SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett is sworn in on the first day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on October 12, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Edelman-Pool/Getty Images)
Pressed on Climate Views and Ties to Shell Oil, Barrett Once Again Calls Established Climate Science 'Controversial'
"Barrett again followed the standard script of climate denialists, repeatedly attempting to cast climate science as unsettled and a matter of controversy that she could not offer an opinion on."
Oct 21, 2020
In answers to follow-up questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett once again falsely characterized the science behind human-caused climate change as "controversial" and declined to acknowledge the established link between carbon emissions and global warming.
Barrett invoked (pdf) previous Supreme Court decisions describing the climate crisis as a "controversial subject" and a "sensitive political topic" to justify her persistent refusal to answer straightforward questions about the scientific consensus tying human activity to the warming planet, doubling down on the denialist position she staked out during her confirmation hearings last week.
"It would be inappropriate for me, as a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, to opine further on any subject of political controversy," Barrett wrote, an answer she repeated several times with slight variations in response to the Judiciary Committee's follow-up questionnaire, which was made public late Tuesday.
"Because this question raises matters that could be the subject of litigation, it would not be appropriate for me as a sitting judge to opine further," Barrett replied when asked whether "power plants that burn coal emit pollutants into the air when operated."
Throughout the questionnaire, as The Daily Poster's David Sirota and Andrew Perez wrote late Tuesday, "Barrett again followed the standard script of climate denialists, repeatedly attempting to cast climate science as unsettled and a matter of controversy that she could not offer an opinion on."
In the wake of recent reporting by The Daily Poster, Barrett was also pressed on her ties to Shell Oil, where her father worked as an attorney for decades.
Pressed in writing by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Barrett acknowledged that her "father worked at Shell Oil Company for many years, and while on the Seventh Circuit, in an abundance of caution, I have recused myself from cases involving those Shell entities with which he was involved."
When Whitehouse asked whether she would be required to recuse herself from cases involving any other oil companies, Barrett dodged the question, writing: "The question of recusal is a threshold question of law that must be addressed in the context of the facts of each case."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In answers to follow-up questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett once again falsely characterized the science behind human-caused climate change as "controversial" and declined to acknowledge the established link between carbon emissions and global warming.
Barrett invoked (pdf) previous Supreme Court decisions describing the climate crisis as a "controversial subject" and a "sensitive political topic" to justify her persistent refusal to answer straightforward questions about the scientific consensus tying human activity to the warming planet, doubling down on the denialist position she staked out during her confirmation hearings last week.
"It would be inappropriate for me, as a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, to opine further on any subject of political controversy," Barrett wrote, an answer she repeated several times with slight variations in response to the Judiciary Committee's follow-up questionnaire, which was made public late Tuesday.
"Because this question raises matters that could be the subject of litigation, it would not be appropriate for me as a sitting judge to opine further," Barrett replied when asked whether "power plants that burn coal emit pollutants into the air when operated."
Throughout the questionnaire, as The Daily Poster's David Sirota and Andrew Perez wrote late Tuesday, "Barrett again followed the standard script of climate denialists, repeatedly attempting to cast climate science as unsettled and a matter of controversy that she could not offer an opinion on."
In the wake of recent reporting by The Daily Poster, Barrett was also pressed on her ties to Shell Oil, where her father worked as an attorney for decades.
Pressed in writing by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Barrett acknowledged that her "father worked at Shell Oil Company for many years, and while on the Seventh Circuit, in an abundance of caution, I have recused myself from cases involving those Shell entities with which he was involved."
When Whitehouse asked whether she would be required to recuse herself from cases involving any other oil companies, Barrett dodged the question, writing: "The question of recusal is a threshold question of law that must be addressed in the context of the facts of each case."
In answers to follow-up questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett once again falsely characterized the science behind human-caused climate change as "controversial" and declined to acknowledge the established link between carbon emissions and global warming.
Barrett invoked (pdf) previous Supreme Court decisions describing the climate crisis as a "controversial subject" and a "sensitive political topic" to justify her persistent refusal to answer straightforward questions about the scientific consensus tying human activity to the warming planet, doubling down on the denialist position she staked out during her confirmation hearings last week.
"It would be inappropriate for me, as a sitting judge and as a judicial nominee, to opine further on any subject of political controversy," Barrett wrote, an answer she repeated several times with slight variations in response to the Judiciary Committee's follow-up questionnaire, which was made public late Tuesday.
"Because this question raises matters that could be the subject of litigation, it would not be appropriate for me as a sitting judge to opine further," Barrett replied when asked whether "power plants that burn coal emit pollutants into the air when operated."
Throughout the questionnaire, as The Daily Poster's David Sirota and Andrew Perez wrote late Tuesday, "Barrett again followed the standard script of climate denialists, repeatedly attempting to cast climate science as unsettled and a matter of controversy that she could not offer an opinion on."
In the wake of recent reporting by The Daily Poster, Barrett was also pressed on her ties to Shell Oil, where her father worked as an attorney for decades.
Pressed in writing by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Barrett acknowledged that her "father worked at Shell Oil Company for many years, and while on the Seventh Circuit, in an abundance of caution, I have recused myself from cases involving those Shell entities with which he was involved."
When Whitehouse asked whether she would be required to recuse herself from cases involving any other oil companies, Barrett dodged the question, writing: "The question of recusal is a threshold question of law that must be addressed in the context of the facts of each case."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.