Continuing my train of thought from yesterday. (Please look back at yesterday's post before telling me this one makes no sense.) So: Suncor wants the Supreme Court of The United States to find that climate change policy must be federal policy, so Boulder has no business bringing a state law based suit against Suncor or ExxonMobil. That understood: how did arguments go? Chief Justice Roberts expressed skepticism about the preemption argument. He said it is not uncommon to base state law litigation on actions taken in whole or part in other states. He wanted to know: what makes this case special? Sarah Harris, the solicitor general for the US (here because the administration is taking Suncor's side) replied that if Boulder prevails it would ban the production of fossil fuels anywhere in the country. Roberts appeared unpersuaded. "That's a question of relief" to be raised in the context of the lawsuit if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, not an argument agai...