Corporate-tool Chief Justice Roberts asks "question" so stupid entire courtroom laughs at him.

[Occam Bandage]

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703207.html?hpid=topnews

[Canuckistanian]

1. NSS

No Shit, Sherlock.

[roguevalley]

37. alaska is going to get screwed people have died waiting for this to happen.

[Canuckistanian]

38. I was atounded to hear last year that this hadn't been settled

I imagine if someone had vandalized some Exxon office somewhere, they would have been in jail before the paint dried on the graffiti.

[roguevalley]

39. expect another sea blockade of exxon shipping into alaska if this doesn't

go right. they did it before. they'll do it again.

[Divernan]

62. And Exxon has had the use of that $2.5 billion for 19 years!

Roberts is as bad as we all expected.

[formercia]

63. The longer Exxon can put off the settlement

the less the payout will be worth in real money due to inflation and the dropping value of the Dollar. It's win-win for them.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Why is that concept so hard to grasp for the corporate loving groupies?

Thanks for the thread, Occam Bandage.

[Homer Wells]

3. F**K Roberts!

It's a great response.

Who gives a rats ass if he was amused??

:wtf:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

4. K&R... a BIG LOL from me! thanks

[Robbien]

5. It is no wonder Roberts hasn't asked a question in over two years

A Supreme Court Judge

:shakes head:

[Sanity Claws]

6. He's Chief Justice, not judge

Not exactly awe-inspiring, eh? The best these assholes could come up with.

[dragonlady]

23. Are you thinking of Clarence Thomas? I'd expect that Roberts does ask questions n/t

[Robbien]

30. That's it

Thanks.

[BadgerLaw2010]

51. Wrong guy. Roberts can't shut up.

[Auntie Bush]

7. Don't forget about getting more fools like that when you vote.

Think Supreme Court when you vote...not whether you're voting for Barak or Hillary. The big "D" is all that matters.

[Froward69]

11. Vote the big (D) indeed!!!!

:thumbsup: :patriot: :kick:

[Occam Bandage]

35. Absolutely. Whether it's Barack or Hillary, either will appoint good justices, and

not whores like Roberts.

[Thothmes]

40. Unfortunately, they may only get an opportunity

to replace two judges. These also happen to be the most liberal of the the current court, Justices Ginsberg and Stevens. Even two nominations will not change the tone of the current court.

[Demeter]

50. Not If We Impeach the 4 Remaining of the 5 Supremes Who Brought Us This Fiasco

and that's one of my life goals....

[Thothmes]

53. Never Happen

A judicial decision you disagree with does not meet the Constitutional definition of an impeachable offense.

[Demeter]

59. Never Say Never--Believe!

you aren't gonna recognise this country in 5 years...the tsunami is coming.

[Peregrine Took]

8. Sniff....sniff....I lie awake at night worrying about how corporations can

adequately protect themselves from punitive damages awards!

Oh, the humanity of it!!

LEAVE THE POOR CORPORATIONS ALONE!!

[burythehatchet]

9. This case is as important a case as there is in terms of corporate protection

if they strike down the punitive damages claim it could have a deep and lasting impact on our civil tort system.

[Selatius]

10. Republicans always filibuster. Democrats don't seem willing to filibuster.

The result is you get dumbfucks like John Roberts on the court.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. They were just keeping their powder dry

just in case they had to take a powder :banghead:

[progressoid]

12. WhatheFUCK? If Scalia recused himself, why does he keep interjecting his opinion?

" Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon shareholder, recused himself from the case. "

Yet...

"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.


...

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."

[Gold Metal Flake]

14. Scalia and Alito, while sharing many parts of the same brain, are two separate sentient life forms.

[Prophet 451]

26. Are you sure about the "sentient" part? n/t

[hootinholler]

36. Sentient?

Yeah, right.

-Hoot

[MrCoffee]

24. Scalia didn't recuse himself, Alito did.

[progressoid]

28. Yeah, I ate lunch and now my blood sugar is better

I hate it when I post dumb shit.

[MrCoffee]

29. lol, I hear that

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

13. We're strapped with this asshat for the next 30 years or better..

shrubya will be dead of alcohol poisoning by then.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

21. Seriously uncool.

Shit like that belongs on Stormfront, not DU.

[TooBigaTent]

32. What? Wringing your hands and doing nothing but complaining about a bad situation is what

is epidemic on DU nowadays.

There are ways to reshape the court, only one of which is a questionable tactic. Not that I would ever advise anyone to pursue that solution.

Too many here have a misguided faith that either BO or HC would appoint a liberal to the court.

NEWSFLASH - there are NO liberals currently on the court. We are stuck with a couple of center-right wimps and a majority of far-right fascists. A real liberal has no chance of getting there in the immediate or forseeable future.

[Richard Steele]

41. Tell it to the Mods, mister Lee Harvey Wannabe.

Tell it to the Mods.

[cascadiance]

34. Unless he can be found to be complicit in obstructing justice and IMPEACHED!

If, unlike the older Supreme Court in Nixon's day, who universally rejected Nixon's claims of executive privilege that would have facilitated obstruction of justice, this court has those that would obstruct justice being served on this administration, I think that would be as much grounds for impeachment of those Supreme Court justices that are obstructing justice as those that are guilty of crimes in this administration.

Our almost as equally complicit Congress has to understand this too, and also should be sending signals to the court that they won't accept them trying to block the American people seeking justice for the criminals that occupy our executive branch now!

[Virginia Dare]

55. They've got enough on Scalia now to impeach him..

maybe if he can get a massive wave of Dems in power, that will come to pass. I can dream.

[Ganja Ninja]

15. "So what can a corporation do ...?"

What? Buying the GOP hasn't been enough?

For Christ sakes Mr. Chief Justice! It's been 13 years since they destroyed the lives of the plaintiffs in this case. Don't ya think the never ending appeals and on going court battles are an effective defense?

[Uncle Joe]

17. I believe

it was nineteen years, being 1989 and I heard on the news last night, that one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs and 20% of the victims have died since then.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I'm so afraid the Supreme Court is going to throw out

the punitive award in this case, even though it's already been reduced by half. If the award stands, each one of the plaintiffs will receive only about $75,000 on top of the paltry $15,000 or so they've already been awarded for the destruction of their lives and livelihood. Exxon should be ashamed of themselves, especially considering the billions of dollars they've earned from Alaska's oil over the years.

Here's an article from this morning's Anchorage Daily News which discusses the effect the spill had on the Cordova fishermen and their fears regarding how the court will rule.

http://www.adn.com/626/story/328972.html

and an editorial...

Exxon's appeal
Alaskans have already waited too long for justice in this case

Published: February 28th, 2008 12:43 AM
Last Modified: February 28th, 2008 01:00 AM

You've got to hand it to Exxon. For 13 years, it has used some ingenious legal arguments to avoid paying a multibillion-dollar punitive damage award to Alaskans harmed by its 1989 oil spill.

For example, Exxon's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court invokes an obscure maritime case from 1818. The Amiable Nancy was a privateer that plundered neutral shipping. When a victimized shipper tried to sue the privateer's owners, the U.S. Supreme Court said no, the owner couldn't be held liable, because the skipper's raid was unauthorized. Ship owners couldn't possibly be expected to be responsible for what a captain did way out at sea, out of touch for months on end.

That ruling made sense back then, but not any more. Not with radios and modern satellite tracking. In any event, Exxon's fault was letting Hazelwood take the helm to begin with, since the company knew he was an alcoholic and knew (or should have known) he was off the wagon.

If its maritime law arguments fail, Exxon urges the Supreme Court to usurp the role of the jury and eliminate or slash the punitive damages.

To mere mortals, there's no question the $2.5 billion award looks big. But that's only because it's a big case involving claims by a lot of people -- 32,677 to be precise.

The punitive award is $76,500 per person. That's less than five times the paltry $15,500 per person in economic damages that Exxon had to pay -- a ratio well within the boundaries the Supreme Court has set in other cases. If Exxon had to pay today, the $2.5 billion would be only about three weeks' profits. That's less than the maximum penalty -- more than $3 billion -- the state and federal governments could have sought in criminal fines against Exxon for the spill. As part of its plea bargain, Exxon ultimately paid a criminal fine of just $25 million -- less than 1 percent of the maximum.

It's hard to predict how the court will judge Exxon's appeal. At oral argument Wednesday, hostile questioning suggested several justices think the award is too big.

These days, the Supreme Court usually sides with big money over the little guy or government. Fortunately for Alaskans, one reliably pro-business vote, Justice Samuel Alito, recused himself because he owns significant Exxon stock. That raises hopes the justices will deadlock 4-4, which would uphold the judgment against Exxon and bring this interminable case to a just end.

BOTTOM LINE: This $2.5 billion "punishment" isn't too much for the nation's worst oil spill.

[MindPilot]

19. "...hire fit and competent people."

A concept wholly unfamiliar to the current administration.

High political office and the corporate boardroom seem to have become the nation's full-employment program for the intellectually challenged.

[pleah]

20. Was his face as red as a repuke state?

:rofl: What an asinine question.

[wryter2000]

22. I love you, Jeffrey Fisher!

Good one! :bounce:

[elehhhhna]

25. "So what can a COUNTRY do to protect itself against damages such as this?"

That's what the asshat SHOULD be concerned with.

He's a tool.

[Virginia Dare]

27. And to think..

this is the best Chief Justice corporate money could buy.

[ellenfl]

31. how can roberts even ask such a question? biased much? eom

[trof]

33. Read about the 1814 case scotus is basing decision on:

Fascinating, and archaic.

The Amiable Nancy
http://www.adn.com/1648/story/328119.html

On Nov. 4, 1814, the Haitian schooner Amiable Nancy, bound for Antigua with a cargo of corn, was boarded by sailors from the American privateer Scourge and plundered of its papers, money, apparel and poultry.

The American ship was working for its country, attacking British ships during the War of 1812, but in this case its crew went too far. For their attack on "unoffending neutrals," the ship's crew and owners were sued in federal court and ordered to pay not only for the loss of goods but "vindictive damages."

Four years later, in a decision that became a monument in federal maritime law, the Amiable Nancy decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the owners of the Scourge couldn't be held liable for the error of its captain.
<snip>
The precedent absolving shipowners dates back to a time when captains set to sea for years at a time, forsaking all contact with their home port, Oesting responded Monday. It's time that such laws were retired, he said, arguing that Exxon should be held liable for "putting a drunk skipper on the bridge knowingly." "That's ludicrous these days," he said.

"That's an anachronistic view of life or the law. These ships are monitored by satellite."

[zytime]

47. I hope this ends well...

I went to a training recently on finding the root cause of a problem and one of the examples was the Exxon Valdez. I'm writing based on my memory of the research that the instructor had compiled, so I can't cite any of this. First of all, the cause that was universally put forth was that Hazelwood was drunk. He had supposedly had 2-3 drinks in port, hardly incapacitating for a relapsed alcoholic. Second, the mate at the wheel at the time of grounding was working with the Coast Guard to navigate around the steadily advancing glacial ice, so had several different aides in navigation, some of which failed if I remember correctly. Finally, and these are the details I forget, the regulations that were overlooked or ignored were mostly, if not all, done with the blessing of the Valdez port authorities and the Coast Guard because Hazelton and his crew had one of the best safety records of any ship in the Valdez fleet and had earned the right to some freedoms and flexibility not granted to less experienced crews. Even if I missed some of the details, my point is that using Hazelwood as the crux of their argument could be dangerous. However, I truly hope that the decision stands and that those affected can finally have some closure and some compensation, however much of a pittance it may be.

[Marnieworld]

42. You know the Nazi's liked Flair too!

:D

[kath]

IMHO, here is the best quote from that article:

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."

You got that right, bub.

[Blue_In_AK]

45. They've stalled around long enough

that one-fifth of the original plaintiffs are dead. That was probably Exxon's plan all along -- just wait the fishermen out. Sick bastards.

[kath]

43. Delete. dupe.

[bluedawg12]

46. Well, corp.'s can make sure that RW hacks are nominated

so they can weep openly for the embattled oil giant. :sarcasm:

[donheld]

48. K & R

[Dudley_DUright]

49. Mr. Roberts, the proper question is:

"How can the public protect itself against rapacious and polluting companies such as this?"

[Perry Logan]

52. If we were wingers, we'd be talking about shooting the guy.

[luckyleftyme2]

54. well we see DUBYA 'S legacy

Well we see DUBYA'S legacy in action; unwilling, unable and inept for the job.

[spanone]

my bet = exxon mobil gets off the hook, alaska makes amends to them

[spanone]

56. my bet = exxon mobil gets off the hook, alaska makes amends to them

[ThomWV]

57. I hope the words "they can hire fit and competent people" finds it way into the decision.

[DemoTex]

58. Fit and competent people ..

DRUNK AS A SKUNK .. IN HIS BUNK!

[Blue_Tires]

60. i'm sure glad the dems fought so hard to keep him off the bench

oh wait....

[Flying Dream Blues]

61. Corporate tool, indeed. This is infuriating. nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

64. "So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards"

Doesn't he have that absolutely reversed? What can people do about abusive, powerful corporations with friends in the Supreme Court, is a far better quetion.

Who's your daddy, Roberts. Who's your daddy.

"I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said.

Pay the damages you've caused and not avoid responsibility?