Thursday, March 13, 2025

Supreme Court Rebukes 19 Republican Attorneys General

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a lawsuit from 19 Republican-led states seeking to block climate change lawsuits filed against the oil and gas industry by Democratic-led states.

Posted by LampLighter at 11:33 PM | 12 COMMENTS | permalink

More

BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Republican states' bid to kill Democrat climate change accountability cases. A group of 19 Republican attorneys general had asked the high court to block Democratic states like California from suing oil companies for climate change damages.

[image or embed]

-- The Vigilant (@thevigilant.bsky.social) March 10, 2025 at 1:16 PM

Comments

More from the article ...

... The justices declined to hear the unusual Republican effort to challenge Democratic states for using their own
courts to sue fossil fuel companies over allegations of misleading the public about the environmental risks of their products.

Why It Matters

While the Supreme Court typically handles appeals, the Constitution allows it to hear original lawsuits between states.

What To Know

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas arguing the court lacks discretion to reject the case at this stage, though his dissent did not address the lawsuit's merits.

Led by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, the Republican complaint claimed that Democratic states are attempting to dictate national energy policy, which could lead to increased energy costs nationwide.

Newsweek called Marshall's office on Monday morning for comment.

The Supreme Court has also declined to intervene in separate appeals from energy companies seeking to challenge these lawsuits.

The lawsuits, filed by dozens of state and local governments, accuse fossil fuel companies of concealing the true impact of their products on climate change, citing damages from extreme weather events, wildfires, and rising sea levels. The Republican-led legal action specifically targeted lawsuits from California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island....


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-10 09:30 PM

---- off MAGAT scum

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-03-10 09:40 PM

@#2

See... there, the target of your ad hominem attack is quite obvious.

:)

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-10 10:10 PM

Well, yes.

#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-03-13 11:53 PM

@#4 ... Well, yes. ...

:)

But, my preference might be for more actual letters and fewer ------ in your comments.

But that is just my preference. So have at me here if you want.


                                                  :)

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-14 01:28 AM

LAMP

A very wise professor once told my class in English Lit that a constant use of profanity was an indication of a poor vocabulary.

I've used that as a guidepost in conversations ever since.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-03-14 01:56 AM

@#6 ... A very wise professor once told my class in English Lit that a constant use of profanity was an indication of a poor vocabulary. ...

I do not disagree.

But I also hold the view that those with, as you say, a poor vocabulary, are quite entitled to express their opinions however they want.

And that is a main reason why I read, and as I find apropos, respond to all the comments here. Regardless of the language used to express those comments.

To understand what people are telling you, you have to listen to those people.


(that, btw, was taught to me on the General Electric Manage Training Program, back before Jack Welch seemed to have destroyed that company. But, that's a different thread).

OK, all that aside, the alias that prompted this discussion, yeah, my guess is that it is quite capable of a conversation without the ---. But it decides to be more emphatic.

And yeah, I often find that alias' comments to be quite astute.

So maybe, "a vocabulary" is not needed to state one's views?



#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-14 02:13 AM

LAMP

"So maybe, "a vocabulary" is not needed to state one's views?"

I don't share that view, personally. It's just too unsophisticated. There are better ways than putting one's ignorance on display.

#8 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-03-14 03:15 AM

Surprise! Alito and Thomas dissented. Why are they still there accepting bribes right out in the open every day?

#9 | Posted by danni at 2025-03-14 08:00 AM

States Rights, States Rights, States Rights... unless they are them stupid librulsricuns whining about clean air or water! Real Amricuns don't beed no clean air or water; you can buy clean water at Walmart! Maybe they'll have clean air too soon?

#10 | Posted by danni at 2025-03-14 10:41 AM

Is the Supreme Court finally coming to its senses?

Don't let them fool you. It's probably just a smoke screen for the next disastrous worse ever ruling.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-03-14 12:45 PM

DONNERBOY is correct. It's their cover against a claim of partisanship while they intend to deliver the final killer vote that ends democracy.

And don't gloat over Trump's losses. He's trying to get as many cases before the Supreme Court as he can to get those lower court cases reversed . . . thus carving them in stone.

#12 | Posted by Twinpac at 2025-03-15 03:27 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Lisa Murkowski: 'We Are All Afraid' of Retaliation (97 comments)

Senator Blocked from Visiting Abrego Garcia in El Salvador (81 comments)

Americans Are Now Split on Whether Russia Is an Enemy (47 comments)

Mass Shooting at Florida State University (44 comments)

National Day of Action (36 comments)

SCOTUS Takes Challenge to Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order (33 comments)

Trump Seeks Criminal Prosecution of NY Attorney General (26 comments)

JD Vance has Bizarre and Incorrect take on How the Iraq War Started (23 comments)

Another US Citizen Incarcerated for No Reason (23 comments)

Trump Is Exactly the Tyrant the Founders Warned About (20 comments)