The Climate Change hoax may be primed to take a severe blow from the Supreme Court of the United States of America and their heady usurpations over the free people, and it comes at a perfect time because the crazy Joe Biden administration just handed over our sovereignty to the United Nations.
The SCOTUS news comes exactly as Americans find out that Democrats had devised a scheme with the help of the Global Marxists to control us by the changes in the weather.
CNN reported on the utopian dream come true for the Climate Marxists that could get trashed if the SCOTUS acts in our best interest:
“Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu on Wednesday won a historic vote at the United Nations that calls on the world’s highest court to establish for the first time the obligations countries have to address the climate crisis — and the consequences if they don’t.
Vanuatu has long faced the disproportionate impacts of rising seas and intensifying storms. And in 2021, it launched its call for the UN International Court of Justice to provide an “advisory opinion” on the legal responsibility of governments to fight the climate crisis, arguing that climate change has become a human rights issue for Pacific Islanders.
Although the advisory opinion will be non-binding, it will carry significant weight and authority and could inform climate negotiations as well as future climate lawsuits around the world. It could also strengthen the position of climate-vulnerable countries in international negotiations
Wednesday’s resolution for an advisory opinion passed by majority, backed by more than 130 countries. Two of the world’s largest climate polluters, the US and China, did not express support, but did not object meaning the measure passed by consensus.
This is the first time the highest international court is called on to address the climate crisis. The landmark decision is “essential,” UN Secretary General António Guterres said in his remarks to the assembly. “Climate justice is both a moral imperative and a prerequisite for effective global climate action.
“Today we have witnessed a win for climate justice of epic proportions,” said Ishmael Kalsakau, prime minister of Vanuatu, soon after the resolution was adopted. “The very fact that a small Pacific island nation like Vanuatu was able to successfully spearhead such a transformative outcome speaks to the incredible support from all corners of the globe.”
In an opinion piece for Fox News, Boyden Gray — who served as counsel to the vice president in the Reagan administration and as White House counsel to President George H.W. Bush — detailed how federal courts are struggling to agree on whether climate change lawsuits are governed by state or federal law, meaning the Supreme Court will likely decide for them.
“For over a century, the Supreme Court has held that lawsuits over air (and water) pollution that crosses state lines must be decided under federal law. This means overreaching states and cities cannot impose their environmental agendas on their neighbors or otherwise hijack the domain of federal environmental law, federal regulations, and international treaties,” Gray wrote.
“The Supreme Court unanimously extended this principle in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (AEP). That case, decided in 2011, involved federal-law claims by eight states, New York City, and others to compel certain power companies to abate their greenhouse-gas emissions. In an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court concluded that applying federal law was appropriate, then agreed with the Obama administration that those claims couldn’t proceed in court at all because Congress has delegated the regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act,” he added.
Martin Walsh, who reported for Conservative Brief about the situation, wrote: “Gray went on to note two other cases where progressive states and cities are now launching lawsuits demanding billions of dollars for damages allegedly related to past, present, and future climate change.
However, now they are attempting to cite state law to get around the point made by the late-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
Gray wrote:
The 2nd Circuit in 2021 dismissed such claims outright in City of New York v. Chevron Corp. There, New York City sued a handful of energy companies under state law for damages allegedly caused by climate change. The court concluded that “over a century” of Supreme Court precedent makes clear that federal law necessarily applies to lawsuits relating to air pollution that crosses state lines, which includes greenhouse-gas emissions. Following AEP, the Second Circuit dismissed the case.
That 2nd Circuit decision creates a split with the 1st, 4th and 10th Circuits, which have held that state law may apply to climate change lawsuits. Further complicating matters, a second split has developed after plaintiffs began bringing these state claims in state court, where they think the judges will be more sympathetic. Decisions in the 2nd, 5th and 11th Circuits support allowing the defendants to move such cases to federal court, but the 3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits disagree.
Three of these cases are now before the Supreme Court—the 3rd Circuit’s decision in Delaware v. BP America Inc., the 9th Circuit’s decision in Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo County and the 10th Circuit’s decision in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. The energy companies in each case have asked the court to intervene and resolve both splits, reaffirming that climate change lawsuits are inherently governed by federal law and therefore belong in federal court.
The Supreme Court has the ability to deliver a crushing blow this term to liberals and those who are trying to exploit laws in order to “stick it” to big companies in the name of “climate change,” Gray warned.
