Posted on 03/12/2025 5:12:24 AM PDT by MtnClimber
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a lawsuit by Republican attorneys general that aimed at blocking left-wing lawsuits targeting energy companies for their alleged role in contributing to “global warming.”
As ABC News reports, the lawsuit was filed by attorneys general from 19 different states in response to several Democrat-led lawsuits against oil and gas companies. The Republican lawsuit, led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, said that the lawsuits by Democratic states were essentially attempting to control national policy; he also warned that such efforts could run the risk of increasing energy prices.
States whose attorneys general have filed such lawsuits against energy companies include California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The general claim by these lawsuits is that energy companies allegedly misled the public as to the environmental impact of their operations and products. The Democratic challenges claim that these practices have led to billions of dollars in damage as the result of natural disasters, which far-left climate activists believe to be caused by global warming even though there is no proof of any such correlation.
In a 7-2 ruling, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented and said that they would have allowed the Republican lawsuit to move forward. In his dissent, which did not comment on the merits of the case itself, Justice Thomas said that the Supreme Court did not yet have the discretion to reject the Republican lawsuit.
The high court has already rejected several appeals by energy companies, similarly seeking an end to the left-wing challenges.
I would argue that it is leftist politicians that should be sued because they misled the public with their climate change scam.
Too many double or triple negatives in headline alone.
Who is ‘ahead’ in this shameful game ?
I think the states actually have to win their lawsuits before the Supreme Court will re-visit the issue.
What happened to the moves to make them liable for costs when they lose?
It would more than quadruple the $$ needed to file such frivolous lawfare suits and dissuade most of the actions.
Everyone who is involved in this lawsuit who drives a car, owns anything plastic, or takes any medicine….. should be listed as defendants.
I hate that too. Figuring it out is like doing long math, and I am terrible at math.
SCOTUS is the new 9th Circus. A real clown show.
The RATs blame Trump for inflation. Hell, I blame the SCOTUS. Those bass turds need to stay out of politics. That’s not the job we hired their asses to do.
“I could carve a judge with more backbone out of a banana “
Teddy Roosevelt referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes
“claim by these lawsuits is that energy companies allegedly misled the public as to the environmental impact of their operations and products.”
Time for some lawfare where suits get filed against democrat officials, cities, and states for the impact their policies and operations had on this country in tanking the economy and generally hurting America. Turn about is fail play.
ACB and Roberts are making the Supreme Court more ridiculous every day. She is a legal nerd with no common sense at all. He thinks his job is hindering Trump.
Putting women on the Supreme Court will always be a bad idea for conservatives.
Here, let me help:
SCOTUS Approves Rejecting Effort to Fail to Allow Unblocking Climate Lawsuits Opposing Non-Filing Against Energy Companies
The current SCOTUS is officially into saving the planet? Come on, man!
Now, replace “climate” with “gun”. That’s what would happen if Harris won.
“Lawfare” could never have happened without Feral “judges” being weaponized against Americans by the DemonRATS.
“SCOTUS Approves Rejecting Effort to Fail to Allow Unblocking Climate Lawsuits Opposing Non-Filing Against Energy Companies”
Sorry, I don’t speak liberal.
The Five girls are as dumb as they come.
I see what you did there.
If a state claims a company is doing something illegal in that state, why is the company still operating in that state?
EC
Well this particular vote was 7-2. So, if you want to criticize Roberts and Barrett, you also have to criticize Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, on this particular vote.
Then on another thread, someone else said this is simply a procedural vote, and the Supreme Court court rarely intervenes in cases that have not been heard yet in lower courts. So there’s that to consider.
Does that make sense to anyone? The subject matter of these cases seems absurd, yet the Supreme Court court is o k with absurd cases going forward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.