Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

The Mann Lawsuit

25 Comments

We have filed a petition to the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiori.

[Mid-morning update]

National Review has filed as well. Their petition is here.

[Update mid-afternoon]

A reminder that we have 24 amici curiae in this. I suspect they’ll join the petition, and Mann will remain amiciless.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I also see that in re-reading that (I may have noted it at the time), that they misspell “warm mongers” in citing the blog post, and attribute my Jerry Sandusky comment to Mark Steyn, who was quoting me.

[Friday-morning update]

Here’s the press release from CEI. And the Daily Caller has a story on it.

[Bumped]

25 thoughts on “The Mann Lawsuit”

  1. Rand,

    Bravo Zulu, my friend! Here’s hoping that the wisdom of the Framers still holds sway.

  2. The lawsuits were first filed in 2012, and it’s now 2019. Mankind goes extinct in 2031 because of global warming, so that mean’s that the case took up at least 40% of our species’ last days.

    What worries me is that if the courthouse installs diesel backup generators and some stockpiles of food, they could crank the air conditioners up to compensate for the extra 0.015 or 0.025 C of extra outside temperatures and then milk the case for a few years beyond humanity’s extinction.

    1. I hope you realize that the world ending in 12 years was sarcastic humor, a term-of-art to describe an existential crisis. A person with social awareness would understand this?

      I already decided on my 2019 political-satire Halloween costume.

      A sea sponge with Asperger’s . .

      2. The people with social awareness are all at Kim Kardashian’s Instagram. I prefer the vibe at this establishment.

      3. That’s AOC’s story anyway and she seems to be sticking to it – for now. Lefties always seem to reserve the right to say, “Just kidding!” when cornered.

        I still think that Earth ending in 12 years thing was more a Kinsleyan Gaffe than a jest. It’s admittedly difficult to be entirely certain with someone who seems to have only one facial expression. Ironically, it’s that same surprised rodent look that is also the sole facial expression of one Nancy Pelosi.

        1. I saw a meme comparing AOC to Marty Feldman.

          Yep.

          It would almost make me suspect Grave’s disease, an autoimmune disorder that causes hypothyroidism, and thus bulging eyes, along with personality changes. I had a friend whose wife had it. Most common in women under 40.

          Symptom #1 is anxiety and irritability. Check.

        2. The 12 year claim was part of an organized PR campaign and it wasn’t just AOC saying it. She obviously wasn’t joking, regardless of whether she believes her own fear mongering. The media will help convince everyone she was joking though.

    2. Joking aside, that this lawsuit has gone on so long while predictions of impending doom come and go should give some credence in court to people who are skeptical.

  4. Since the court in DC isn’t motivated to try the case, might as well seek a new venue.

      1. Dismissed.. with prejudice and then run over by stampeding oxen so it never comes up again.
        Seriously good luck and hope this fiasco comes to an end soonest

      2. Doesn’t look like they want to try it otherwise they would have handled the appeals sooner. Best of luck in SCOTUS. Maybe this will all be resolved before they thaw you out of cryo storage in the year 2545.

    1. The only person who thought this was a good idea was the plaintiff.

      I find it amusing that people think that defendants can choose their venue.

      1. H’m. Mann is listed as residing in Pennsylvania. National Review and Steyn in New York (Steyn is actually a resident of Vermont). Competitive Enterprises alone has a principal place of business in DC. You were sued c/o Competitive Enterprises, which seems to me to have been a cheap ploy to claim there was no complete diversity. I’m familiar with the DC venue laws. But seems to me there were grounds to seriously contest venue or to attempt to move the case to federal court or another forum. Was this ever tried? If it was fine; venue laws make venue shopping too easy. But if not, too bad. Because venue was the whole case. Politicized science being debated in a politicized municipal court. I guess water under the bridge, lots of it given how long this has gone on for. Good luck.

        1. I’ll just add that unless I’m missing something, there was complete diversity between the plaintiff and defendants. So that would have allowed federal jurisdiction. Whether that would have been better or worse, not for me to say.

  8. You should think carefully about the Supreme Court route. If you think this process has been lengthy, just recall the wise admonition of that classic “Harry” Williams and Jack Judge song:

    “It’s a long way to certiorari,
    It’s a long way to go.
    It’s a long way to certiorari
    To the Supremest Court I know!”

  9. Recently watched a video with Brian Cox.

    Nice examples of logical fallacies:
    Straw man argument – Cox asks Roberts if he thought the moon landings were staged (because Roberts was questioning NASA data)
    Ad hominem – Suggesting Robert’s a moon hoaxer is an insult that got some laughs
    Appeal to Authority – Cox suggests Roberts should let experts interpret the data, that he’s not qualified.

    Personally I believe we should try to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and develop other energy sources. But many of the talking heads supporting this position are arguing in bad faith.

Comments are closed.