/ YouTube Amy Coney Barrett owns a gun 1603302157.jpg...
/ YouTube

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.”

Liked it? Take a second to support Community last on Patreon!

This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.


  1. Now let’s have some real fun;

    – Ask her how old the earth is?
    – Ask her if she accepts the fact of evolution.
    – Ask her if she would have prevented President Trump from receiving his miracle cure because the monoclonal antibodies resulted from a cell line derived from discarded embryonic tissue used in “Invitro Fertilization” in the 70s.
    – Ask her if she would stop future development of cures for cancer and genetic disorders based on human stem cells derived from discarded embryonic tissue.

    In short, are you going to base your rulings on religious grounds and magical thinking, or fact based scientific grounds? Are you willing to promise America, that you decisions will be fact based, and scientifically sound, or resign?

    We haven’t even spoken about her positions on civil rights, class, or corporation over citizens… any of those positions should be instantly disqualifying. But, we are not a theocracy. Keep Gawd off the SCOTUS.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here