They framed it as a way to “protect American energy from leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity.”
Aren’t lawful actions already protected by, you know, the law? By definition, the only legal punishments that could happen are for illegal actions. This doesn’t even make the slightest bit of sense as reasoning. They didn’t even try to manufacture justification.
Anyway, when the justice system no longer can be relied on to provide justice, extra-legal methods must be taken to ensure a just society. Them doing this could be either of two things, or both. It’s them actually protecting dirty energy companies, as it sounds, or it’s them requiring vigilantism to stop it, which gives them justification to crack down on “the left” and anyone else who stands against them.
Edit: Also, they consistently say that climate change isn’t real, and yet they feel the need to pass a law that explicitly is there to protect against the harms of climate change. Either it’s real, and they should pay (especially since they knew about it and mislead the public, which this also explicitly protects), or it isn’t real, and this law is pointless.
the actual way to solve “leftist legal crusades” (if they exist): anti-SLAPP laws that punish frivolous lawsuits… but that would hurt them more than “leftists”
Aren’t lawful actions already protected by, you know, the law? By definition, the only legal punishments that could happen are for illegal actions. This doesn’t even make the slightest bit of sense as reasoning. They didn’t even try to manufacture justification.
Anyway, when the justice system no longer can be relied on to provide justice, extra-legal methods must be taken to ensure a just society. Them doing this could be either of two things, or both. It’s them actually protecting dirty energy companies, as it sounds, or it’s them requiring vigilantism to stop it, which gives them justification to crack down on “the left” and anyone else who stands against them.
Edit: Also, they consistently say that climate change isn’t real, and yet they feel the need to pass a law that explicitly is there to protect against the harms of climate change. Either it’s real, and they should pay (especially since they knew about it and mislead the public, which this also explicitly protects), or it isn’t real, and this law is pointless.
the actual way to solve “leftist legal crusades” (if they exist): anti-SLAPP laws that punish frivolous lawsuits… but that would hurt them more than “leftists”