Energy Companies Win Katrina Greenhouse-Gas Suit After Eight Federal Judges' Recusals

NOLA.com:

So many members of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have recused themselves from a rehearing of a lawsuit that charges energy companies with contributing to the effects of Hurricane Katrina by emitting greenhouse gases that the court cannot conduct the rehearing.

The result is a victory for the roughly 30 energy companies being sued...

Read the whole story: NOLA.com

Comments

[ebanks84]

02:14 PM on 06/04/2010

There has never been justice in America for the average peon because big business has always been covered by the laws in one respect or another.

This is an eye opener and should make us aware of just how shaded our legal system and justice system really is. Money protects money. Liars protect liars. Thieves protect thieves when it comes to the rich and famous.

I've always believed that being a lawyer was the biggest "lying" job in history because we are paying them to do just that, especially when we KNOW who the criminal really is.

[Publicola]

10:59 AM on 06/03/2010

rightwing927: "your claim that warmer oceans produces storms of higher intensity is outright false."

Per top US hurricane experts your claim is outright false.

From "Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change" - Nature Geoscience, Feb. 2010:

"Future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100."

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/knutson-et-al-nat-geo.pdf

[Publicola]

11:00 AM on 06/03/2010

That should read: "...with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100."

[urturn]

02:59 PM on 06/02/2010

Well, I suppose that "Lady Justice" can take the blindfold now. So many Justices connected that the energy companies won by default.

At least those Justices recused themselves, but SC Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself fom the Monsanto case; a firm he once worked for. A ruling in this case, about the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops, is expected this month or next.

[DocSkull]

03:16 PM on 06/02/2010

He doesn't recuse himself from ruling on rightwing issues which is wife is a paid to advocate.

[edva]

02:26 PM on 06/02/2010

The Roberts court their only hope? Then they have no hope.

[rightwing927]

01:23 PM on 06/02/2010

This is quite possibly the most pointless lawsuit ever filed. The plaintiffs and all their lawyers should be jailed for wasting the courts' time.

[DocSkull]

01:55 PM on 06/02/2010

Why is it a pointless lawsuit? Seeking redress in the courts is a right, not a crime.

[julieintx]

02:19 PM on 06/02/2010

There is no way to prove that the 30 energy companies were responsible for Katrina. None. We have the rule of law in this country, and we shouldn't punish anyone legally without proof.

[fcsakes]

01:20 PM on 06/02/2010

Do you see your future before you oh regular, average, tax-paying, hard-working, citizen?

Remember that old saying about a pot to pi*s in and a window to throw it out of? Well you don't have either and never will. The supremes will make sure of it.

[motoGpifupleez]

01:29 PM on 06/02/2010

The ultimate joke is that the American citizens were warned by people like Ralph Nader yet they chose to join in the chorus mocking him.
Americans have no one to blame but themselves for their predicament.
Remember, you voted for this situation.

[fcsakes]

01:37 PM on 06/02/2010

Nope - never voted for the bushie/cheney cabal, never voted for the drooler raygun, never voted for one stinking republican shill. And THAT'S who's responsible for this predicament.

Though I admit, some Democrats are catching up fast - they will be identified and rooted out.

[motoGpifupleez]

01:00 PM on 06/02/2010

The plaintiffs might as well surrender. If you are looking for justice when confronted with corporate crimes, you're not going to find it from the SCotUS.

They will continue to rear the rewards of those campaign contributions for decades to come.

[SolarPowerGuy]

12:51 PM on 06/02/2010

"Supreme Court Is Only Hope For Plaintiffs In Global Warming Case"

Well, we all know how well THAT is going to work out.

[Travis bdboy]

12:48 PM on 06/02/2010

So the energy company wins again....this will be the format for BP too...stall it in the courts....they will pay not a penny and be going strong after the heat is off them

[lobear00]

12:18 PM on 06/02/2010

The Roberts supreme court only rules in favor of the "Government " or the Corporations " the court does not rule in favor of people . The court is "Corrupt".

[magibrotherhood]

12:32 PM on 06/02/2010

yes it is

[Jonas Grumby]

11:58 AM on 06/02/2010

I think they should also name prehistoric zoo plankton and algae as co-conspirators in the case. It might lend to their credibility a bit and besides it's time somebody really took it to big plankton for all the trouble they've caused.

[DocSkull]

12:09 PM on 06/02/2010

Even if you could sue elements of nature, organic creatures don't give off more carbon than they take in. Humans produce it by taking fossil fuels from underground and releasing it into the atmosphere by burning it. We can manage production of greenhouse gases if we chose to do so.

[Jonas Grumby]

12:56 PM on 06/02/2010

Your right we could manage the production of greenhouse gases if we chose to, but it would need to be done without causing current fuel sources to skyrocket in price.

The best way to get rid of fossil fuels is to come up with a better fuel source. This will not be done by manging the production of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels or making them more expensive to use.

Sorry but it's a ridiculous premise that an oil company is in any way responsible for Katrina.

[Stretchumall]

11:39 AM on 06/02/2010

Force americans to go to international courts for redress. Then claim that they are not Americans and that they H8 America.
Public opinion is everything and the corporate MSM is in control of public opinion.

[daultman463]

12:42 PM on 06/02/2010

Do what?? International courts?? I bet you would like to make us use international courts to get what you think would be justice.What a stupid lawsuit this was in the first place.Common sense won out in the end on this my friend.

[DocSkull]

12:48 PM on 06/02/2010

What common sense was applied? The case couldn't be heard because too many judges had to recuse themselves.

[Stretchumall]

02:30 PM on 06/02/2010

"I bet you would like to make us use international courts to get what you think would be justice."

I want our justices to be free from having to Recuse Themselfs from cases because they have a conflict of interest in dealing with Multi-National corporations, ie; Hold Stock, Sit on Boards, etc.. Is this too much to ask? I think Not.

[ALRIGHTALREADY]

10:51 AM on 06/02/2010

you know who is really upset,,,,, The lawyers !!!!

[mdsman]

10:39 AM on 06/02/2010

sue 6 billion people for breathing

[DocSkull]

11:05 AM on 06/02/2010

Humans are carbon neutral giving off no more than they take in.

[GH]

11:29 AM on 06/02/2010

What? Now think - "giving off no more WHAT than they take in?" What do we breath in, and what do we breath out more of?

If you can't work thru that one, then try taping a big plastic bag over your head and find out how long the available oxygen lasts.

[mdsman]

11:32 AM on 06/02/2010

Ah, I see you must be from Spain, Senor Dumas

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

10:27 AM on 06/02/2010

The plaintiffs should have also named themselves in the suit as consumers driving the demand for the products. This case was a scam from the start. Glad it's over. SCOTUS will probably have the same issue with recusals. This thing is dead, thank God. What a rotten bag of hypocrisy.

[DocSkull]

11:05 AM on 06/02/2010

So you can't sue anyone who has sold you something?

[Bienville]

06:03 PM on 06/03/2010

How do you know the plaintiffs are consumers of oil or energy products?

And, if they are and are found to be partially responsible for the increased hurricane force, wouldn't the proper way of addressing that be reduction of the award (if any) proportionally?