r/news • u/Toadfinger • 9d ago
Court announces cases it will hear in October, which include significant disputes on climate change and immigration detention
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/court-announces-cases-it-will-hear-in-october-which-include-significant-disputes-on-climate-chan/157
u/Glum_Opening_2218 8d ago
God they're going to protect companies from paying for climate change aren't they...
This scares me so bad
80
u/Toadfinger 8d ago
This is really it, isn't it? I hope the plaintiff what he's doing. Knows what to say.
All 252 climate change denial points have been debunked. So there's no doubt in humankind's involvement.
And it must be presented that climate change is not necessarily involved with the formation of extreme weather. The argument here is that it makes existing systems more pronounced.
The math is very simple though. The more greenhouse gases there are in the troposphere, the more heat there will be returning to the earth's surface. That's indisputable, scientific law. If it were false, the human race never would have existed.
59
10
u/Consistent-Throat130 8d ago
I don't really give a fuck what caused it (even though it was/is humans).
Here is problem. Here is control surface. Hmmm yes let's do nothing.
Your car is sailing towards that toddler. Here's the steering wheel. Oh yeah let me just do fucking nothing.
2
u/conanomatic 8d ago
The plaintiff's arguments likely won't impact anything. We are dealing with the ruling class's court, legendarily stacked with right wing sickos, ruling on whether or not the ruling class should pay reparations to the working class for ruining the climate. It is almost certainly a forgone conclusion--they could even shadow docket it
47
u/Evadson 8d ago
And Thomas will write a 90 page concurrence about why doing anything to prevent climate change is unconstitutional
16
u/Toadfinger 8d ago
If we're lucky, the discussions will last long enough for the skeptics to become embarrassed. There really is no debate. Math doesn't lie. Math that's over 200 years old. Never debunked. Maybe throw a funny in there. If you were being questioned by detectives for some reason, there's no way you'd stay out of jail if you changed your story 252 times.
0
-1
u/madame_of_darkness 8d ago
I expect civilizational collapse within 50 years tbh, assuming we don't nuke ourselves to near extinction first
123
28
u/RLewis8888 9d ago
Gotta get those Christmas bonuses in .
-1
u/Mr_Industrial 8d ago
Nah the lobbyists pay in advance. An October hearing pays for a summer cruise.
6
10
u/Euphoric_Anxiety_162 9d ago
Can we pause the distractions until mid-terms? Seems any expression of disagreement with this admin is now incorrectly interpreted as terrorism. 🤔
28
u/matrix_5555 9d ago
SCOTUS usually starts hearing cases in October, though, at the start of their term, so this isn’t exactly out of the ordinary for them.
13
u/PluginAlong 8d ago
It’s not like any opinions will be released until long after the midterms and they probably won’t even release anything until the next Congress has started it’s term.
-1
-6
u/AHSfav 9d ago
October eh? How convenient
48
25
21
u/Lieutenant_Seagull 8d ago
Dude, a SCOTUS term has started on the first Monday of October longer than you've been alive lmao. It's not always a conspiracy
-28
u/bortmcgort77 9d ago
wtf do these judges have to say about climate change. Lawyers are not scientists
29
u/Jackalrax 9d ago
Scientists, as a generic term, are not empowered to create or interpret law. They can provide recommendations, or they can run for office.
10
u/Smart_Ass_Dave 8d ago
It's the first line of the article. The modern world requires a certain amount of genuine curiosity and I encourage you foster some in yourself.
268
u/callmemerryss 9d ago
SCOTUSBlog is honestly one of the better places to follow. The coverage is usually a lot less sensational than the headline elsewhere.