19 states file suit in Supreme Court against 5 Dem-ruled states that sued energy companies for billions for "climate change"

In the past year five Democrat-ruled states sued dozens of big energy companies--almost all oil, gas and coal producers--claiming their products are causing "climate change" (actually "global warming" re-named so the warmies win either way).  The Dems demanded that the companies pay billions of dollars in damages.

See, every time there's a tornado or hurricane, or floods, or droughts, the Democrats bleat that it was caused by..."climate change."  Cuz whatever it was, they claim recent versions are more severe than ever.  Or maybe more of them.  Or they caused more financial loss (inevitable since things cost more to rebuild today due to inflation).
 
But in 19 smaller states--almost none ruled by Democrats--a few people took Econ-101 in college, so they knew that any damages the Democrats forced energy company defendants to pay would actually be passed along to consumers.  It's one of those mysterious "laws of economics" that Democrats don't believe.

SO...those 19 states got together and filed a lawsuit seeking to have the lawsuits filed by the five Democrat-ruled states thrown out of court.  

This is significant because the Constitution says that when one state sues another, the Supreme Court is the "court of original jurisdiction."

What that means is that the states don't spend millions slogging thru the liberal-dominated lower federal court system.  The case automatically goes straight to the SC.

WELL!  Liberals and Democrats are wailing, screaming bloody murder!  "How DARE those deplorables file suit against us?!!  The nerve!"

So as you already guessed, shitty leftist outfits like Politico are sneering that the lawsuit by the 19 states just can't be allowed to succeed!

In a motion filed two days ago, 19 Republican states argued to the Supreme Court that the lawsuits by the five Democrat-ruled states —demanding billions from the oil and gas industry— threaten “our basic way of life.”

The states are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.  They've sued California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

The five Democratic-ruled states are blaming energy companies for rising tides, stronger storms and other disasters--all of which they blame on...carbon dioxide.

Wait...I wasn't aware that energy companies sold CO2.

Of course they don't.  Ah, but what they DO sell can be burned--by deplorable consumers-- and that produces CO2, eh?

Ah, now it's all perfectly clear!  People get killed in car crashes?  Sue car makers.  Killed by thugs in drive-by shootings or robberies?  Sue gun makers.  China selling fentanyl to Mexican drug cartels to make billions?  Sue shipping companies.  You get the picture.

The filing is 88 pages, and it's well done.  Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, many of the arguments used are weak, such as "The suit filed by the defendants will cost our citizens more money."  True, but too easily defeated, because residents of every state would pay more for all forms of energy.  Ergo, totally fair, citizen!

Another weak part of the filing is "It's not fair that five states can dictate 'energy policy' for the other 45 states!"  (Or if you're barack obama, for the other 52 states.  See, he said, on live national TV, that there were 57 states.  Brain hiccup, right?  "57" sounds a lot like "50," eh?  Lotsa people confuse those two.  Nah.  He didn't know.)

You're kidding, right?  For decades states with lots of members of congress, like California, have been able to (effectively) dictate national policy on virtually anything.

So...this lawsuit will be decided by how many of the "justices" believe a) that the planet is warming by an unprecedented amount; b) that the amount of warming is dangerous; and c) that most if not all of this alleged warming is caused by CO2.

In other words, the court's ruling can easily go either way, depending on how many of the "justices" believe Media's lies that CO2 is causing global warming.  All the liberals believe that, and it only takes two conservatives to believe it to swing the ruling to favor the Democrats.

Having said that, here's the funny part: Back when Carter was prezzy the demand for natural gas (the stuff that burns in your stove) in the U.S. exceeded the supply.  Part of the reason was that the Democrats--always bleating that they're so eager to look out fo' duh' common pipo, eh?--had rammed thru a LAW capping the amount producers could charge for gas at three dollars per "mcf."  (For Democrats and young Americans, an "mcf" is 1000 cubic feet.)

This price ceiling (cap) was so close to the cost of producing (finding) gas that lots of investors decided they'd make more money putting their money into other fields.  With investors no longer interested in backing risky drilling, energy companies were hamstrung, and cut back on exploration.  And since production from existing fields always declines, cutting back on drilling soon resulted in demand exceeding supply.

Stay with me here, cuz we're about to the climax.

Faced with a shortage of natural gas, Democrats in congress passed a LAW stating that energy-producing states could NOT decrease shipments of their oil and gas to other states, even if that resulted in their own residents not being able to heat their homes or drive their cars.

Shitty Democrat-ruled states like Maryland, that produce no energy at ALL, sued energy-rich state like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas demanding that those states be forced by law to continue to supply oil and gas to Maryland (and other Dem states) even if the producing state's own residents couldn't get energy.

And guess what?  The then-majority-liberal Supreme Court upheld those lawsuits, citing the "commerce clause" of the Constitution.  For young Americans, who have never been taught a single thing about our Constitution, that clause says congress has the sole power to "regulate interstate commerce."  The SC simply re-defined "regulate" as meaning the government could force one state to sell anything the government wanted to other states.

What that means is, the claim that "Those Dem-ruled states trying to set national energy policy aren't being fair!" has already been rejected by the court.  Which means they can do it again without a second thought.

The court's liberals will try every argument to get the court to reject this latest lawsuit without hearing it.  Wait...if the Constitution says the SC is the "court of original jurisdiction" for lawsuits between states, how can the court refuse to hear this lawsuit?

Yeah, well...just as the court refused to hear the lawsuit filed by Texas against Pennsylvania after the 2020 election, charging massive election fraud.  The SC's refusal to hear the case was in an unsigned two-paragraph statement that didn't cite a single word of legal reasoning. 

Still think this is a nation of laws?  The justices were afraid to anger the Left.

It only takes two "conservative" justices siding with the liberals to swing a 6-3 ruling to 5-4 the opposite way.  And each justice's vote will be driven NOT by science--like most Americans, most of the judges don't know the most basic principles of science.  Hell, biden's faaabulous black female choice for the court said she could not define "woman," since had she based it on biology it would have angered the Left, and had she claimed a "woman" was "Whutevah a pyrsyn claims to be" most Americans would have realized she was too far goofy to be on the court.

So...I can't predict which way the court will rule.  As in far too many cases it will depend on how many justices--who don't know any more than you do about science--buy the liberal lies about global warming.

Excuse me: "Climate change."
====

Source:

Footnote: Constitution, Article 3, section 2:

In all Cases...in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.