
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Justices appear unconvinced of oil companies’ bid to quash climate suits
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:28 pm
these lawsuits could cripple the economy
Justices appear unconvinced of oil companies’ bid to quash climate suits
Several Supreme Court Justices appeared skeptical Monday of a request from oil companies to preemptively block a climate change lawsuit that could hold them liable for climate damages.
Many of the justices raised questions about the court’s ability to even take up the case at this time.
“A number of the discussions that you’ve had with my colleagues make me think that we’re really early in this case – that this is sort of premature from the standpoint of this court exercising its jurisdiction,” liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Suncor Energy lawyer Kannon Shanmugam.
.
While Jackson’s skepticism is not necessarily a surprise, several of her conservative colleagues, namely Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, also asked tough questions of the fossil fuel firm.
Suncor, alongside ExxonMobil, has asked the high court to toss a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed a suit to proceed. The suit alleged that the energy companies misled the public about their products’ relationship to climate change and created a public nuisance.
The case could have implications for similar litigation around the nation, as states and localities have sued oil and other fossil fuel companies seeking compensation for damages they’ve suffered because of climate change.
The court could rule one of three ways: The justices could expressly block the case or expressly allow it to proceed, or they could rule that they don’t have jurisdiction at this point, which could allow the case to move forward, but could see the issue back at the high court at a later date.
Either of the latter two outcomes could be at least a partial win for the localities, as they would be able to move ahead with their case — at least in the short term.
LINK
Justices appear unconvinced of oil companies’ bid to quash climate suits
Several Supreme Court Justices appeared skeptical Monday of a request from oil companies to preemptively block a climate change lawsuit that could hold them liable for climate damages.
Many of the justices raised questions about the court’s ability to even take up the case at this time.
“A number of the discussions that you’ve had with my colleagues make me think that we’re really early in this case – that this is sort of premature from the standpoint of this court exercising its jurisdiction,” liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Suncor Energy lawyer Kannon Shanmugam.
.
While Jackson’s skepticism is not necessarily a surprise, several of her conservative colleagues, namely Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch, also asked tough questions of the fossil fuel firm.
Suncor, alongside ExxonMobil, has asked the high court to toss a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that allowed a suit to proceed. The suit alleged that the energy companies misled the public about their products’ relationship to climate change and created a public nuisance.
The case could have implications for similar litigation around the nation, as states and localities have sued oil and other fossil fuel companies seeking compensation for damages they’ve suffered because of climate change.
The court could rule one of three ways: The justices could expressly block the case or expressly allow it to proceed, or they could rule that they don’t have jurisdiction at this point, which could allow the case to move forward, but could see the issue back at the high court at a later date.
Either of the latter two outcomes could be at least a partial win for the localities, as they would be able to move ahead with their case — at least in the short term.
LINK
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:35 pm to djmed
Too much to quote.
How is any of this remotely provable?
How is any of this remotely provable?
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:36 pm to djmed
People been taking about this tactic for years.
And also talking about the consequences of this tactic for years.
Now we here.
Seems like the endgame is the nationalization of the non-state owned / state controlled supermajors of the world consisting of:
And also talking about the consequences of this tactic for years.
Now we here.
Seems like the endgame is the nationalization of the non-state owned / state controlled supermajors of the world consisting of:
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:37 pm to djmed
quote:
Either of the latter two outcomes could be at least a partial win for the localities, as they would be able to move ahead with their case — at least in the short term.
and if these suits are allowed, these companies need to countersue these political subdivisions for every penny of revenues they have received from those companies (including their predecessors) for permitting, taxes (including fuel taxes, inventory taxes, income taxes, etc.)
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:43 pm to djmed
And the muh gas idiots can't wait to vote for the party thats actively attempting to sue oil companies out of existence.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:51 pm to Tigersforthee
Producers could argue they weren’t the ones adding CO2 to the atmosphere, rather all of the end users. So the suits would be directed to John Q Public.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:57 pm to djmed
I listens to the argument yesterday and I did not get that impression. Second I would not use Jackson as an example of what the court was likely going to do. One of the concerns expressed by the justices was about the proliferation of lawsuits that would be filed should this case be allowed to continue.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 2:58 pm to djmed
How do you sue someone over what you perceive as good or bad weather and natural weather related events?
Posted on 10/6/26 at 3:12 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Gas about to up in price
Do you EV?
Posted on 10/6/26 at 3:15 pm to djmed
They want to blame the guns for gun violence and now they want to blame the oil companies for climate change? How do you tell a liberal they are idiots, pretty much self explanatory.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 3:16 pm to Stat M Repairman
quote:
Seems like the endgame is the nationalization of the non-state owned / state controlled supermajors
Since I work for a major will I eventually be a govt employee? Cause I've worked long enough to get the benefits of being a long term company employee. Now I can start working on that government employee retirement system.
I'd rather things stay the way they are, FYI, but if we're going full commie, THEY only need my service till I am useless to them.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 3:20 pm to keks tadpole
quote:
How is any of this remotely provable?
Time to break out the old tried and true "trust the science" claims.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 3:25 pm to djmed
quote:
misled the public about their products’ relationship to climate change and created a public nuisance
So we're just litigating based on stuff that isn't even close to proven now.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 3:27 pm to djmed
Is the lawsuit going after oil companies because of the pollution created by refineries? (they follow all federal government regulations)
If so, the federal government would share culpability.
Or blaming the oil companies for pollution created by everything that uses crude oil products for fuel/energy??
Either way, this is a ridiculous law suit.
If so, the federal government would share culpability.
Or blaming the oil companies for pollution created by everything that uses crude oil products for fuel/energy??
Either way, this is a ridiculous law suit.
This post was edited on 10/6/26 at 3:29 pm

Popular
Back to top
10













