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....

@#2

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

:)

@#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.

                                                  :)

@#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?