Justice Coney Barrett appears to be a climate change denier

10 comments on “Justice Coney Barrett appears to be a climate change denier ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Andre 1

   28 October 2020 at 7:41 am

   But, but, … her e-mails…

   Yes, the fact that Handmaid Barrett appears to be a denier will be an obstacle and handbrake on transition away from dino energy in the US. It means that legislative actions will have to be much more carefully constructed and limited in scope to survive the inevitable attempts to overturn them using a reactionary judiciary.

   In the longer run, electrifying everything will still happen. Because for most applications electricity works better, and it's going to be cheaper. The Supreme Court can certainly put the brakes on legislative attempts to speed that transition, but they can't stop technological progress and they can't win against physics and economics.

   edit: this piece about military efforts to transition away from dino-juice is just one illustration of why it will happen eventually. It’s just a matter of how quickly. And how much accumulated emissions and their effects we will all have to deal with.

   https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/26/opinions/climate-change-pentagon-flournoy/index.html
2. aj 2

   28 October 2020 at 8:36 am

   
   The Supreme Court now contains a justice who was unable to name the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. What could possibly go wrong?
   • Spectator 2.1

     28 October 2020 at 3:15 pm

     Hi AJ

     The American Bar Association disgarees with you. The ABA rated ACB as "well qualified" for the role, giving her the highest possible rating.

     And if Mother Jones want to go after ACB's experience, I'd have to wonder where they were when Justice Elena Kagan was nominated by President Barack Obama with no experience as a sitting judge prior to her confirmation (https://theweek.com/articles/494505/elena-kagan-does-matter-never-been-judge).

     [lprent: You made a statement in response to a criticism about the judges understanding on first amendment freedoms that I cannot substantiate. The ABA said she was well qualified, but I can’t see anywhere that they mentioned well qualified about the first amendment? Perhaps you’d like to substantiate what they said that about her first amendment knowledge rather than simply making it up.

     Interesting that you picked a link to an article that doesn’t even mention first amendment. What exactly does that have to do with the reply to the previous comment? Are you simply astroturfing an irrelevant link?

     FFS: Don’t be a dimwit – if you want to respond to a comment, then at the very least respond to what written in the comment by another person rather than talking about something completely different. Admittedly aj put up some kind of poster. But he stupidly didn’t write about that.

     Please Respond to what people actually say. Don’t get baited into responding to artwork. Otherwise I start looking at removing the ability to put up images in comments. ]
     • aj 2.1.1

       28 October 2020 at 6:27 pm

       I understand and apologise. I don't wish to ruin the image insert capability for those who have very good reason for it's use.
3. Andre 3

   28 October 2020 at 8:40 am

   The piece below discusses one of the tools that Handmaid Barrett might attempt use to obstruct climate action – reviving the long-defunct "non-delegation" doctrine. This is the idea that Congress can't just give a federal agency a goal and let the agency work out how to achieve it, but that Congress must instead give detailed instructions on how to act.

   Of course, this runs up against the notions of an imperial presidency the Repugs have been so enthusiastic about in the last few years and indeed, the Repug platform this year was (almost) literally 'whatever Emperor Palputin wants'. But Repugs haven't recently shown any difficulty with situational ethics and interpretation, so this incompatibility shouldn't be an obstacle.

   https://grist.org/politics/this-hidden-doctrine-could-stymie-climate-action-under-the-new-supreme-court-with-amy-coney-barrett/
   • RedBaronCV 3.1

     28 October 2020 at 2:21 pm

     I saw those articles – there has been several of them. All interesting. I also wondered if the Dems would be able to rearrange the various appeal court circuits so they covered different states and therefore basically could gerrymander the judge pool to some extent. There was a passing note about increasing the number of the circuits – interested to see that the number of supreme court judges equalled the number of circuits at one point. But I know very little about the system. I can't see the Dems having the luxury of doing nothing though about the situation though – if only because they need to support voting rights.
4. joe90 4

   28 October 2020 at 1:39 pm

   She's a real charmer.

   But according to the data, Barrett is more of a right-wing radical than either of these mediocre white men. And it’s not just abortion rights. Barrett has displayed the most far-right ideology in the areas of civil rights, criminal rights and discrimination suits. So when Wooten appealed to the Seventh Circuit, Coney and her unqualified justices reached an astonishing conclusion:

   Terrell Day didn’t have the right to breathe.

   The court accepted every fact of the case but determined that Wooten shouldn’t even stand trial. They essentially ruled that Wooten was immune from the consequences of his actions because “the only right [Day] can assert would be the right of an out-of-breath arrestee to not have his hands cuffed behind his back after he complains of difficulty breathing.” However, the judges woefully admitted that they could “find no Seventh Circuit precedent clearly establishing such a right.”

   They wrote that down on paper.

   One of Shanika Day’s attorneys called it a “radical departure” from prior cases while co-counsel Faith Alvarez said the ruling put the burden of proof “on the person who’s dying. It’s no longer on the police to be trained.”

   The Unknown Amy Barrett

   This is not even the tip of the Amy Coney Barrett iceberg.

   She has also written that being called a “stupid-ass nigger” by one’s work supervisor doesn’t necessarily constitute a hostile work environment. She also voted to deny employees of Autozone a rehearing after her colleagues ruled that the auto parts giant didn’t violate the civil rights of its Black employees by forcing them to work exclusively in Black neighborhoods. She wrote that gun rights are as important as voting rights.

   In a campus sexual assault appeals case, she literally argued against believing women. In a separate decision, a woman won a lawsuit after she sued for being “repeatedly raped by a prison guard.” A circuit court ruled that the prison shared responsibility for the sexual assaults.

   Amy Comey Barrett voted to overturn it.

   In a unanimous decision, Amy and the Conservative Court Jesters decided that the prison and the county could not be held liable because the numerous rapes “fell outside of the guard’s official duties” and “were in no way actuated by a purpose to serve [the] county.”

   There’s probably some other stuff too.

   The problem is, we don’t know how much stuff.

   https://www.theroot.com/unqualified-impunity-amy-coney-barrett-once-ruled-that-1845429637
5. WeTheBleeple 5

   28 October 2020 at 3:20 pm

   Thanks for putting in some good news with the bad. Well done and appreciated. Go China and Japan. Be something you can really be proud of.

   Amy?

   Apparently, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. So, who are we, mere mortals, to question the intricacies of her his designs.
6. millsy 6

   28 October 2020 at 4:33 pm

   The demonstrators in the above images remind me of turkeys voting for Christmas. Enjoy being able to have a bank account in your own name while you can ladies.
   • halfcrown 6.1

     28 October 2020 at 4:53 pm

     " Enjoy being able to have a bank account in your own name while you can ladies."

     I like that millsy and as the author, Margeret Atwood said when asked if the Republic of Gilead could happen, her answer was something like and I can't remember the exact words " America at the moment is a perfect storm" I agree with that statement with all those rightwing religious nut bars with armed to the teeth vigilantes going around the streets with the blessing of those two major cretins Trump and Pence and the Republican Party.

     I never recommend books as we all have different tastes. However, I feel as a work of fiction (at this stage) it is one of those books, we should all read,

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS