Chief Justice Roberts defends Exxon.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on how much money ExxonMobil should be forced to pay as damages for its Exxon Valdez oil spill 19 years ago. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that Chief Justice John Roberts appeared “bothered” that Exxon might have to pay for its destruction:
What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,” he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.”
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
It could try stacking the supreme court…
Just a thought…
February 28th, 2008 at 9:56 amAh, wasn’t the skipper drunk?! How can Exxon get away with no accountability for keeping someone on the job that they had been warned about?! If they rule in favor of Exxon then we the people are truly screwed!
February 28th, 2008 at 9:57 amThe Chief Supreme Court Justice is wondering how a company can protect itself from itself.
pitiful.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:58 amthe next time McCain says he’ll appoint “strict constructionist” judges, he should be asked if that means judges — unlike Roberts — who won’t construe artificial corporations to be “natural persons” under the Constitution
February 28th, 2008 at 9:58 amof COURSE roberts wasn’t amused… one simply does not make amusing, off-the-cuff quips in front of their robed majesties, particularly when they have been appointed as guardians of the assets of the monied elites… how DARE he…!
February 28th, 2008 at 9:59 amAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
As a Justice fairly familiar with incompetence and those who gravitate in its sphere, I can understand why Roberts would never have even considered ‘hiring fit and competent people’ as a remedy.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:59 amWhat the F@ck is WRONG a with supreme court judge who cares about corporate profits than the people of the F@cking country.
Why isnt this cause for rioting in the streets and revolution ?????
F@ck these corporate Fascist scum!
February 28th, 2008 at 10:00 amWell, if you’re drunk, drive a car and harm someone, or destroy someone’s property, there’s usually a financial penalty involved.
If the Supremes absolve Exxon from damages due to a drunk driver, precedent will be set…
But then again, they don’t seem to care about precedent.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:00 amThe lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,†he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.â€
I guess Justice Robets can’t handle the truth.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:01 amThe skipper was a fall guy. Read Greg Palast. Exxon deliberately chose not to use it’s key radar system because it was very costly to operate. So, Justice Roberts, perhaps they could turn on the f’ing radar from now on!!!
February 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?†Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,†he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.â€
you’d laugh too if you lived a town where the chief executive hasn’t done that in nearly eight years.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?†Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,†he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.â€
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
If Justice Roberts didn’t want to look foolish, why does he insist on asking foolish questions such as this?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:05 amThe Chief Supreme Court Justice is wondering how a company can protect itself from itself.
Comment by hellinabucket — February 28, 2008 @ 9:58 am
I think your framing of the situation works just fine, HIB, but I’d go in a slightly different direction and say taht the Chief Justice is wondering how a company can protect itself from any accountability.
It seems to be a preoccupation with BushCo.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:05 amCan’t expect an appointee of the least competent president in U.S. history to grasp the concept that conduct results in consequences for which responsibility must be borne.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:07 amAgreed ralph. that is exactly how it looks to me. Chief Justice Roberts is more concerned with the company than the country which was damaged by this company.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:08 ampaleolib, you are right. But you can’t expect the American people who are fed up with this incompetence to be silent.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:09 amAnd what can the people of the United States of America do to protect themselves from Corporations? Obviously NOT trust the Republicans. I would hope a more Democratic Supreme Court would protect the people.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:09 amJohn Roberts, another representative of the party and philosophy of accountability.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am****wondering how a company can protect itself from any accountability.
—
1 ) LIE
2) Hire Lobbyists to pay off Congress ( All of Congress )
3) Give jobs/money to Bush/Cheney’s friends , cronies, family
4) Get No-bid defense contracts
February 28th, 2008 at 10:10 amExxon is going to go scott free on all this. I think we should empty out all our pockets, our 401s and perhaps give them all our money for because they damaged their vessel on that rocky shoreline.
Please just make all the jerks go away!
February 28th, 2008 at 10:15 amRoberts comments were absolutely ridiculous. In the exchange following the part noted by TP, he actually implied that simply having the policies should be enough to protect the company whether the policies were enforced, or not.
Not following policies will get you nailed on any audit regardless of whether any harm resulted. Firtst, you look for controls/policies. Then you look to see whether they are applied. Basic stuff.
This Supreme Court is Bush’s true legacy.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:16 amI’ll start taking bets on who’s going to be tonight’s Worst Person in the World on Countdown.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:17 am“The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.”
February 28th, 2008 at 10:18 am-T. Roosevelt
Mr. Evil, it’s still early and Bush has a press conference later this morning.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:22 amNow we can clearly see the difference between Teddy Roosevelt republicans and George W. Bush republicans. Caring and compassionate vs. morally bankrupt and corrupt.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:24 amMr. Evil, it’s still early and Bush has a press conference later this morning.
Comment by hellinabucket — February 28, 2008 @ 10:22 am
Another fear and smear dog and pony show.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:25 amThis reflects the usual thinking of the pro business wing of the current Republican party which engages in some fairly deceptive descriptions of economic reality. This has involved the constant use of averages and gross numbers to avoid looking at reality in context. We have seen the statement as to the rising average income without the context that the rise has been directed to a small part of our society. We have seen the billboard figure of $2.5 billion dollars used to describe the punitive damages awarded in the case without the context of: (1) the actual financial, personal and health damages caused to the people of Alaska, (2) the gross size of the company’s income relative to the size of the punitive damages and (3) the relative cost that would have been necessary to have avoided the accident. These are all necessary factors to evaluate whether punitive damages would have their desired effect, i.e. to prevent this and other defendants from committing similar acts in the future. The 2.5 billion figure was thrown out because it sounds humongous to the normal person. That was the intended audience. What do you do to counteract Roberts? No mention in the media should ever fail to mention the relatively low cost of having avoided the accident, the far larger economic, environmental and personal costs involved, and the relation of the punitive damages to the overall fortune of the company.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:27 amWhat people here need to keep in mind is that the Court is talking about punitive damages, and not compensatory.
There is no doubt that Exxon should be forced to pay compensation for the damage that was caused.
However, when it comes to punitives, Justice Roberts does have a point. Punitive damages are criminal damages, but without the same burden of proof. They are inherently unfair.
If people want to punish Exxon — and I personally believe that Exxon does need to be punished for this — then it should be done in a criminal courtroom with criminal stanards and criminal defenses.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:27 amTo basically impose a criminal fine without those standards is truly unfair, unjust, and un-American.
Ah, well. I guess it’s only fitting that, along with our first retarded president, we have our first retarded Supreme Court justice….
February 28th, 2008 at 10:28 amOut of touch elitist on the SCOTUS — what a surprise.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:34 amComment by JMOHR — February 28, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Good post. Seems like Roberts mentality is screw Alaska. I can actually imagine him thinking, ‘I get my fish in a box at the store, why do you fish for yours? You should be working for Exxon drilling your state into oblivion for more oil and my kickbacks.’
February 28th, 2008 at 10:34 amWhy would a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States ask such a STUPID question from the bench?
Ugh!
Resign immediately, and go back to private practice, Roberts. You’ll make more money, and get less attention when you’re stupid.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:37 amThe captain of the Valdez was a known drunk, and intoxicated on the job.
The Valdez was a poorly constructed vessel.
Those two things are facts — why the SCOTUS and the owners should not feel that restitution must be made is beyond the limits of tolerance.
As for the dollar amount, the total amounts to the PROFIT Exxon makes in less than a month. Not their gross income - but their profit!
Damage done to the local population and the environment is not somehting to be swept aside by Roberts, or any coporate elitist looking to keep his own bank account in tact.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:39 amRoberts and Alito are corporatists masquerading as friends of the religious right. The GOP played their base and got their (business)men on the court.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:41 amIf anyone isn’t watching President Shit-for-brains make a fool of himself at his news conference please do so now. What a buffoon.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:42 amThese “stupid” comments really reflect poorly on this forum.
You can say that the Chief Justice is wrong. You can say he’s out of touch. You can even say he’s evil.
But stupid?
Justice Roberts is a very intelligent man. His legal views are odds with what many consider to be American values, but he remains a very intelligent man.
People here need to raise the level of debate. Calling his stupid adds nothing and hurts the credibilty of the attack.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:43 amSome buddies of mine where hired by US Fish/Wildlife to do research after the spill to try to estimate the waterfowl losses. It was tragic. Too bad there is no Lorax that speaks for the sea ducks. What price is a duck?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:44 amPunitive damages are criminal damages, but without the same burden of proof. They are inherently unfair.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Punitive damages are only as unfair as those in authority meting them out. It’s easy to see headlines about massive punitive judgments and decide, without sitting through the case, that they are “inherently unfair”. But our system of justice was designed to lean on both the expertise and judgment of career jurists and the wisdom of the populace.
BushCo has done its best to injure the former and call into question the latter, but at some point, we have to trust our justice system to work as it’s designed. Since it’s very difficult to threaten a corporation with jail time, yet we still insist on treating corporate entities with the same rights as individuals, our options on punshment that has effect are limited.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:46 amBush said while talking about Castro handing over power to his brother if that would change our relationship with Cuba, that Castro took “our” island. Hmmm…
February 28th, 2008 at 10:46 amComment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:43 am
I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.
Get bent, Skeeter.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:50 amWatching this Bush press conference, Chris Berman of ESPN comes immediately to mind, “Bumbling, fumbling, stumbling…”
February 28th, 2008 at 10:51 amSurely when the employee of zillion dollar a year corporation causes a disaster that rivals an act of god, only that employee should be punished. Why should the corporate executives run the risk of having their salaries shaved simply because they ran single hull tankers with drunk captains? How could they possibly have known that something might go wrong?!
It’s clear that the “ownership” society responds only to the massing of fortune, not to owning up to ones actions.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:51 amRalph the Wonder Llama,
I have no problem with large criminal fines against Exxon. In fact, I encourage such a prosecution (good luck on that considering who runs the AG’s office, but that’s why 2000 and 2004 were so important).
But Exxon should also have the same rights and defenses that any other defendant has, including the higher standards required in a criminal trial than in a civil.
This is America. We all have rights. Even those who do things as bad as Exxon. That’s what makes America great.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:52 amSkeeter:
What a damn shame about those folks in Bhopal.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:54 amChief Justice Roberts isn’t “stupid”, by no means. He is intellectually dishonest. He rules not as an impartial judge, but as a Republican foot soldier. He does not do the people’s bidding, but instead uses each ruling as an attempt to impose this ideology on the country. His goal is not to serve as judge, but to shape society. He is the ultimate activist judge, installed to a life term in the highest court of the land.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:54 amSkeeter1,
Without punitive damages the corporations continue to make decisions based on the simple economics of the cost of doing the right thing versus the cost of losing a few lawsuits if you don’t.
You get Ford Pintos that explode in rear end collisions because it costs less to pay a few families for the loss of their kids rather than paying maybe a slightly higher cost to retool the Pinto design.
You get a swimming pool pump manufacturer that will pay for having sucked some kids guts out their ass rather than paying for the redesign of a faulty seal.
All knowing decisions by corporate executives looking at the bottom line.
They need to factor punitive decisions in that spreadsheet. They are not going to place any value on doing the right thing, they do care that they get hit in the wallet.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:54 amZooey,
Thanks for your witty and insightful comment.
Why do I think that Zooey is actually Karl Rove, intent on commenting here to make moderates and people on the left appear to be braying fools?
February 28th, 2008 at 10:55 amBoy, TP really bent over backwards to take one quote completely out of context and get the TP bloggers all riled up. If you heard the entire proceeding, which I did, then you would know that, like any good judge, the Chief Justice was debating both sides of the coin, as it were, to understand fully the issues before the Court.
In fact, the Chief Judge’s stance was primarily at finding for fault with Exxon, and rejecting their argument that liability rested solely with the ship’s captain. In doing so, he tacitly recognized that the claims for damages should proceed and not be limited as argued by Exxon.
All of you people who posted negative, vitriolic comments based on a single quote used by TP to further an agenda should be ashamed of yourselves–why don’t you all learn to stand on your own two feet and think for yourselves rather than be led around by an organization such as TP with an ax to grind? Shame, shame.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:55 amWhy do I think that Zooey is actually Karl Rove, intent on commenting here to make moderates and people on the left appear to be braying fools?
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:55 am
No wonder you can’t tell when Roberts asks a stupid question from the bench — you’re equally as stupid.
Life must be very tough for you.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:59 amComment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:55 am
But Zooey is way more attractive!
February 28th, 2008 at 10:59 am#44 dbadass: Damn, I’d nearly forgotten about that disaster.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:59 amBut Exxon should also have the same rights and defenses that any other defendant has, including the higher standards required in a criminal trial than in a civil.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:52 am
Exxon should also face the same risks and punishments that any other defendant has. But try throwing Exxon in federal prison. Try coming up with a criminal fine that is large enough to make an impact on the corporate culture without appearing absurd.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:00 amnanlichi,
You need to read my comments.
What would dissuade the conduct is a CRIMINAL prosecution, with CRIMINAL safeguards for the defendant. That is the American way, and frankly, that is why so many of us are upset about the conduct in Guantanmo (sorry about the spelling). Even bad guys get a fair trial with criminal standards.
I am not offended in the slighest by the size of the penalty.
What bothers me is that it was handed down in a civil courtroom rather than a criminal courtroom.
Exxon has rights, just as if it was a law-abiding company. Who knows. Maybe if it keeps getting prosecuted it might become one.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:00 amHiB, I definitely do not want the American people to remain silent. To the contrary, I hope this kind of open expression of corporate protection by the SCOTUS CJ will open a few eyes — especially of those who justify not voting by feigning cynicism about the allegedly identical nature of the two major parties. Regrettably, if Scalia’s pronounced inability to recognize that “24″ is not a reality show hasn’t convinced people that Republican nominees to the judiciary are contributing to our rapid return to the 19th century I doubt Roberts’ pitiful endorsement of the corporate kleptocracy that Bush has established will turn enough heads to matter.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:01 amComment by nanlichi — February 28, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Thanks, nanlichi. That’s what I was trying to say.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:01 amWhy do I think that Zooey is actually Karl Rove, intent on commenting here to make moderates and people on the left appear to be braying fools?
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Why do I think skeeter1 is a troll we’ve seen before, masquerading as a concern troll?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:03 amComment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Hmmm… new concern troll?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:03 amJinx!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:03 am#44 dbadass: Damn, I’d nearly forgotten about that disaster.
Comment by Mr. Evil — February 28, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Last time I checked Union Carbide was still avoiding assuming any meaningful consequences.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:04 amI agree with Zooey, it was a stupid question. Any way you want to wrap it, shape it, twist it or spin it, it was a stupid question.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:04 amRalph,
You wrote:
“Try coming up with a criminal fine that is large enough to make an impact on the corporate culture without appearing absurd.”
Initially, my response would be how about three weeks worth of profits? That sounds a bit easy, but I would take it.
Your comments are more of a reflection on the criminal laws and the penalties they impose than on the fairness of the system.
We should be able to say “We need stronger criminal penalties” but also say “Nobody should be criminally prosecuted without criminal standards and defenses.”
I have to say that people here sound like Bushies.
The Bushies don’t like some foreigners, so that want to try them without proper standards and defenses.
People here don’t like Exxon, so they want to try it without proper standards and defenses.
People here have become what we once despised.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:05 amWhy do I think skeeter1 is a troll we’ve seen before, masquerading as a concern troll?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 28, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Bingo, Ralph.
Hmmm… new concern troll?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 28, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Same old. ;)
February 28th, 2008 at 11:05 amWell said paleolib.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:06 amAnd the troll comments about me are genuinely stupid.
I have better center-left credentials than most people here. I actually work on campaigns and work to elect progressive. I’m out in the field doing the real work, while people here type and whine.
Being in favor of justice for those we don’t like doesn’t make me a troll. It makes me an American who believes in Justice.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:07 amIs Skeetshooter1 trying to make the argument that civil punitive damages are unconstitutional? Is that a wingnut-activist talking point I haven’t heard, a novel legal argument. B-b-b-but, I thought all activist judges were eeevul librulz!!!1!!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:08 amWe, the people, not we the corporations. People form corporations at least partially to protect themselves as a person from responsibility. So Punitive damages are the way we hold corporations accountable at least until the Supreme Court was stacked with right wingers.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:08 amComment by JT — February 28, 2008 @ 10:55 am
And you never listen to and believe Rush, Sean, Anne, Billo, etc. Why do you think it’s called “Think Progress?” Because we do think for ourselves. We may not always be right, but at least we think.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:09 amAnd the troll comments about me are genuinely stupid.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:07 am
——————-
These “stupid†comments really reflect poorly on this forum.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:43 am
You were saying?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:09 amComment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:07 am
Well said by the individual playing the who is better than whom game. Well keep up those grand works. I’d stay to learn more of your superiorness but I am needed at the Justice League
February 28th, 2008 at 11:09 amPeople here don’t like Exxon, so they want to try it without proper standards and defenses.
People here have become what we once despised.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:05 am
You’re personalizing without any evidence at all. Punitive damages have nothing to do with whether or not people “like” a corporation, they have to do with discouraging irresponsible behavior.
In this case, the evidence against Exxon was sufficient to establish their negligence resulted in the oil spill and subsequent damage. The punitive damages are a perfectly acceptable means of discouraging them from repeating such negligence in the future when the simple compensatory damages wouldn’t have any impact at all.
As you keep suggesting to others: if you don’t like the law, change it. In the meantime, stop whining about poor ‘ittle Exxon.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:09 amComment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Yep… no doubt about it… a concern troll.
The language reminds me of that poster who tried to pass himself off as a retired military officer last summer, and used the name of Jack Nicholson’s character from “A Few Good men”.
Proper standards and defenses?
The original award was made after a trial. It was appealed and reduced.
It’s been thru TWO levels of the judicial system already.
It’s not like poor, poor Exxon is the victim of oh, say, the Alabama judicial system, or a Gitmo kangaroo court, w/ secret evidence and NO defense lawyers.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:10 amThe chief justice? I hope that he is impeached so that his crimes as a justice can be used to prosecute it for assisting in the rape of our nation, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in a war without end
No bushleague appointee should be allowed to stand. They need to be impeached due to outright criminal behavior in a position where such actions have been foreign to previous justices.
what a shame.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:11 amoh, SNAP!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am#48. What’s with the bold? is that like, not quite shouting . . . raising your voice a little? Ahem, Excuse me . . . but I’d like to concern troll here a bit.
Actually, if you’d look a little closer you’d see that TP was blogging what, I believe it said, Dana Millbank of the Washington Post wrote. So if you have a problem with the accuracy of the quote, since you “heard” the entire proceedings, your vitriol should be directed there. And there’s some reason I missed that we should take your word for it?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 amCriminal court is for people, punitive damages are for corporations. People and corporations are two different things.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:14 amYou get Ford Pintos that explode in rear end collisions because it costs less to pay a few families for the loss of their kids rather than paying maybe a slightly higher cost to retool the Pinto design.
You get a swimming pool pump manufacturer that will pay for having sucked some kids guts out their ass rather than paying for the redesign of a faulty seal.
Comment by nanlichi — February 28, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Exactly. It’s called risk management. They actually have people who’s sole job is to calculate the cost of lawsuits against the cost of doing business. If the cost of doing business cost $10 more per year then they’ll choose the lawsuits.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:14 amComment by JT — February 28, 2008 @ 10:55 am
And you never listen to and believe Rush, Sean, Anne, Billo, etc. Why do you think it’s called “Think Progress?†Because we do think for ourselves. We may not always be right, but at least we think.
Comment by Mr. Evil — February 28, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Wrong, wrong, wrong. As I said “Mr. Evil,” think on your own two feet. No, I don’t listen to Rush, Sean (whoever he is), etc. Your presumption that I listen to hard-right neocons as a reaction to my objective and illuminating post only underscores what I said earlier–TP’ers tend to bash those that don’t walk in lock-step with TP’s agenda-driven blog posts. Think on your own, and quit bashing those who march to a different drummer. Liberals do celebrate diversity?…
February 28th, 2008 at 11:15 amJT is a troll, McAngus. If it’s posting today, expect more of the same.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 amWith regard to the troll statements: Pathetic.
Would a troll advocate for a criminal prosecution of Exxon as I have done? Would they say that the fine was fair, but the system under which it was imposed was not?
Could anyone point me to where I said a good word about Exxon? In fact, my comments do the opposite.
Further, if you read the comments, I note that I would blame the B-Team for failing to prosecute Exxon for this conduct.
That being said (and assuming the outraged are even reading this far — not likely), you need to remember that civil trials and criminal trials have different standards, different defenses, and different burdens of proof.
It is inherently unfair to place a criminal penalty in a civil trial.
If the people here would focus on real American values, and not just on hating Exxon, that would be opposite.
And finally, with regard to the “stupid” comments: I stand on my own statements. Justice Roberts is a bright guy who is wrong on the issues. I can’t say that about some of the people commenting here.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 amSkeeter, you need to go back to law school. Punitive damages are not “criminal damages” nor must they be applied by a criminal court. Most punitive damages are awarded under tort law. There are a wide variety of torts and none of them fall under the rubric of criminal law. Regardless of whether you feel punitive damages are “fair,” to say they are part of criminal law is just plain wrong.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 amSee? I told ya so. I hate it when I’m right all the time.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:19 amto say they are part of criminal law is just plain wrong.
Comment by jjcomet — February 28, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Thank you, jj. Back to you, skeeter.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:20 amSee? I told ya so. I hate it when I’m right all the time.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 28, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Doesn’t it get tiresome? Thanks for hanging out with we mere mortals. :-D
February 28th, 2008 at 11:21 amAw shucks… youse guys are my friends…
February 28th, 2008 at 11:22 amJJ,
I am not saying that punnies are part of criminal law. They currently are not. They are part of the tort system.
I fully understand how punnies are awarded.
I understand the process.
That being said, I believe that the process is inherently wrong.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:23 amYou don’t impose what is in essence a criminal fine in a civil case.
See? I told ya so. I hate it when I’m right all the time.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 28, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Jeebus, TRoS, you’re the greatest. ;)
Off to my exam — wish me luck!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:24 amAll of you people who posted negative, vitriolic comments based on a single quote used by TP to further an agenda should be ashamed of yourselves–why don’t you all learn to stand on your own two feet and think for yourselves rather than be led around by an organization such as TP with an ax to grind? Shame, shame.
Comment by JT — February 28, 2008 @ 10:55 am
Ashamed of myself?! So I’m supposed to automatically agree with you? How is that thinking for myself? That’s why I post what I do. I’m thinking for myself and offering MY opinion.
It seems to me you’re telling us not to do here what we’re supposed to do here because if we do what we’re supposed to do here it may upset someone like you because we’re doing what we’re supposed to do here which is to comment as we se fit, on the stories as they are presented to TP and us.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:24 amWelcome to the terminal end of the Righty Railroad, good people of Alaska.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:25 amYou don’t impose what is in essence a criminal fine in a civil case.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:23 am
Well yeah, the jury is allowed to do so — if the offense is especially egregious.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:26 amIf we’re lame for reading the TP blog, what does that make JT?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:26 amSkeeter wrote:
JJ,
“I am not saying that punnies are part of criminal law. They currently are not. They are part of the tort system. I fully understand how punnies are awarded. I understand the process.”
Skeeter earlier:
“However, when it comes to punitives, Justice Roberts does have a point. Punitive damages are criminal damages, but without the same burden of proof. They are inherently unfair. If people want to punish Exxon — and I personally believe that Exxon does need to be punished for this — then it should be done in a criminal courtroom with criminal stanards and criminal defenses. To basically impose a criminal fine without those standards is truly unfair, unjust, and un-American.”
Care to retract or amend? You clearly DID claim that punitive damages are part of criminal law.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:27 amBeing in favor of justice for those we don’t like doesn’t make me a troll. It makes me an American who believes in Justice.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:07 am
You’re a pathetic, transparent liar, is what you are.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:29 amThis really does just confirm that the administration’s intent is to make this country an oligarchy.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:34 amPeople here need to raise the level of debate. Calling his stupid adds nothing and hurts the credibilty of the attack.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 10:43 am
Your used of the English language seems just as fractured as chimpy’s, ie you are stupid too.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:35 amSA,
February 28th, 2008 at 11:37 amMY GOD!
A TYPO!
What will we do?
Atta Boy, John. Free gas for life for your Ford Excursion.
Love,
Exxon
February 28th, 2008 at 11:39 amMore proof that reich-wingers are not the party of responsibility.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am“The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.â€
-T. Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt was an amazing guy. I highly recommend that everyone read his autobiography. It was very enlightening and showed the dark side of our government back then, that still exists today.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:41 am– If people want to punish Exxon … then it should be done in a criminal courtroom with criminal stanards and criminal defenses.
To basically impose a criminal fine without those standards is truly unfair, unjust, and un-American. Comment by Skeeter1 –
Skeeter 1: To say a corporation should have the same rights as a person under the Constitution first requires that an artificial corporation (a creature of the state) be construed to be a “natural person” under the Constitution. That’s the problem. Activist conservative judges have construed corporations to be natural persons … that need to be corrected before other laws are applied to them in the same way laws are applied to people
February 28th, 2008 at 11:42 amHowever, when it comes to punitives, Justice Roberts does have a point. Punitive damages are criminal damages, but without the same burden of proof. They are inherently unfair.
The reason for punitive damages is to send a message that doing bad things has consequences. If all corporations were ever held accountable for was the actual damages, they would never learn.
There was criminality involved in this, the skipper was DRUNK! But, the only thing that could be done in a criminal court would have been to find the skipper guilty and send him to jail. That would NOT send a message to Exxon that if they hire skippers with a history of alcoholism and if they don’t use expensive radar equipment, there will be consequences for their actions.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:44 amSandhiller,
February 28th, 2008 at 11:47 amThanks for that comment. You raise an interesting point.
That’s the sort of debate that we should have here.
I have no problem being pushed on the merits.
It is nice to be ripped without being called stupd or a troll.
But stupid?
Justice Roberts is a very intelligent man. His legal views are odds with what many consider to be American values, but he remains a very intelligent man.
People here need to raise the level of debate. Calling his stupid adds nothing and hurts the credibilty of the attack.
Comment by Skeeter1
Intelligence and stupid have nothing to do with each other. You can be a very intelligent person and do really stupid things. He may be an intelligent person, but his thought processes on this and many other issues is very stupid.
Here are two dictionary definitions of “stupid”. I think that both apply to Roberts:
# Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:48 am# Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Santa Clara County vs Union/Southern Pacific Railroad - 1862
the crooked railroad job (pun intended) the scotus handed down that made Corps. into people (only people with way more resources than people ever have)
legal scholars ever since have condemned that decision, which was clearly made in interest of the railroad magnates, and was not in line with any precedent available at the time. the scotus sitting at that time is acknowledged as one ofthe most corrupt ever.
overturning that decision would do this country more good than any other thing our government could do.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:51 amWhy do I think that Zooey is actually Karl Rove, intent on commenting here to make moderates and people on the left appear to be braying fools?
Comment by Skeeter1
I think that is a classic case of projection since you are the one here who will make moderates and people on the left look like braying fools.
I do believe that you are a conservative troll in the disguise of a “moderate or liberal”.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am#44 dbadass: Damn, I’d nearly forgotten about that disaster.
Comment by Mr. Evil — February 28, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Remember also that following the Bhopal incident by only nine months, the Union Carbide plant in Institute, West Virginia released a potentially deadly amount of a dangerous pesticide.
Note to Skeeter1, look in the mirror and see the stupid person.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:52 amSkeeter, if, despite your earlier post, you agree that punitive damages are not criminal damages, why do you insist “If people want to punish Exxon — and I personally believe that Exxon does need to be punished for this — then it should be done in a criminal courtroom with criminal stanards and criminal defenses. To basically impose a criminal fine without those standards is truly unfair, unjust, and un-American”?
Exxon is being fined under established U.S. legal principles. Whether or not you personally approve of those procedures is immaterial. To claim that the process Exxon is undergoing is “unfair, unjust, and un-American” is simply incorrect. If most legal experts - left, right, or center - agreed with your argument, I’m sure the system would be set up differently. As long as Exxon faces the same procedures as any defendant in a similar situation, your claim of unfairness or Anti-Americanism is nonsense. You certainly have the right to try to change the process if you see fit, but don’t try telling us that Exxon is somehow being screwed because they must undergo the the same legal process as other defendants found liable for harm caused by negligence.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:52 amSkeeter1:
I’ve been wrong so many times in my life that I’ve learned “the sweeter the words” the better they taste when I have to eat them.
I’m focused on removing the “natural persons” status from corporations because of how seriously I consider rights. Under the Dec. of Indep., rights precede the state and government is instituted to secure them. Until we take rights seriously, we give too much homage to power of the gov over people and corporations, though often private owned, are created by government sanction. Hope that makes sense.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:55 amIn doing so, he tacitly recognized that the claims for damages should proceed and not be limited as argued by Exxon.
All of you people who posted negative, vitriolic comments based on a single quote used by TP to further an agenda should be ashamed of yourselves–why don’t you all learn to stand on your own two feet and think for yourselves rather than be led around by an organization such as TP with an ax to grind? Shame, shame.
Comment by JT
This troll has limited ability to use critical thinking. Roberts recognized that the claims for damages should proceed. He was objecting to the punitive damages. He apparently thinks that the only way a corporation should be held accountable for their actions is by paying for the damage they caused. Without punitive damages, corporations are free to not do the right thing because many find it cheaper to pay off the families of the people they killed than it is to fix the problem to make sure that it never happens again.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am– Santa Clara County vs Union/Southern Pacific Railroad - 1862 … voerturning that decision would do this country more good than any other thing our government could do.
comment by tombaker –
exactly
February 28th, 2008 at 11:57 amJJ,
You wrote “Whether or not you personally approve of those procedures is immaterial. ”
No, it is not immaterial. Procedures matter. Bad procedures lead to unfair and unjust results.
Just because punnies are not currently criminal damages does not make it right that they are decided in a tort case.
We may as well say “currently the B-Team can eavesdrop without a warrant, so why protest?”
In both cases, the current system is wrong and on both people should speak up.
You may as well claim that the people being spied on by our government shouldn’t complain, since that’s the law.
When our government is wrong, we need to speak up, even if it means protecting something as undeserving as Exxon.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:59 amLooks like we have a concern troll with an agenda. He is using the same language as tort-reformist right-wing think tanks. Sorry Skeeter, your corporatist, anti-individual propoganda is not going to fly here.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pmPunitive damages are not criminal actions. Punitive damages are aimed at conduct that is reckless, impacts many people but do not arise to the level of a criminal act. This is not an issue concerning criminal conduct. Those who raise this issue will also argue that industry is too regulated and would very well decry the imposition of criminal proceedings in a case like this arguing that the actions were stupid, negligent but not criminal.
There is also too much talk about rights. A corporation is not an individual or a person. The biggest mistake that has been made in our system has been the confusion of this very basic fact. Skeeter just thinks that the imposition of punitive damages are just unfair - why? Think of the problem of imposing criminal sanctions - Are you going to jail the CEO or the VP’s or directors because of a course of conduct that occurred several layers below? Are you going to jail the company? Can you change the corporate culture when the company as a whole does not encounter the moral hazard of adopting loose and grossly negligent practices? Punitive damages are very appropriate in the corporate environment.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pmFor the debating record here:
At the High Court, Damage Control
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 28, 2008; A02
Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company — but that’s not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,” he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.”
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
Perhaps, though, his consternation was misplaced. Everybody knows the wheels of justice turn slowly, but in the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, things have dragged on so long that Lady Justice’s blindness could reasonably be attributed to cataracts.
Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs — mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans — have received no punitive damages from Exxon.
A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages — a record level, for a record disaster — and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.
Arguing for the Alaskans, Fisher, a tall and lanky Stanford professor with unruly gray hair, pointed out to the justices that the spill “destroyed an entire regional economy.” Yet Exxon fired only one person, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who even the oil company admitted was drunk at the time of the accident, while executives received bonuses and pay raises. “What you have today are 32,000 plaintiffs standing before this court, each of whom have received only $15,000 for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven’t received a dime of emotional-distress damages,” Fisher argued.
Several justices, however, seemed more concerned about the emotional distress of the Exxon executives. “I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation” responsible,” Antonin Scalia said, “and I doubt whether a captain is high enough.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, wagging his finger at Fisher as he challenged the lawyer’s argument, charged that “the corporation’s responsibility or complicity or culpability is simply not relevant under your theory of the case.”
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn’t responsible for the captain’s unauthorized drunkenness. “I don’t see what more a corporation can do,” he said. “What more can the corporation do other than say ‘Here is our policies’ and try to implement them?”
Fisher tried to deflect some of the more barbed questions — “I don’t want to act like a dog chasing his tail here, Justice Kennedy . . . I’m not going to fight you on that” — but it was clear that the court’s main motive in hearing this case was to cut the jury award. When Fisher said he thought the justices had agreed to hear the case because of an unsettled aspect of maritime law, Scalia cut him off.
“That,” the justice said, “and $3.5 billion.”
One thing working in the Valdez victims’ favor: Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon shareholder, recused himself from the case. Also in the plaintiffs’ favor: No justice, with the possible exception of Scalia and the ceiling-staring Clarence Thomas, liked Exxon’s assertion that no punitive damage is legitimate.
Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that “Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it.”
Even Roberts seemed skeptical when he asked Exxon’s lawyer, former solicitor general Walter Dellinger: “So you have to have a shareholder driving the boat before you can assess liability?”
Dellinger licked his lips frequently and drank generously from his water glass. “Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong and paid dearly for it,” he pleaded to the justices.
It seemed likely Exxon would have to pay more for it — though not terribly much. The court’s dealmakers, Kennedy and David Souter, floated the idea that punitive damages could be double the amount of compensatory damages — about $800 million, instead of the $2.5 billion ordered by the appellate court. Souter wondered aloud whether “we’ve simply got to come up with a number.”
The notion of the justices pulling a number out of thin air seemed a bit too neat for an oil spill that spoiled 1,200 miles of Alaska’s coastline. But then the argument had less to do with the dead marine animals and ruined fishermen than with an obscure maritime law case from 1818 called The Amiable Nancy– or, as Scalia put it, the ” Amiable Whatever It Is.”
As the justices probed the intricacies of the laws of the sea, Ginsburg discussed Rule 50. Kennedy invoked Instruction 30, Instruction 33 and Instruction 36. Spectators showed evidence of drowsiness. Reporters yawned — at least until they were jolted awake by an alarming prospect raised by Ginsburg, who spoke about “a new trial” and the “next time around.”
A new trial? After 19 years of legal fighting? Out on the plaza after the argument, Brian O’Neill, one of the Alaska victims’ lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling, Exxon had already won. “I guess the lesson you learn,” he said, “is that if you’re big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt.”
February 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pmSA,
MY GOD!
A TYPO!
What will we do?
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 11:37 am
Maybe consider not calling others stupid while claiming superior thought/intellect. Give it a shot, it might suit you
February 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pmI love this reference: “the ceiling-staring Clarence Thomas”
February 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pmIt’s clear that Scalia is the true @ss on the court.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pmlaughter is not that rare during oral argument. scalia has the tendency to provoke laughter. here’s the actual exchange:
10
February 28th, 2008 at 12:15 pm11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So what can a
corporation do to protect itself against punitive
damages awards such as this?
MR. FISHER: Well, it can hire fit and
competent people who it decides —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, and assume it
has a policy that we will hire fit and competent people?
MR. FISHER: Well —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And you’re saying —
that’s the question I’m asking. What if there is a
breach of the corporate policy? I don’t see what more a
corporation can do. I mean, your — other than —
other than what? I mean it has to say that the policy
is this, and if somebody breaks the policy, they’re
liable for compensatory damages, which can as this case
shows be in the billions of dollars, and of course the
individual is liable for punitive and other awards.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
But what more can the corporation do other
than say here is our policies? And try to implement
them.
MR. FISHER: Apart from adopting a policy,
they need to implement it soundly. And the argument
you’re making, if I understand it correctly, would
obtain just as easily if the vice president of Exxon
Corporation or the president of Exxon Shipping, whom
Mr. Dellinger says would put Exxon on the hook, had made
the decision to put Joe Hazelwood in command of this
ship. And so you always have the problem —
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: At that level — at
that level, the president, I think you would have an
argument that the policy was being changed. It’s not
clear that that argument works when you’re dealing with
someone at Mr. Hazelwood’s level.
As someone else already pointed out, it’s just as bad as the shorter excerpt–or worse. Roberts is saying all the company has to do is have policies and try to implement those policies. In other words, he doesn’t seem to think the company is responsible for ENFORCING the policies, AUDITING the policies, ACTING on violations of those policies, making those policies a living part of the company culture. It seems that Roberts believes the company only has to have policies and roll them out in some sort of “attempt” at implementation. Then they can sit back and claim to have policies that exempt them from full accountability.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pm“Just because punnies are not currently criminal damages does not make it right that they are decided in a tort case. We may as well say “currently the B-Team can eavesdrop without a warrant, so why protest? In both cases, the current system is wrong and on both people should speak up. You may as well claim that the people being spied on by our government shouldn’t complain, since that’s the law.”
That is known as false equivalence. What the “B-team” is doing (I assume you are referring to the FISA blowup) is illegal. The law as written does NOT permit them to eavesdrop without a warrant (they can listen for a few days without one to certain classes of communications, but by law are required to obtain a warrant after that time). The fact the administration has ignored those requirements does not make their actions legal - that’s the entire focus of the current debate on FISA - whether Congress will retroactively allow the government to break the law without consequences. In the FISA case, the “current system” is NOT wrong - the government agents who are violating the law are wrong. As a result, your analogy with Exxon is misleading and inapt.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pmJm.
First, your comment “There is also too much talk about rights” echoes what we here from the B-Team.
Second, as I’ve said repeatedly, although you cannot lock up the CEO, you can — and should — levy heavy fines against Exxon.
People seem to think that I am here to justify the conduct of Exxon. Read my comments. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I just want to see the appropriate penalty entered in a fair manner.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pmthen again….
given Alaska’s willingness to keep guys like Ted Stevens around makes me wonder whether they’re not simply getting exactly what they’ve been voting for.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pmSomebody is going to jump on me for my last comment.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pmI meant to type “what we hear” from the B-Team.
Sorry for all who will find themselves deeply troubled by the typo.
Funny…considering how much the Republicans like to pontificate about the importance of taking personal responsibility, one would think that Roberts wouldn’t be so quite so eager to exonerate Exxon Mobil from facing penalties for its mistakes.
Oh, wait! Silly me…I must have misunderstood. When Republicans talk about taking personal responsibility, they obviously must mean other people — not themselves or their friends. If the shoe were on the other foot and the Alaska fishermen had somehow done something to harm Exxon, does anyone here seriously believe that Roberts would have been opposed to awarding punitive damages? Yeah…RIGHT.
(Interesting, isn’t it, how reluctant Republicans become to walk their talk with regard to personal responsibility when it comes to them or one of their pals?)
February 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pmI’d recommend electro-shock therapy for the chiefster and a taste of the waterboard for Scalito.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pmSomebody is going to jump on me for my last comment.
I meant to type “what we hear†from the B-Team.
Sorry for all who will find themselves deeply troubled by the typo.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Typos are nothing. We all make ‘em. (Of course, not all of us make them after calling other posters “stupid”…)
No, what troubles me is your infantile troll-like insults of those who disagree with you, which is pretty much the same behavior of which you accuse others.
Several of us, independently of each other, reached the conclusion that you are a concern troll. Why? Your comments fit the familiar pattern of a concern troll. Simple.
Maybe you are the committed “center-left” activist you claim to be. If so, maybe you ought to wonder why you sound so much like a concern troll to those of us who have dealt with them many times before.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pmRalph.
With all due respect — you all started it.
You all used the label “troll” and “stupid” and worse for the reason that I questioned comments calling the Chief Judge “stupid” and for stating that Exxon should have rights just like the rest of us.
For making those statements, personal insults were heaved at me.
Calling me stupid or a troll for disagreeing with you, and then getting upset when I respond in kind?
Is that really why you are so upset? Because I disgreed on a matter of policy and did not take kindly to personal insults? Is that rational in your world?
Would you expect somebody to respond “Thanks for insulting me and questioning my bias?”
Read my comments. Do they really sound like comments made by some crazed right-winger? Or do I write like someone on the moderate to left who is concerned with individual rights and liberty?
February 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pmSorry for all who will find themselves deeply troubled by the typo.
Comment by Skeeter1
We’re not concerned about your typos, but about your lame-ass pro-corporate wilfull ignorance of the law.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI just want to see the appropriate penalty entered in a fair manner.
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Skeeter, it’s a hollow argument.
You’ve already tired claiming it’s a “criminal fine”…
“If people want to punish Exxon — and I personally believe that Exxon does need to be punished for this — then it should be done in a criminal courtroom with criminal stanards and criminal defenses.
To basically impose a criminal fine without those standards is truly unfair, unjust, and un-American.”
It was a civil penalty in a civil suit. It’s already gone thru 2 levels of the justice system. The appeals court may have reduced the size of the judgement, but they didn’t throw it out totally because the suit was “improper” or “illegal” or “unfair” or “un-American’ or whatever you want to pretend.
It was a CIVIL suit for damages, not a criminal trial. W/out resorting to insults, you’re grasp of legalities is tenuous at best.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pmOr do I write like someone on the moderate to left who is concerned with individual rights and liberty?
Comment by Skeeter1 — February 28, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Quite frankly, you sound like someone who doesn’t realize they don’t know what they’re talking about. Several of us have pointed out quite clearly the errors in your “legal reasoning” yet you appear determined to ignore this willfully.
Ergo, yer a TROLL!
February 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pmSo…if Roberts isn’t stupid, well, I guess that means that he’s just plain evil.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pmRepublic and Jasper,
I am not sure how to respond without saying something like READ THE FRIGGING COMMENTS YOU NUMBSKULLS.”
But that’s probably not the polite way to respond, so instead I will say “Republic and Jasper, before calling me a troll or lame-ass, you may want to read my comments, as they directly address your questions.”
In fact, I have admitted many times that the damages are in fact tort damages.
However, I have also pointed out that entering an award for punnies in a civil trial with civil standards is inherently unfair and injust.
By the way, and not to digress — the system that you like in this case is very similar to the system the government uses to seize money and assets allegedly used in illegal activities. If they can’t prosecute somebody for a drug crime, the gov’t will seize cash and then claim it in a civil suit. That’s perfectly legal, but perfectly wrong. It is an abuse of what should be basic rights. If the gov’t wants to charge criminal conduct and impose a criminal fine, it should be in a criminal court and not a civl. Calling it “civil” or “tort” doesn’t make it so.
I don’t particularly care with the courts have done with the case to date, any more than I care that the B-Team can spy without a warrant.
People here correctly jump on the B-Team for pursuing “legal” activities that are wrong. However, when the “legal” system is wrong but works to the advantage of people here, they are quick to say “FOLLOW THE LAW.”
I’m with Rev. King on this one. If the law is wrong, we have a duty to speak up.
Even if it it means that some mindless 1L or 1L wannabe is going to call me a troll.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pmLeftside,
I don’t have a problem with your last comment at all.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pmFrankly, I share that view.
Skeeter, yer grasp of legalities is lacking… it’s that simple.
If there was anything inherently flawed w/ the VERDICT, it would have been thrown out by now, and it hasn’t.
GET. A. CLUE.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm“People here correctly jump on the B-Team for pursuing “legal†activities that are wrong.”
Arrgghhh!!! You are now just being willingly obtuse. As I and others have pointed out, the activities “the B-Team” are pursuing are NOT legal. They are clear violations of the law and we want the government agents who perpetrated them to face prosecution for their crimes.
And, again, your disagreement with current law on torts or punitive damages doesn’t make the law in those areas “unfair,” “unjust,” or “un-American,” These laws weren’t just thrown together with no thought for equity or constitutionality. I won’t claim they are ideal, but you seem to see them as arbitrary and unjust without explaining why. You seem to think that only by bringing criminal charges should one be able to collect punitive damages, yet private individuals have no standing to bring criminal charges against a defendant - only the state can do that. Do you propose to change the legal code to allow individuals to file criminal charges against whomever they please? Do you realize how ludicrous that idea is? You clearly haven’t thought your ideas through to any significant degree, and that is the main reason you are getting so much grief from the posters here. Advance a logical and reasonable argument and I’ll be glad to engage you. But please stop tossing out these half-baked comments without stopping to think about them first.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pmRepublic,
The 1:42 comment has got to be the dumbest comment ever made on this forum.
Seriously.
I refuse to believe that in the history of this forum there was a comment so completely out of touch with fact and reality.
How often have people raved about unfair criminal sentences?
As somebody deeply opposed to the death penalty, I can tell you that it is COMMON for innocent defendants — with all those protections that I am advocating and that Exxon was denied — to have their verdicts upheld.
At least until the DNA comes out 10 years later and proves they didn’t do it.
That the verdict was affirmed means absolutely nothing to me.
If you are going to make comments like GET A CLUE please don’t do so when you don’t have a clue in the world.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pmCivil and criminal penalties may flow from tortious conduct. This case was a civil case. Punitive damages are available to injured plaintiff’s in a civil case. The purpose of imposing such damages is not to compensate, but to deter the offending actor (corporate or individual) from engaging in similar conduct in the future. They are meant to be a penalty and, therefore, must be large enough that the actor, and all other actors similarly situated, feel the pain and get the point that such conduct will no longer be tolerated.
What can a corporation do — have oversight and accountability. That or pay millions on high priced lawyers to try and wiggle out of the mess they made some 20 years after the fact when no one much cares any more — except of course, the poor people hurt by the tortious conduct in the first place.
Cry me a river, but if a corporation wants to be found to be a “person” under the law, it’s got to deal with all the baggage that comes with being a person under the law, civil or (gasp) criminal.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pmJJ,
First, you are wrong.
The FISA legislation is now The Law whether you like it or not. Saying you don’t like it doesn’t make it “illlegal.” It makes it wrong. Further, Jim Crow was The Law. The day I stop objecting to conduct merely because it is The Law is the day that I join the GOP.
Second, I pointed out that the problem with the election of the B-Team is that a criminal prosecution by a B-Team AG is unlikely. The bad guys won. Deal with it.
It means people should have voted for Gore and Kerry.
It does not mean that we should impose what is in essence a criminal fine without criminal procedures and defenses.
The left needs to learn that you do not win by taking the tactics of the right, any more than we justify torture because our enemies torture prisoners.
That’s exactly what is happening here.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pmRE: “It does not mean that we should impose what is in essence a criminal fine without criminal procedures and defenses.”
Punitive damages are not a criminal fine — fines are imposed by the government. Punitive damages are given to the victims (and, because the Right has castigated punitives as being unfair to corporation, most states now take a significant cut so don’t expect the laws to be changed much any time soon).
And criminal procedures would probably make the defendant here, Exxon, worse off. Procedures in criminal cases are not designed necessarily with the defendant in mind (however difficult some reading here might find that to believe). Exxon would have been limited as to what information the plaintiffs (i.e. the government in in a criminal case) would need to turn over to it and limited discovery.
As for criminal defenses, Exxon had a wide litany of civil defenses available to it. The blurb about the hearing indicates that Exxon likes the defense of”frolic and detour” (i.e. the captain acted outside of our policies therefore we should not be liable). The jury, apparently, didn’t buy it.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pmMe thinks the concern troll doth protest too much.
“…while people here type and whine.”
You would think that someone who claims to work toward getting Progressives elected would know that it is blogs like these that have done a huge service in aiding the causes of Progressives. The Administration and RNC have been driven to distraction time and again by the work done by Progressive blogs (hence the flurry of paid trolls who haven’t been able to make any headway despite their dogges efforts). I agree with many of todays posters, this troll is just a rose by another name.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pmSkeeter, despite your protestations, punitive damages in civil cases are NOT criminal fines. You refuse to address the substance of that argument because you are wrong. I am no knee-jerk defender of unjust laws, but you have in no sense explained convincingly why the current system of punitive damages in unjust or unfair. I don;t accept proof by vigorous assertion, so you’ll have to offer a more convincing argument than the fact that you say so. Your proposed solution - limiting all punitive damage claims to criminal cases - is far less equitable and completely impractical from an enforcement standpoint.
Also, contra your claims, the Protect America Act expired earlier this month and was NOT renewed. The ruling passed by Congress in August 2007 was a temporary measure, and the issue has not at all been settled. You make your pronouncements so smugly then turn out not to have a clue what you are taking about.
And thanks for the gratuitous use of the term “the left.” Makes me question whether you are really the liberal activist you claim to be or a conservative lurker trying to stir the pot.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm“It means people should have voted for Gore and Kerry.”
If our alleged concern troll was in fact a Liberal/Progressive it would know damned well that a majority of Americans d