Big Oil Runs to Trump’s Supreme Court to Escape Climate Lawsuits

big oil thinks it should not have to answer for climate change in the courtroom. Why? Well, because climate change is too big and too complicated and too global. But if local communities can't sue, and the federal government is doing, shall I say, jack shit, that's a scientific term, who exactly is supposed to pick up the tab to help answer that question and get inside the dark, dark, cobwebby mind of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. I am joined by the great Katie Fang. It is great to see you my friend. It's like a compliment, I guess, if I am able to get into the dark, dark mind, I feel like we're some pateco, you know, you're a seer. You can see I'm like, what is that? The eye of Sauron. It's a Sauron, right? The eye is the eye of Sauron, Katie Fang. It's a new intro. We're, we're dropping it. Thank you. Katie, this is a big, this is a big case. This is a big deal. This is this is far reaching applications. Boulder, we die, but Boulder, V, Exxon, mobile suncore. Is it Boulder, V, Suncore? I think it's Suncore. Yeah. Yeah. Exxon, Exxon took the back seat on this one. Yeah, even though they're thinking we'll just put a pin in that. Suncore energy makes it sound so friendly and user nice, like neighborly suncore energy has nothing to do with the sun. They're trying to kill us, which they've been trying to kill us for a long time. So talk to me about what exactly Boulder is trying to do in this case, vis-a-vis the oil and gas industry. Not surprised it's Boulder, Colorado, beautiful state. A lot of people like to be outdoors and climate change is real folks, no matter what this Trump regime wants to tell you and no matter what fossil fuels wants to tell you, climate change is real. And for those of us that understand it's real, people in Boulder, city and state where like, hey, look, we're going to sue Suncore energy and we're going to sue Exxon because we believe akin to as Justice Elena Kagan noted during oral arguments on Monday, this is akin to big tobacco. This is akin to the opioid crisis. These companies know it should have known better that what they're doing is perpetrating harms on people. And when it comes to climate change, fossil fuels, big oil, your DNA and fingerprints are all over this. This is a slam dunk lawn or an episode if there ever was one. There is no big question of the who done it. You can just close your eyes and throw a dart and hit them all. But in particular, these two companies are specifically being sued. And so what happened was this was a state lawsuit. This was not brought in federal court, Boulder sued, the state sued, they're like, hey, look, man, you're, you're impacting us. And the state court was like, we agree. This was not before big oil tried to remove it to federal court because they think federal court's going to be friendlier for them, but it didn't happen. And ultimately the Colorado Supreme Court said, we actually believe that this lawsuit can proceed because the plaintiffs have standing. You have the ability to get inside the door to the court. Of course, big oil loses and like the Trump administration often does because footnote, the Trump administration changed its tune for what the Biden administration did on this. The Biden administration was incredibly supportive of what Boulder was trying to do. So the Trump administration, as it is want to do with the Supreme Court, ran to hide behind mommy skirts and said, help me save me. And so being a oil win fair and the Supreme Court said, we'll take you and we'll hang out with you. Now, the most remarkable thing here, Alex, is that Justice Samuel Alito actually recused himself. Okay, wait, I want to get into that. I have a special place in my dark heart for sorry for Samuel Alito. And I do want to talk about how and why the Justice recused himself. Okay, we'll get into that in a second. So I'll just finish in the end oral arguments happen on Monday. Boulder says we should sue. You should respect the Supreme Court's decision from the state of Colorado that we have standing to sue. Big oil said federal law preamps these types of state law lawsuit. You can't do this. You can't bring it in state court. Why? Because federal law say that if there's air pollution or water pollution, that it has to be dealt with on a federal level. Now, I want to make sure that this is emphasized and underscored, Alex, because it doesn't speak to the ultimate outcome of the case really, but it does. Because if you don't have standing and you can't sue, then you can't be able to continue to fight this fight. And so with the arguments that were made, again, I want to bring up Justice Kagan because she said, hey, you know, big tobacco when these opioid lawsuits, they started the same way. They started in this way of having these huge impacts. So how can you say to the big oil lawyers that these states can't do this or these cities can't pursue this? And of course, people like Kavanaugh and others are like, well, you'd have this floodgate of litigation. Well, I mean, gosh, for a bit, if that happens, I guess I just have to keep on defending yourself, big oil. So that's kind of like with the gist of where we find ourselves after the oral arguments. What's interesting about this case is in the context of big tobacco and the settlements and the lawsuits there or pharmaceutical companies and the opioid epidemic. This is the first time you're really seeing a state or a city in this case. You know, explain the harm that climate change has done in a visceral way that really buttresses the argument that they have standing to sue over this. These are just some of the highlights of what's been happening to the city of Boulder in terms of climate change and how it's been disastrous for both residents and the city and state economy. People living in Fremont County are dealing with more damage after another round of flash flooding hit yesterday. This big area near the lower browns canyon is just entirely covered in logs now. Look at this. Feels like Boulder County's been living underneath this weather dome. They haven't got the rain that Denver has gotten in other areas over the month of August and September. The acreage, it has spread. We're at about 1275 acres and then 0% containment. Colorado's face roadblocks getting federal funding before the state's last two requests for aid were denied. We're the White House and FEMA damage estimates for the Lee and elk fires and flooding in Southwest Colorado didn't meet the threshold for a disaster declaration. Okay, so when you talk about why the state is suing, why the city is suing, that's the evidence, right? That's how they have standing. The climate is changing for the worse and having disastrous effects on local economies to say nothing of the state economy. Yeah, and folks, that's not AI, what you're seeing, right? That's very real. And for the people in Colorado and frankly across the world, they're experiencing this globally. But in Colorado, the gist of the lawsuit, Alex's, why should we have to bear disproportionately the cost and expense of having to fix all of the stuff that is the damages that are being caused by you, big oil, knowingly promoting your use of and your damage to our climate that is creating the wildfires, the flooding, the droughts, all of this bad stuff lie squarely at the feet of the climate change that is caused by big oil fossil fuels. And that is why boulders like we shouldn't have to do it. And then did you hear in one of these news pieces, the Trump administration's like, tough, you're on your own. Yeah. If the Trump administration would actually carry its burden financially, then maybe this lawsuit wouldn't happen. But I got to tell you, this is why it's such a huge lawsuit to watch because you're right, Justice Kavanaugh, this could open the flood gates to other litigation. But again, why is that bad? You know, like, but if you say, this is wrong, you're going to find wrong doing everywhere. Yeah, duh. That's the point. Uh, yeah. And here's the other thing. You're so quick to kick stuff back like abortion and say, it's up to the states. Well, then yeah, you get a patchwork quilt of results when it comes to things like abortion, a laws. Well, maybe you get some patchwork piecemeal litigation on this. I don't really know what I do care is you and I both have children. Alex, I want to make sure that our kids live in a safe world. And if there's legal standing to be had for litigation to ensue to hold people responsible like big companies, like big huge corporations, then they should have to bear the cost of it. You talk about the kind of like end run around this is Kavanaugh saying, this is a federal issue, not a state's state issue, which is like the most garbage and version of every other argument they've made where it's like, Oh, kick it back to the states when it benefits conservatives, but make it a federal issue when it benefits conservatives in this case. This is Kavanaugh actually speaking from the bench, talking about how this is really a state's issue of that federal issue. Milwaukee one Milwaukee two, um, well, let an AEP, which as I read them together, make crystal clear that interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law and less Congress specifically preserves state law. That is through and through those four cases. So I maybe there's a flaw in that. And actually, there is one wrinkle I'm going to raise, but you tell me why you're just there's no flaw in that. I call bullshit. Like I, and they know when these justices know, on abortion, they'll kick it back to the to Congress because they know Congress isn't going to do shit. When things benefit them politically, they will defer to whatever body is most advantageous. So like in this case, they know the federal government's not going to do anything on holding gas and oil accountable for climate change. And so that's why they're deferring to the federal government. Is that is that what's happening here? Yeah. And in two different ways, doesn't this kind of remind you this argument that came from Kavanaugh? Doesn't it kind of remind you of when Donald Trump was like, I'm going to put up some shield between Canada and the United States. So the smoke can't come from Canada into the unlike you dumb ass. That's not how stuff works, right? Like it's not like climate change only happens in this one little area of the world, or this one little part of your state. Like it is, everywhere, and can I be the first to say, well, Ms. Fang, that's my point, right? It's kind of interstate, you know, air and water pollution. Look, buddy, to your point, Alex, you know, these Supreme Court justices love to hide behind these monarchers or these labels, like I'm a strict construction. Yeah, right. Textualist. And I believe, but what and we think that that, you know, a group of three, it's almost like they call them a covenant at this point, right? You know, Sonia Soetomaior and Alayna Kegit and Katangi Brown Jackson, they're like, they're, they're being activists. You know, the most activist judges on this Supreme Court are the conservative just because they will have an end and they will get there one way or another and they will find something to get them there versus trying to be incredibly puritan about how these things should be decided. It is the biggest, most laughable thing about the Supreme Court in that it states right now. Those Supreme Court justices are the most activist justices, the conservative ones that we've had on the bench. Yeah, I mean, it's like really, it's very creative to try and make this a federal issue. When literally this Supreme Court said that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, this is Justice Gorsuch who's actually pointing out the conundrum of the entire conservative position. What does the Clean Air Act do to alter that? Yes, because as I understand, EPA has disclaimed the power to regulate greenhouse gases not just from motor vehicles, but more recently from stationary sources too. So this, what does the Clean Air Act change anything? If a federal government says it doesn't have the authority to regulate this and states can't sue over it, then who actually can? The answer is no one, right? Yeah, so who gets insulated from liability? Because this is all about the money, right? So who gets insulated? Big oil. And who benefits from it? Donald Trump. I mean, it is. And big oil. It's Rico. This is a racketeering in real time happening in front of you. This is a conspiracy and there are overt acts and furtherance of this conspiracy that's happening. And I don't say this in jest, right? It's actually really sad, Alex. This is the total example of how we as Americans and as people are getting screwed because it's the Supreme Court working in a conspiracy with the Trump administration to be able to work with feckless Republicans in Congress that have decided that impotence is the way to go these days and who gets hurt? We do. Our children get hurt. Our future environments get hurt. All of that gets hurt. Why? Because there's a select group of people that want to make money. There has to be consequences. And look, if SCOTUS wants to punt this to Congress, then we need to vote into office people in Congress that are going to do better and are going to do right by us. Pots of America breaking news is brought to you by Zippercrooter. Let's be honest, Zippercrooter is everywhere. Why? Because top talent is everywhere too. Just like you, your ideal candidates are tuning into business sports and podcasts just like this one. When these candidates hear all these ads, it increases the chances that them going to Zippercrooter and responding to your job posts. So ultimately, you meet them sooner. Of course, you can't meet them unless you go to zippercrooter.com/cricod to try it for free. Once you post your job, Zippercrooter's matching technology finds top talent quickly. And Zippercrooter has a new feature that shows you the most interested, qualified candidates first, so you meet them faster. No wonder four out of five employers who post on Zippercrooter get a quality candidate within the first day. But you've got to go to zippercrooter.com/cricod to post your job for free. Again, that zippercrooter.com/cricod. Oh, and if you forget where to go, don't worry. You'll hear another zippercrooter ad soon enough. So we're assuming the conservative majority is ruling in favor of big oil and gas. I mean, like given their track record, but there's only eight of them, right? So that changes the data. Then you talk about the most goblin of the goblins, Samuel Alito. It's a tough title. Goblin asked conservative on the court. Most goblin asked Samuel Alito has recused himself from this case because he is an investor in oil and gas companies. And I believe was flying around on the private jet of an investor in one of the companies that's named in the suit, which is, you know, par for the course with these conservative justices. Can we talk about Clarence sitting go? It was a fishing trip, actually. It was a luxury fishing trip. So why do Clarence go? Because you know, Clarence likes to go fishing. He loves a free ride on someone else's dime. Melissa Murray, friend of the pod, host of strict scrutiny on this network, had a theory. Alito stepped aside right after the justices met together for a long weekend. This is what she says. Maybe this was an opportunity where in the Hurley Burley of the courts operations, Justice Alito may have gotten a little glimpse of where his colleagues might be on certain issues. And maybe he felt like, you know what? They don't need me. There are already five votes for big oil here. So why don't I throw these harpy lips a little ethical bone? Could that be? Is that basically Alito was like, oh, it's cool. The rich guys, the corporations, they're going to be safe here. I don't need to be a part of this. And I can recuse myself and make it look like I at least notionally give a shit about Supreme Court ethics. I love that conspiracy theory that is being posited by the amazing Melissa Murray. But I will say that I don't agree per se to imbue or to impart to Samuel Alito any type of ethical wherewithal to do the right thing. I think this man is so far compromised. And I also think to your point, the most goblin-esque of the goblins, he is soulless, right? And so he is the most, even he does listen, he actually leaves Clarence Thomas in his dust. He's the most unapologetic asshole dickhead of all of the justices. And that's Alito. And so because of that, I think he legit, because listen, he's recuse himself from some other big oil type of cases and oral arguments. So I do think he was consistent, but I never want to feel like we're giving these people credit because I don't think they've earned it. You think Roberts made him step down? No, I don't think Roberts controls them. He's another one of the most ineffective impotent chief justices we've had. I don't think he controls them at all. I don't think he had anything to do with it. I just think, look, could you pull out, could you eat out a five to three on this one? Yeah, because folks, if you don't get a majority on this, if you stay at four four, then the Colorado Supreme Court decision to allow Boulder to move forward with this lawsuit in state court, it goes forward. So this could be the potential death now if it ends up being a five, three decision against or four big oil and against Boulder. But I don't think Alito actually gave it that much ethical consideration. You get no point, Samuel Alito. No, before we go, as we speak of Samuel Alito, I just, you know, like I said, I reserve a special place in my heart for the indignation and range, I feel for him. He's on a book tour this week, which is like so great. I don't want to say the name of the book either. Like I'm not going to do that. You should buy my book if you want to find out about the court. Amen. But he's out there abitching about the treatment that he and his fellow conservative justices have received. And like this galled me here, he is drawing an equivalence between what President Biden said about the court, which as far as I can tell is a handful of instances where he suggested the court had acted beyond its mandate or imbued the presidency with powers that it here to for had not had, which is actually true. He's comparing President Biden's treatment and criticism of the court to President Trump's treatment and criticism of the court, which includes calling Katangi Brown Jackson a low IQ person, saying that the judges are destroying the country, etc. Here he is speaking to CBS. It's been a great change in what presidents have said about the court when they are unhappy about their decisions. Did Trump change that? It's been bipartisan. I mean, the language that we're hearing from President Trump is different, certainly with social media. He has his own way of saying things. I mean, I want to be even handed on this. The criticism of the court by President Biden and justices by President Biden and his administration was very harsh. What? Wait, so can I Monday, morning, quarterback and be a little petty? Why are there not concrete examples by that reporter, or that correspondent from CBS asking him, are you going to compare that to this? Because that's where I think is the perfect time to sit there and kind of fact check even a Supreme Court justice. Because these are not an apples to apples comparison. It's an Ellison-owned network, Katie. This is the whole point. Did you see, well, I know you watched the entire interview. It was the most gratuitously asking thing I have seen him walking the baseball diamond that he played baseball on as a child, him showing his baseball collection in chambers, showing his father's immigration record. Hey, let's talk about immigration and the fact. Right. Right. Let's do your dad get a cab and I'll stop when he was walking around the street to do his thing. I get shot and have to sit there and ride and pain on the street or maybe on a cold floor and a detention concentration camp. I don't think so, Justice Alito. I mean, these are the things where you're like, what's the point other than to give him a space and a platform to pimp out his book, right? I mean, that's always doing. Well, and to draw false equivalents between the outrageous, near death threats that are being issued by this president against justice on the high court and the like, I get side comments, like, gentle criticism that was issued two or three times by the previous Democratic president, it's an insight into Alito's twisted worldview, where grievance is the name of the game, and like the sense of personal harm and the wrongdoing against this high court justice is so profound that he must spend his career rectifying and owning the lives. And that is by definition an activist judge is it not, yes, by definition. This man thinks that the Constitution has been under attack by previous decisions, previous laws. So he is as an activist judge is going to fix and write those wrongs. Look, in that same interview, he bimmed the fact that he lost friends over dobs, a decision that he said during this interview, he doesn't regret writing. He said it was a privilege to write dobs. That is what that man thinks about life, right? That's what that man thinks about life, as in lives of mothers, lives of women. He don't care if they're dead. He only cares about whether or not he took away the power and the ability and the autonomy for that woman to decide what she was going to do. So again, it kind of goes back and buttresses my argument. I don't think this guy has an ethical, you know, I don't think it weighs on him. I just think he was like, yeah, I'll just be consistent with what I did before. No original is tea. Samuel Alito, activist judge, on a book tour now, a book that is nominally about his theories of originalism, but really is a chance to sell books, put some money in his pocket and maybe so he doesn't have to be as reliant on his right wing super funders, although, yeah, whatever. Save that one for a rainy day, Katie Fang, you are the greatest. Thank you for joining me. No, you are the goat. Podcast media, journalism, corresponded, New York Times best selling author. Listen, as your, as your Asian mom, I'll be your eight, I'm very proud of you as an Asian mom. You're far too young, far too youthful to be my mom, but I'll take the shameless plug for my career. Likewise, lawyer, podcaster, the great Katie Fang. If you are not subscribed to both of our podcasts, what are you doing? This is. You're missing out. Hit click. Two noisy Asian women sitting there and writing all the wrong. I'm gonna be right in the wrongs of the world. That's where Alex and content streams never end. Katie, thank you for taking the time to help me unpack the goblin courts latest moves. I love you. I'll see you soon. Same. [BLANK_AUDIO]