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."
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 are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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."