Pirate's Cove

Now, why would U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar want them there, especially when Los Federales keep trying to say that the federal government has the authority to impost climate crisis (scam) policies on the nation? Todd Rokita, the Attorney General of Indiana, and a Republican, has an idea

Why Did The U.S. Solicitor General Flip-Flop on Climate Change?

In a case called Suncor Energy Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar recently told the Supreme Court that climate-change cases should be heard not in federal courts, but in deep-blue, progressive state courts.

Calling this proposal politically opportunistic would be an understatement.

Sixteen states disagree, as we have made known through a brief filed by my office. Federal law should govern this and similar cases, according to legal precedent.

My office always stands for the rule of law and fights for it in the courtroom. This case is no different, as it represents a sharp departure from the Justice Department’s longstanding view that global climate change is a federal issue that belongs in federal court.

Well, of course Democrats want them in far-left courts and areas with lots of far left climate cultists, there’s a much better chance of winning, even if the law is not on their side. That way, policies will be enacted (do the peasant class Warmists realize they will harm their lives?) and allowed to stand for years as the cases go up the legal food chain, till they end up in federal court, and potentially the Supreme Court.

The jurisdictional issue may seem mundane, but the stakes are high.

At a time when energy costs already burden hardworking families, environmental activists insist on banning cost-efficient, safe energy production practices. Unable to push their environmental agenda through Congress, they have turned to a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against energy companies in state courts across the country alleging that state and local governments suffer harm from climate change.

The central claims of these cases are that fossil fuel extraction imposes net harm on the world, leading to climate change, and that energy production and promotion are a “public nuisance” for which energy companies must pay.

Federal courts would undoubtedly reject these claims, which is why activists are fighting to keep their claims in front of their favorite state courts.

Yup. And I still maintain that the fossil fuels companies should refuse to sell their products to any entities that are suing them. Of course, perhaps they want to argue in court that, if fossil fuels are so Evil, then why is the government, or group, that’s suing them using fossil fuels themselves?

So, in 2022, when the Supreme Court asked the Office of the Solicitor General if lawsuits seeking damages for climate change implicate state or federal issues, and whether they should proceed in state or federal court, the answer should have been simple. But the solicitor general instead said these cases should proceed in state court.

This flip-flop lacks credible explanation.

Here, the solicitor general seems to be acting for special interests and attempting to fix President Joe Biden’s failure to achieve the climate change outcomes he promised.

Again, the point here is to win and implement, and hope that once implemented no court will kill it.