believe that The Powers That Be ® are catering to yours this time around.
And people wonder how Jim Crow became a household name…
This isn't about the facetious point that you're trying to make. It's about whether one state's specific judicial decision at all concerns what takes place beyond its borders.
