Certain issues get all the press when it comes to the Supreme Court: abortion, voting rights, gun rights, a few others, right? But, you shouldn’t forget about other things that can have huge implications on all our lives, like climate cultists attempting to sue to get their way
US Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in Climate Damages Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Cos.
The city of Baltimore filed suit against ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for climate change related damages two years ago. To date, multiple federal circuit courts have returned this and other climate damages and fraud cases to the state courts where they were filed. The Supreme Court decided today to take up an appeal on a narrow procedural issue, allowing the defendants to further delay proceedings on the issue of severe and rapidly accelerating climate impacts raised in the case.
Below is a statement by Kathy Mulvey, accountability campaign director in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a procedural motion related to a lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore seeking to hold oil and gas companies accountable for the climate change harms their products have caused. As early as the 1960s, companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron knew their products were destructive yet knowingly deceived the public to inflate their profits and keep us hooked on fossil fuels. We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court will reject this transparent attempt by Big Oil to delay the inevitable: justice for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis in a court of law.â€
So, a press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (who are not concerned enough to forgo their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral. A lot wouldn’t be able to do their jobs without fossil fuels), hoping that SCOTUS will do something to bone Big Oil, which could end up hurting the people in Baltimore, if those companies decide to no longer operate in the city. But, hey, they have their “justice for communities on the front lines” talking points down, right?
(Reuters) The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by energy companies including BP PLC, Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp and Royal Dutch Shell PLC contesting a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore seeking damages for the impact of global climate change.
The justices will weigh whether the lawsuit must be heard in state court as the city would prefer or in federal court, which corporate defendants generally view as a more favorable venue. The suit targets 21 U.S. and foreign energy companies that extract, produce, distribute or sell fossil fuels.
The outcome could affect around a dozen similar lawsuits by U.S. states, cities and counties including Rhode Island and New York City seeking to hold such companies liable for the impact of climate change. (snip)
The Supreme Court in 2019 declined the companies’ emergency request to put the Baltimore litigation on hold after a federal judge ruled that the case should be heard in state court. In March, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s decision.
The question is a good one: does the suit belong in federal court, as some of these companies are international, and the others are nationwide, or state court? Regardless, if the liberals control the Supreme Court they will rule in favor of all these crazy climate lawsuits, creating legislation from the bench. And one can never trust John Roberts, hence, having Amy Coney Barrett confirmed quickly is important, as the Warmists are increasing their use of lawfare.
Read: Another Quiet Reason We Need ACB On The Supreme Court: Crazy Climate Lawsuits »
The city of Baltimore filed suit against ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for climate change related damages two years ago. To date, multiple federal circuit courts have returned this and other climate damages and fraud cases to the state courts where they were filed. The Supreme Court decided today to take up an appeal on a narrow procedural issue, allowing the defendants to further delay proceedings on the issue of severe and rapidly accelerating climate impacts raised in the case.
PRESIDENT TRUMP has joined the ranks of millions of Americans whoÂ
Anna Mohr-Almeida was only 8 years old when she first experienced a feeling of existential dread. By the time she was 10, the phrase “climate change” had become a regular part of her vocabulary. By 14, she had started an environmental nonprofit, marched at climate rallies across Phoenix and beyond, and testified at an Environmental Protection Agency hearing.
What difference will it make in the law and in people’s lives to replace liberal United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum, Judge Amy Coney Barrett?

The legislation also allows employers to import many nurses and doctors to work in lower-wage staffing companies, even though many American nurses, doctors, and medical experts have been laid off during the coronavirus crash, even though many Americans are training to become healthcare workers.
A federal judge on Wednesday warned the State Board of Elections that recent changes to requirements for absentee mail-in voting in North Carolina do not have his approval.
The scientists compared the rises in daytime and night-time temperatures over the 35 years up to 2017. Global heating is increasing both, but they found that over more than half of the world’s land there was a difference of at least 0.25C between the day and night rises.
American cyclist Quinn Simmons was suspended by the Trek-Segafredo team on Thursday after posting antagonistic comments on social media in support of President Donald Trump.

