So, a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States Of America didn’t bother to read what she was advocating? Is this an attempt to keep from being recused, as Skeptics want to happen?
Kagan says she didn’t read disputed climate chapter she endorsed
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is distancing herself from a climate science reference for judges that is making waves in an upcoming case.
Conservative groups have called for a probe of whether Kagan — a member of the high court’s liberal wing — violated ethics rules by not stepping back from a legal fight by local governments trying to get the oil industry to pay up for the impacts of climate change. The high-stakes legal battle has the potential to cost energy producers billions of dollars.
During a congressional hearing Tuesday on the Supreme Court’s budget, Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Kagan about the controversy.
It stems from the foreword the Kagan wrote to a judicial reference manual that contained a chapter on climate science. That chapter has since been withdrawn.
“I hadn’t read the chapter in question prior to that time. Actually, I still haven’t read it,” Kagan said.
Yet, she wrote the forward? Does anyone believe this? Or, did the climate cultists just write it for her with her approval?
Steve Milloy, who signed the letter, said Tuesday that he didn’t accept the explanation Kagan gave to Collins.
“I’m a lawyer, she’s a lawyer, and as a lawyer, you don’t get to sign and endorse things you don’t know anything about,” said Milloy, a former Trump transition adviser who disputes consensus climate science.
He said he didn’t know whether Roberts should step back from the climate case, given his role in the Federal Judicial Center, and noted that Kagan was the one who gave her blessing to the climate chapter.
She knows what it was about, and has long endorsed lawfare, including climalaware.
The Left in this country feel that morals, ethics and laws are N/A to themselves. All that matters is how things “feel” for them.
Does the Right in this country abide by morals, ethics and laws???? Really???
Are MAGAts really that blind?
Looks like another usual pissy day for the Rimjob.
Ellwood, the question is this.
Should a judge be involved with a case in which she/he has endorsed one side?
Jaames,
Did she endorse one side in this case?
Here’s the foreward…
“We live in an era of science and technology, with legal controversies reflecting that fact. In the coming years, judges will confront lawsuits relating, for example, to artificial intelligence, climate science, and epidemiology. Even disputes not about science may involve statistical, survey, or other technical evidence of novel kinds. Enter this manual.”
Rational persons understand that CO2 is causing global warming. Denying this is akin to denying the theory of evolution.
But the legal question is not a scientific one. The question before the court in this case is whether federal environmental control supersedes states’ rights. The truth is that MAGAts want Kagan recused because she may favor environmental regulation.
Ass. Justice Alito owns oil company stock. Should he recuse himself?
Here’s a case summary:
“The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear Suncor Energy v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. In this landmark case, major energy companies are attempting to dismiss state-law tort claims seeking billions in damages for climate-related harms. A ruling will determine whether such local climate-damage suits can proceed or are federally preempted.”
Rational persons understand that CO2 is causing global warming. Denying this is akin to denying the theory of evolution.
Rimjob’s “rational” argument is that the “science” is settled.
Rational persons understand that science is never settled. Science is a process not a conclusion. There are no proofs.
Evidence supports the hypothesis that CO2 is largely responsible for the current warming period.
Funny how the toddler backs away from his original hysterically stupid comment.
Bwaha! Lolgfy Loser!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!
Shouldn’t Elena Kagan have the right to petition Congress for more security to protect her children from vile protestors and shit…
Oh wait…What?
Never mind.
And justice Jackson issued an AI written opinion instead of her own work. That’s what you get with DEI selected justices.
We see the perfesser inadvertently forgot to offer any evidence to support his claim.
And then the perfesser adds his own racist and/or sexist slur.
Repubicuns prefer nominating sexual deviants (Thomas and Kavanaugh).
And Rimjob never uses racist and/or sexist slurs.
Never!
Bwaha! Lolgfy Loser!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!
“Science is never settled..” And yet, the warmunists use that term all the time. Strange.
“Evidence supports..” Evidence that is simply a correlation. Evidence also supports a lessening of cloud cover as the cause for the warming.
Deniers deny the evidence. Correlation is evidence! But it’s not the only evidence, is it? We guess you can say that it’s “only” a correlation that CO2 absords infrared wavelengths. Or that the stratosphere is cooling (less infrared leaving Earth). Or that nights are warming more rapidly than days.
The concept that a scientific issue is “settled” is based on the idea of beyond a reasonabe doubt. Is it settled science that tobacco causes cancer? Dr Rush Limbaugh said no, since not every smoker gets cancer. But most rational people choose not to smoke.
Clouds may also play a role! Why is cloud cover changing? You likely recall that Roy Spencer proposed that changes in cosmic rays reaching Earth could be influencing cloud cover.
Clouds significantly influence climate change by acting as both a natural sunscreen and a heat-trapping blanket, with their net effect depending on their altitude and type. Recent satellite data shows that overall global cloud cover is shrinking and rising to higher altitudes, a feedback loop that traps more heat and accelerates global warming.
Look up “positive feedback loop”.
Rimjob repeating his talking points of the last 10 years.
Still full of shit.
Nope-Actually deniers deny that there’s any cause- effect evidence, which there is not. A recent new paper out-Schnell et al 2026, did an experiment accessing radiative vs convective heat transfer( what a concept! An actual experiment. Warmunists, take note). A 400x increase in CO2 produced a temp rise of 0.1C, basically negligible. Convection totally out-weighed radiative effects. The experiment tried Argon, a non-ghg, producing the same effects as CO2.
You must mean: https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol.6.1-09_Schnell-Harde.pdf
as reported in the No Tricks Zone.
Mr Schnell publishes his work most often in the journal Science of Climate Change (founded 2021) which publishes much of the studies from global warming deniers (e.g., Legates, Soon et al).
Climate deniers feel there’s a global conspiracy keeping climate deniers from publishing in respected journals.
For every “study” like Schell’s there are 99 confirming the current theory.
“As reported in NTZ”. Gee thanks, , but that neither confirms nor denies what was in the paper. And where he publishes has no bearing on the validity of the paper, either. A classic case of going after the messenger because one can’t go after the message.
“Climate deniers feel there’s a global conspiracy….”. Really? Where have you ever seen that mentioned on these pages?
And, what’s being “denied”? “There are 99 confirming the current theory..”. Again, irrelevant, because it only takes one
Whether or not she read it has no bearing on the matter. If it looks like she has openly supported one side or the other of an argument she should not offer an opinion. That should be the standard operating procedure for qualified supreme court justices. To do otherwise calls yourself and your opinions into question.