Greta Thunberg mocks US Supreme Court nominee as eco-activists paint judge's refusal to OPINE on climate change as DISQUALIFYING

Child enviro-prodigy Greta Thunberg is ripping US Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett for declining to give her opinions about the cause of climate change, likening the judge’s restraint to lacking a view on gravity.

“To be fair, I don't have any views on climate change, either,” Thunberg said on Thursday on Twitter, mocking Barrett's answers in her Senate confirmation hearing. “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.”

The Swedish teenager's snarky attack came after Barrett dodged questions from Democrats this week regarding her views on climate change. For instance, Barrett told Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that she didn't think her views on climate would be “relevant to the job I would do as a judge,” and that she hadn't studied scientific data enough to offer an “informed opinion.”

And when Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked Barrett whether she agreed with a series of obvious facts to set up a falsely analogous question on climate change, the judge said, “I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial, because that's inconsistent with the judicial role, as I have explained.”

Thunberg wasn't alone in trying to make an issue of Barrett's refusal to pre-judge climate issues. Lobbying group Climate Power 2020 said Barrett “denied climate change three times in three days,” and argued that “her repeated climate denial is disqualifying but not surprising.”

Left-wing media outlets, such as Mother Jones, the Daily Beast and Salon chimed in with articles suggesting that Barrett is a “climate denier,” and Gizmodo said her “soft climate denial should be wildly disqualifying.” Climate writer Eric Holthaus said, “Quite simply, if you're neutral on climate change, you're complicit in the collapse of the planetary ecosystem upon which the survival of every living thing depends.” He called Barrett “scary” and suggested that she “isn't qualified to evaluate factual evidence.”

But Holthaus stumbled over the issue that might have made Barrett's responses so alarming to him: neutrality. Twitter users pointed out that Thunberg and other activists seem to be missing the point that high court judges evaluate cases on how they stack up against constitutional law, not their own views.

“Dear Greta,” one commenter wrote, “attending school might help understanding the role of a judge in society and the rule of law.” Another tweeted, “As a Supreme Court judge, the role will not be to offer an opinion on scientific issues. It will be to decide if matters coming before her are constitutional.”

Thunberg has been remarkably political in the past week for someone who said she never engages in “party politics.” On October 10, she called for people to “get organized and get everyone to vote (Joe) Biden” in the November 3 US presidential election. Democrats in Congress declined to call for an investigation of foreign election meddling by the Swedish citizen.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!