I’ll be honest, I’m not sure if I like this and agree with this
Advocates call for Kagan investigation on climate change bias
Advocates are calling on the U.S. Senate Monday to investigate conflicts of interest from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. The advocates argued Kagan was biased in favor of climate science and should not participate in a consequential case that could determine the future of climate change policies.
Leaders from the Judicial Crisis Network, the Heritage Foundation, the National Republican Lawyers Foundation and others wrote a letter to lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee about concern over Kagan’s support for climate change.
Justices on the high court are expected to hear Suncor v. Boulder County Commissioners, a case examining whether state and local governments can prevent fossil fuel companies from engaging in global emissions activities that contribute to climate change. (snip)
In the letter, analysts point to Kagan’s authorship of a foreword in the Fourth Edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” published by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine in December 2025.
The manual included a chapter on Climate Science, where it referenced the “attribution theory.” The theory is used to posit that scientific modeling is used to attribute the effects of climate change from greenhouse gas emissions.
“This section was designed to persuade ‘skeptical’ judges in state and local climate lawfare,” the advocates wrote.
The thing is, most of the liberals on the Court will vote hard left the vast majority of the time on most things, so, we already know how Kagan will vote. We know they are all hardcore Warmists. Will this all make a difference? Certainly, some Conservatives on the court can let their biases sway them here and there, right, even while attempting to stay within the framework of the Constitution
“Justice Kagan’s participation in the Suncor case is indefensible given her public endorsement of climate-lawfare plaintiff theories,” the letter read.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said Kagan cannot act as a “neutral arbiter” in climate change cases. She said Kagan’s writing in the manual was an endorsement of its ideals.
“Kagan’s implicit judicial endorsement of the manual and her support of climate-lawfare theories are evidence she cannot remain impartial on climate litigation, including the Court’s upcoming Suncor case,” Severino said. “She must recuse herself immediately.”
That, though, is a major problem. If Kagan is pushing climalawfare, for which Suncor is the exact definition of that type of suit, then she should recuse herself.
LOL. Shouldn’t the Justices that Donny nominated recuse themselves from all the Donny related cases?
Neil Gorsuch: Nominated in January 2017.
Brett Kavanaugh: Nominated in July 2018.
Amy Coney Barrett: Nominated in Sep 2020.
Of course, the Justices are to make their decisions based on the law. Justices on the high court are expected to hear Suncor v. Boulder County Commissioners, a case examining whether state and local governments can prevent fossil fuel companies from engaging in global emissions activities that contribute to climate change.
Technically, the U.S. Supreme Court is evaluating whether federal law preempts state-law tort claims seeking damages for injuries caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The states-rights rightists used to side with the states, but that was pre-FAGAtism.
Have any of the justices been tested for their understanding of the science behind warming?
Anyway, the hard-hard right Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Alito will always vote for whatever Donny wants. Barrett and Roberts side with the hard-hard rightists more often than not.
Kavanaugh has a record of questioning EPA authority on Clean Air Act issues. Recuse him?
Roberts, in his dissent in the 2007 landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA — in which the majority held that states could sue EPA for climate harms and that the agency could regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act — Roberts said he would have dismissed the challengers’ claims. Recuse him?
Gorsuch has warned against regulatory overreach by the executive branch, but he has also in other instances adopted a broad reading of federal law that has encouraged proponents of stricter climate rules.