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.
Allowing these cases to go forward is simply feeding lawyers in search of a big settlement. Millions of dollars will now be wasted in an unproductive endeavor.
How do they prove Energy Companies can change the weather ?
Lol, me too! My brain fakes a coma whenever it has to do math lol
Needed: A statutory exclusion of climate change from regulatory jurisdiction. (A good topic for a major policy speech.) Otherwise, these lawsuits will continue, and the Democrats will undo whatever Trump does in this area.
They get a marxist judge.
‘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.”’
On Monday, the Supreme CLOWNS 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.”
There, fixed it
Gotta hand it to SCOTUS. They see the big bucks being generated for the legal community by the climate change, formerly known as global warming, scam.
Lawyers protecting lawyers.
States are looking for settlements; the last thing they want to do is argue that gas cars caused climate change in a real courtroom.
I hear you on the double and triple negatives. When I worked in the nuclear power industry over 40 years ago, I heard a speaker at a conference describing a scenario as “least unlikely not to occur.” I still don’t know what that means.
More lawfare and the Supreme Court is letting it happen.
This is how the left is killing the US industries they don’t like, such as gun makers, energy companies, and others...
The cost of these lawsuits are ruining businesses and raising prices for energy and other vital industries...
Women are the ruin of the Senate and the Supreme Court...
So much for the 6-3 conservative majority.
You really are a sadist. Okay, let's see:
SCOTUS (Approves) (Rejecting) Effort to (Fail) to (Allow) (Unblocking) Climate Lawsuits (Opposing) (Non-Filing) (Against) Energy Companies
SCOTUS (Yes No) Effort to No to (Yes No) Climate Lawsuits (No No-no) No Energy Companies
SCOTUS NO Effort to (No to NO) Climate Lawsuits ((YES) No) Energy Companies
SCOTUS NO Effort to (YES) Climate Lawsuits (NO) Energy Companies
So... SCOTUS said No to ... something!
Affirming the right to bring clearly frivolous lawsuits does not necessarily indicate agreement with the plaintiff. Just the right to sue.
Translates to "Most likely to occur".
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.