Greta Thunberg mocks Amy Coney Barrett and compares her to flat-earthers

 Judge Barrett has declined to say that climate change is real, calling it instead a ‘a very contentious matter of public debate’ during her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill this week

Louise Boyle
New York
Thursday 15 October 2020 15:17
Comments
Amy Coney Barrett refuses to say climate change is real
Leer en Español

Greta Thunberg offered a sharp critique of Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday, comparing the Supreme Court nominee to a flat-earther for her refusal to say if climate change is happening. 

The teenage activist tweeted: "To be fair, I don't have any "views on climate change" either. Just like I don't have any "views" on gravity, the fact that the earth is round, photosynthesis nor evolution...

“But understanding and knowing their existence really makes life in the 21st century so much easier.”

Judge Barrett has declined to say that climate change is real, calling it instead a “a very contentious matter of public debate” during her confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill this week. 

The judge made the comment on Wednesday as she was questioned by California Senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Harris asked Ms Barrett a series of questions, including whether she thought the coronavirus is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer and whether “climate change is happening and it’s threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink”.

The judge responded that she thought Covid-19 was infectious and that people could get cancer from smoking.

However she declined to answer on climate change, calling it “a very contentious matter of public debate, and I will not do that, I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial”.

Some 97 per cent or more of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are being driven by human activities, largely the burning fossil fuels.

The Supreme court nominee doubled down on comments she made on Tuesday, where she said that she has no “firm views” on climate change because she is “not a scientist”.

Judge Barrett has spent the week on Capitol Hill as senators dug into the conservative nominee’s stances on the Affordable Care Act, the landmark abortion ruling Roe v Wade, and potentially a disputed presidential election.

She expertly deflected some lines of questioning, insisting she would bring no personal agenda to the court but decide cases “as they come".

On Tuesday, Republican Senator John Kennedy, of Louisiana, pursued questions aimed at, as he put it, showing what President Trump’s nominee “thought about the world”.

“Do you have some opinions on climate change that you’ve thought about?” Mr Kennedy asked.

Judge Barrett replied: “You know, I’m certainly not a scientist.”

When asked to expand on her answer, she continued: “I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say that I have firm views on it.”

The well-worn Republican talking point of “I’m not a scientist” has allowed a host of elected officials to equivocate on the scientific consensus on climate change, despite polls that show most Americans accept the reality of the crisis and want the government to take action.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell,  Florida Governor Rick Scott, and former House Speaker John Boehner, all have all made similar “not a scientist” pitches when asked about the climate crisis.

Judge Barrett has a slim judiciary record on environmental issues, and a question on climate change did not come up after she was nominated to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit by President Trump in 2017.

The judge’s conservative views are at odds with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal icon who she will replace. She would be Mr Trump’s third justice and her ascension is expected to tip the court 6-3 to the right.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in