Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Big League Wellness

Judge: Big Oil Does Not Owe San Francisco for ‘Causing Climate Change’

Published

on

A federal judge in California has ruled against the cities of San Francisco and Oakland in a landmark case, holding that large oil conglomerates are not financially liable for causing climate change.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup.

According to the San Francisco Chroniclethe two cities wanted Chevron, ExxonMobil and other oil giants to bear the cost of remedies for a rising sea level, which they claim is caused by climate change and thus by fossil fuels. For example, the cities wanted the oil companies to pay for seawalls because “oil companies have long known that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are warming the planet.”

In a very conservative holding, Alsup rejected the notion, saying that it is up to federal regulators, not the courts, to use their expertise to implement such policy provisions. Alsup also noted that Americans, long having enjoyed the benefits of the products produced by the oil giants, would be hypocritical to turn on them now, forcing them to pay for what consumers demanded.

Trending: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime

“Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?” he wrote. “Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”

The ruling is a win for private industry. Several other municipalities around the country were considering similar lawsuits. For now, the oil giants will be able to produce the products necessary for daily life in the first world without being hassled by pesky local governments looking to make a buck off of the climate change fad.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Big League Wellness

Muslim Inmate Sues Because He Got Hungry During His Ramadan Fast

Published

on

During the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Muslim inmates in North Carolina are given an opportunity to fast. One Muslim inmate at the Mecklenburg County Jail in North Carolina is suing after he requested the fast, and then became hungry from fasting.

Travaile Speller has sued the jail, claiming that the jail discriminated against his religious practice by giving him two, instead of three meals a day during Ramadan.

“That is clearly depriving me of necessary calories, as well as the recommend(ed) daily volume of nutrients that my body requires to function normally,” Speller wrote in his hand-written complaint. “They are intentionally eliminating one whole meal (lunch) which is cruel and unusual punishment directed towards all Muslims,” the inmate argued.

During Ramadan, which took place between May 15 and June 15 this year, practicing Muslims are only allowed to eat two meals a day before dawn (suhoor) and after sunset (iftar). During the daytime, Muslims who celebrate Ramadan must refrain from eating, drinking, and having sex for an entire month.

The inmate’s lawsuit is so outrageous, it prompted a response from Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Islamic center of Charlotte. “”They withheld his lunch during Ramadan? They were supposed to withhold it during Ramadan. The jail was doing him a favor and actually respecting his faith,” Hough said.

During Ramadan, Speller received two meals each day, as he requested in an official jail form in which he indicated that he would like to observe the Ramadan fast. On the form, Muslim inmates are told exactly how the Ramadan fast works and when they will receive their meals if they decide to fast.

Speller filed his lawsuit after Ramadan, arguing, “My meals should not be diminished based on my religion, or because of my observance of my religious holiday.”

Speller’s lawsuit is calling for a jury trial, and $250,000 in damages, despite the fact that the jail itself was more compliant with the Ramadan fast than the Muslim inmate who claimed he wanted to observe the holiday himself.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend