I appreciate my friend Michael Buschbacher taking the time to respond to my amicus brief in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County and my other work in this space. That he and others believe my work is worth responding to suggests that he and others believe it is important. (As they say, if you are taking fire, you must be over the target.) Yet he is mistaken to think that my arguments–-let alone the rel
Excerpt shown under fair-use limits. Full text remains with the original publisher.
People in this coverage
Explore their history and attributable record. Being mentioned does not imply endorsement.
Legal Authority AppealThe author invokes a Supreme Court decision to bolster his argument that state‑law claims are permissible, framing the case as precedent supporting his view.
FramingThe author narrows the debate to a single legal issue, positioning his opponent’s arguments as misdirected.
ContrastThe piece sets up a contrast between the author's interpretation and Buschbacher’s, portraying the latter as overlooking key precedent.
Appeal to FairnessThe author uses a colloquial saying to imply that criticism validates the importance of his work.
Context
AI analysis
Missing context
The piece does not provide the Colorado Supreme Court’s reasoning for allowing the case to proceed, the positions of the plaintiffs or other intervenors, nor any discussion of how lower courts have ruled on similar preemption arguments.
Important context
The article is part of an ongoing legal debate over whether state courts can hear climate‑change tort claims against fossil‑fuel producers whose emissions occur outside the state, a question that has significant implications for climate litigation nationwide.
Opinion vs. reporting
AI analysis
The article is primarily opinion; it presents legal analysis and argumentation rather than neutral reporting of facts. It interprets case law to support the author’s position and does not provide balanced coverage of opposing viewpoints.
