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
alabama
US Supreme Court Seeks Biden Admin Opinion on Climate Suits Against Big Oil
Republican attorneys general are engaged in what one critic called "an obvious attempt to shield fossil fuel companies from facing accountability for their climate lies."
Oct 08, 2024
In yet another recent display of what's at stake in this year's U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday requested that the Biden administration weigh in on a case intended to thwart climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.
The justices invited U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar—an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden who represents the federal government in court—to file a brief "expressing the views of the United States" regarding Alabama v. California.
In May, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and 18 of his Republican colleagues launched their bid to block lawsuits that several Democrat-led states including California have brought against energy giants for deceiving the public while fueling the global climate emergency. Multiple U.S. municipalities have filed similar suits against Big Oil.
Although justices have rejected the oil and gas industry's efforts to shift those suits from state to federal court, six of them are right-wingers with a record of anti-environment rulings. A spokesperson for Marshall toldReuters that the new request of Prelogar is "an encouraging sign that the justices are taking seriously the complaint of 19 states."
"Communities deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable."
Meanwhile, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), took aim at the Alabama-led case, saying in a statement that "this meritless, politically driven request is an obvious attempt to shield fossil fuel companies from facing accountability for their climate lies and the monumental damage they're causing."
"It should be a no-brainer for the solicitor general to oppose this petition and for the Supreme Court to reject it," he added. "Communities deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable."
Wiles responded similarly in June, when the Supreme Court asked Prelogar to weigh in on a case brought by the City and County of Honolulu.
Alyssa Johl, CCI's vice president of legal and general counsel, said at the time that "lawsuits like Honolulu's are not seeking to solve climate change or regulate emissions—these plaintiffs simply want Big Oil to stop lying and pay their fair share of the damages they knowingly caused. The solicitor general should make clear that federal laws do not preempt the ability of communities to hold companies accountable for their deceptive claims under state law."
Reuters pointed out Monday that Prelogar has not yet filed a brief in that case, but has some history with these suits:
The Democratic-led states have noted that the Supreme Court has previously rejected bids by oil companies to move several such lawsuits to federal court, after numerous U.S. appeals courts said the claims are not preempted by federal law.
Prelogar had weighed in on that issue as well and had successfully urged the justices to reject the oil companies' appeals.
Although it's not yet clear where the Biden administration will come down on either of these cases—and the U.S. Department of Justice has infamously fought a climate suit that youth plaintiffs filed against the federal government—the high court's move comes less than a month away from a presidential election in which the fossil fuel-driven global emergency is a divisive issue.
The Republican nominee, former Republican President Donald Trump, has pledged to roll back the Biden administration's insufficient yet historic progress on climate policy if the fossil fuel industry pours $1 billion into his campaign.
His Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, is facing some criticism for watering down her previous climate policies but also had broad support from green groups, including some that had declined to endorse Biden before he dropped out and endorsed her in July.
Some climate campaigners and survivors of extreme weather events hope that Harris' election in November will lead to the Department of Justice launching a criminal case against fossil fuel companies, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called for in May after conducting a three-year congressional investigation.
Harris is "the perfect person to prosecute the case against Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn wrote in a Common Dreams opinion piece this summer. As California's attorney general, she "went after ConocoPhillips (the company behind the Willow Project in Alaska) for air quality violations at their gas stations and prosecuted a pipeline company for a 2015 spill in Santa Barbara. Before that, as San Francisco district attorney, she set up the city's first environmental justice division."
While many names have been floated as Harris' potential pick for attorney general, some climate advocates have recently urged her to pick Raskin to lead the Department of Justice. As progressive organizer Aaron Regunberg wrote for The New Republic in August, "Who better to ensure the DOJ stops bowing to fossil fuel industry pressure than the head of the House Oversight Committee's push to hold Big Oil accountable?"
Regardless of which cases are filed and how far they go, concerns remain about conflicts of interests in the courts, particularly at the highest level of the federal judiciary.
Justice Samuel Alito "has recused himself from Honolulu and other climate accountability cases—likely because of his investments in oil companies," CCI highlighted on social media Monday. "But today he did not recuse himself from the request from 19 Republican AGs to block lawsuits against Big Oil."
"Justice Amy Coney Barrett has also faced calls to recuse herself from cases against Big Oil because her father was a top attorney for Shell for 29 years," the group added. "But she has not."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Even a Good President With a Gun Won’t Save Us
VP Harris’ recent political messaging about guns has been less about curbing them and more about how she and her running mate Tim Walz possess them. But that won’t prevent mass shootings.
Sep 25, 2024
It’s happened far more times than I care to remember. Waking up super early on Sunday morning to write my weekend column, I flip on the TV and there’s some dark and fuzzy video of multiple police cars, flashing blue and red outside some urban nightclub or restaurant, as the anchors solemnly report that while we were sleeping, there was yet another mass shooting in America.
But this Sunday morning, the news cut a little differently.
The rapid machine-gun-like fire had lit up a crowded street in Birmingham, Alabama, the city where I lived and worked as a young journalist in the early 1980s. CNN zoomed in with a map, and my heart sank because I instantly knew the exact area where four people were murdered and another 17 were injured, some seriously.
If a mass shooting happens in the dead of a Saturday night and America has forgotten about it by the time Sunday’s 1:00 pm NFL games kick off, did it make a sound?
The shooter, or possibly more than one shooter, fired more than 100 rounds at a packed sidewalk in the Birmingham entertainment district known as Five Points South, a few blocks from the University of Alabama-Birmingham campus. My fading 20-something memories of the place are fond ones—meeting journalist pals for a beer on the Deep South’s brutally humid summer nights, nodding along with the ever-present Alabama or Auburn fans, even drinking my first-ever Long Island iced tea (and, thankfully, one of my last) from a Mason jar.
Some 40 years later, it took just a few seconds for a shooter with a legal semi-automatic and, police believe, a “switch” that turned it into a machine gun, to shatter any happy recollections of the place, and the lives of the people there just out for a fun Saturday night.
“All of a sudden it was just gunshots, gunshots, gunshots,” 24-year-old Gabriel Eslami, who was on the line for the Hush hookah bar, told CNN. “I started running for my life”—but he was struck by a bullet in the leg and fell to the ground. When he looked up, the scene felt like a “horror movie... There are bodies laid out all over the sidewalk, gun smoke in the air. There are shoes. People ran out of their shoes trying to escape. I saw people hiding behind cars, laying under cars.”
It may have sounded like the climax of a gory Hollywood movie, but in 2024 news cycle, the Birmingham mass shooting was something of a blip. NPR did lead its Monday afternoon newscast with the story, but The New York Times buried its print article on pageA14. In an age of school shootings and presidential assassination attempts, bursts of gunfire on crowded city streets are getting shorter and shorter shrift. This was, after all, the third quadruple murder in Birmingham this year, including one outside a public library. Didn’t hear about that? Me neither.
And yet like any mass shooting in the only developed nation that routinely has them, the Birmingham incident raised some serious questions about policy. Why has the gun-loving red state of Alabama not banned these switches, given their potential for mass carnage? Why has Birmingham seen its murder rate increase in 2024, even as crime is mostly falling nationally? Are we truly helpless to get high-powered assault weapons—subject to an imperfect but highly effective federal ban from 1994-2004—off the streets of America’s cities?
If a mass shooting happens in the dead of a Saturday night and America has forgotten about it by the time Sunday’s 1:00 pm NFL games kick off, did it make a sound?
Where is the sense of outrage from the Democratic ticket and the media that I felt when I saw that somebody used an assault rifle to carry out an act of terrorism in Birmingham?
One place where the bullets didn’t seem to have much impact was in the presidential race, where guns have been an issue, but not always in the ways one might expect. To be sure, the Democrats are the party that believes government can do something to reduce gun violence. I was there in Chicago’s United Center in August when the loved ones of gunfire victims gave poignant pleas to Democrats, and the party has vowed to again to ban assault rifles and enact common-sense gun laws—in the highly unlikely event it can get around a GOP Senate filibuster. Republican nominee Donald Trump brags that when he was president,“nothing happened” to stop mass killings.
The Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, didn’t release a statement about the Birmingham shooting. Maybe there’s just too many mass shootings in America, or maybe it would be different if Alabama were a swing state. But also, Harris’ recent political messaging about guns has been less about curbing them and more about how she and her running mate Tim Walz possess them.
Harris again confirmed last week to Oprah Winfrey that she owns a gun for her personal protection from her prosecutor days, telling the TV icon that “if somebody’s breaking into my house, they’re getting shot.” First, if someone’s breaking into the vice president’s home, then the Secret Service is in worse shape than we thought. Second, multiple studies have shown that people with guns in their home are more likely to get shot than those who do not, so I’m not sure why Harris encourages that choice. Her campaign then released an online spot that kicked off with highlighting her gun ownership before saying all the right things, including support for an assault-weapons ban.
It’s Politics 101, right? Harris didn’t have to run in any primaries and woo left-wing Democrats as she did for a time in 2019, but now she hopes her affirmation of gun ownership will win over middle-of-the-road undecideds in the general election. Except where is the sense of outrage from the Democratic ticket and the media that I felt when I saw that somebody used an assault rifle to carry out an act of terrorism in Birmingham? Because that outrage is necessary to convince the public that we need some radical changes if people are going to feel safe again going out on a Saturday night, or putting our kids on a school bus.
A good president with a gun wouldn’t have stopped a mass killing in Birmingham. A good president with a moral crusade and a plan just might stop the next one.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Thought It Was a Joke': Bullets Now For Sale in Vending Machines in 3 GOP-Led States
"In a country awash in guns and ammo, where guns are the leading cause of deaths for kids, we don't need to further normalize the sale and promotion of these products," an expert said.
Jul 10, 2024
A Texas-based company has developed vending machines that sell bullets and installed them at a handful of grocery stores in Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama, with plans for expansion into other states, according to news reports this week.
The machines, produced by American Rounds, based in the Dallas area, use artificial intelligence to verify the age of buyers, who must be 21 to purchase the shotgun, rifle, and handgun bullets on offer.
There are few federal regulations on the sale of ammunition, and only a small number of states have their own tougher laws.
The vending machines are "likely to stoke controversy," Newsweekreported, while Gizmodocalled their spread a "questionable new trend." Social media users wrote that the idea of vending machines for bullets was "insane", "horrible," and "beyond sick."
"In some states, you can now walk into a grocery store and buy bullets from a vending machine as if you were ordering a candy bar or a soda," Gizmodo reported, though it explained that the process was "slightly more rigorous... than buying a Twix."
Nick Suplina, senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, expressed concern about the accessibility of the ammunition.
"In a country awash in guns and ammo, where guns are the leading cause of deaths for kids, we don't need to further normalize the sale and promotion of these products," Suplina toldThe Associated Press.
Milk, eggs and now bullets for sale in handful of US grocery stores with ammo vending machines https://t.co/wX5tGY7HM3
— Liz Szabo (@LizSzabo) July 10, 2024
The introduction of the vending machine comes as gun-control advocates increase their efforts to defeat the gun lobby. There were more than 500 shootings nationwide over the 4th of July weekend, according to Moms Demand Action.
Though Walmart, a major ammunition retailer, has put some restrictions on sales in the last ten years, thanks to public pressure that followed mass shootings, bullets remain widely available in the U.S.
"In most of the country it's harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy ammunition," according toThe Trace, which characterized federal law on ammunition sales as "next to nonexistent."
There were once stricter federal laws in place on ammunition sales but they were undone when Congress passed pro-gun legislation backed by the National Rifle Association in 1986.
One of the new vending machines was the source of controversy in Tuscaloosa, Alabama last week.
"I got some calls about ammunition being sold in grocery stores, vending machines," Tuscaloosa Councilor Kip Tyner said during a city council meeting on July 2, according toABC 33/40. "I mean, I thought it was a lie. I thought it was a joke, but it's not."
The vending machine in question was removed from a Fresh Value supermarket in Tuscaloosa the next day. The store manager said that the machine was removed due to lack of sales.
The American Rounds machines can currently be found at four locations in Oklahoma, one in Alabama, and one in Texas. The company has plans to install a machine in Buena Vista, Colorado, and already has more than 200 installation requests from stores in nine states, CEO Grant Magers told Newsweek. "And that number is growing daily," he said.
American Rounds' website says that "the future of ammo sales is here."
In Alabama you can purchase ammo from vending machines
The machines in Fresh Value stores in Tuscaloosa and Pell City use facial recognition for age and ID verification to streamline the process of purchasing firearm ammo. #2A
Developed by @americanrounds pic.twitter.com/xmzEAFSpCF
— Steve Gruber (@stevegrubershow) July 6, 2024
There are no limits to how much ammunition a customer can buy, other than the machine running out of stock, Newsweek reported. American Rounds is targeting small towns where ammunition might not be readily available. The machines are always set up inside of stores, Magers said.
The process of making the purchase, including the use of facial recognition software to check against the ID being used, can take one minute and a half, Magers told the AP.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular