We, the Corporations of the United States of America...

Wot a piece of shiat Scalia is!

Good on Justice Ginsberg at least.

Exxon loses a 5 Billion dollar liability case for fucking up 100s of miles of Alaskan coastline and seriously screwing with local wildlife and the local fishermen's way of life.

Exxon goes to court and get's that 5 Billion dollar judgement reduced to 2.5 Billion and then still doesn't pay up.

Now it wants to reduce the judgement even further? SCOTUS agrees?! Meanwhile, the people who's lives were fucked up by this are still waiting.

If this continues on in this reprehensible vein then soon the US government will owe money to Exxon fer fucks sake.

Scalia thinks because drunken Cappy was personally responsible there is no corporate liability here.

Spud to Scalia: Go fuck yerself with a stick you pathetic excuse for a Judge. You reek of corporate kowtowing. Did you promise the head of Exxon a blowjob along with a favorable judgement here? How many pieces of silver did they offer you, you POS?!

In point of fact, Captain Shitface was in his bunk when the ship got fucked up and he has just been made a scapegoat here. His long history of being a drunken reprobate was well known to Exxon. Spud now thinks that he was allowed to continue on in his position just so he could take the fall in such an instance.

Just another sad and screwed up Chapter in the inglorious tome we call "Bush's Legacy"

Be Well.

/Yes, Spud knows folks who got fucked up by this shit.
//Can ya tell?

Exxon loses a 5 Billion dollar liability case for fucking up 100s of miles of Alaskan coastline

1200 miles of coastline.

Scalia put it, the " Amiable Whatever It Is."

This is one of our chief justices and doesn't know the case history and actually mocks it.

This clearly show his disdain for our actual system.

This is one of our chief justices and doesn't know the case history and actually mocks it.

This clearly show his disdain for our actual system.

He's a POS.

Don't forget this is the same freakjob that decided that torture WAS constitutional the other day.

Worst. Judge. Evar!

Be Well.

:This is one of our chief justices and doesn't know the case history and actually mocks it."

Any competent judge would laugh at a lawyer who bases their theory on a case that is 190 years old.

By the way you fucking morons, Scalia was ripping on the lawyer for Exxon. Try doing a little reading before you shit your pants.

Any competent judge would laugh at a lawyer who bases their theory on a case that is 190 years old.

I didn't know, I thought judges were to make sure the laws are followed not decide which laws were old and which were not.

Fuck Exxon. A sane society would revoke its corporate charter.

"I thought judges were to make sure the laws are followed not decide which laws were old and which were not."

Like it or not, judges have the latitude to distinguish between cases from 2 centuries ago and cases from yesterday. Now that you know Scalia was ripping Exxon's lawyer, I imagine you feel differently about it anyway.

Well it's helpful if you can cite a case - oh, like back in the 20th Century - that followed the ruling.

Wonder how much interest has accrued on the award.

Dethspud-

"Scalia thinks because drunken Cappy was personally responsible there is no corporate liability here."

Where are you getting that from?

No, Joe,

2 to 3 billion for the damage exxon caused is nothing.

The fact that exxon doesn't want to or feels they should take any responsibility for the actions of their company says alot about the value of our corporations.

I agree with Nulli, exxon should lose their charter and the fact if this was a company owned by a single individual and not a corporation the company would be history.

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

drank generously from a water glass? Hungover?

Where are you getting that from?

Extrapolating from the "Captain not high enuff" remark.

Upon further perusal perhaps Spud jumped the gun there.

Damn you Evelyn Wood.

That sed, 19 years is waaaay too long to drag this out and this whole "Amicable Nancy" canard smells like a dead red herring.

Be Well.

Worst. Judge. Evar!

Earl Warren

Let's get a new America with a new Supreme Court. This America is dead and this Supreme Court is corrupt. We need a new America and a new USSC. Two Presidents. Two courts. Then all this discussion ends. The conservatives are happy and the liberals are happy. Two countries solves the problem of this thread. A judge that protects a corporation before he protects America and its citizens. Two countries is the answer.

Worst. Judge. Evar!

Earl Warren

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-02-29 12:44 AM | Reply


Yes, Warren was a strong advocate of racial equality and did much do bring equality to American citizens who had been excluded from the process in the past. I can see why conservative Jeff J thinks this is the Worst Judge Evar, and another reason why two countries would be better suited for freedom. Conservative racists like Jeff J can eradicate all the laws enforced by the Warren Court and live happily ever after. Liberals can get a real court without scum like Roberts Scalia and Thomas influencing a decent society. Conservatives get their all conservative court and liberals get their all liberal court. Problem solved. Two countries is the answerr.

"Fuck Exxon. A sane society would revoke its corporate charter."

I'm no fan of corporations but I do like gas in my tank. Let Exxon pay its punitive damages and then continue to supply me with fuel but a little more carefully hopefully. 2.5 billion will probably encourage the Exxon execs to make sure no drunks are captains of their ships.

Wow Boob, you are still nutz.

Danni - Stop being rational the crazies dont like that. See the post above yours.

1200 miles of coastline.

Posted by moneywar

1,200 miles of coast got some oil on it. What was the damage? Who got hit in the pocket book? How much did they get hit for? All these glittering statements don't mean jack shit.

Justice system indeed. Ridiculous position for the supreme to take, but not surprising. The system is dead, all hail the system.

1200 miles of coastline.

Posted by moneywar

1,200 miles of coast got some oil on it. What was the damage? Who got hit in the pocket book? How much did they get hit for? All these glittering statements don't mean jack shit.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-02-29 02:52 PM |

And cheap denials mean even less.

take two seconds to educate yourself on the subject...funny little search engine called google should set you on the right path.

I didn't know, I thought judges were to make sure the laws are followed not decide which laws were old and which were not.

Every case is going to have opposing sides that are going to cite laws and precedents that appear to support their case. Both sides are going to claim that their side is obviously right.

In that circumstance, the judge's role is going to be to sort out the claims re. law and precedent. If one side cites an obscure 200 year old law, it may carry weight or it may not. Either way, that is EXACTLY what the judge is there to decide.

FWIW, I don't think age alone is the issue, we have plenty of laws that go back centuries in one form or another. The question is relevance, and it may be that an 1818 law or decision isn't as relevant as other, more recent cases cited.

Any competent judge would laugh at a lawyer who bases their theory on a case that is 190 years old.

A lot of law is based on precedents older than that. Habeus corpus goes back to 1066. SCOTUS itself bases its powers on a law more than 200 years old. The question is, are there settled rulings that post-date that law?

Exxon fucked everyone and everything they touched while creating their port from Indian Land. They promised to provide the Indian landowners an education, the community with jobs and put in place plans and equipment to deal with any spillage problems.

Exxon broke each and every Contractual Agreement, with the local community, particularly the Indians. Once they got the land, they mothballed jobs, boats, equipment and plans including educational opportunities. 19 years later, 20% of the plaintiff's are dead.

This is a shining example of why our founding fathers restricted the legal rights of Corporations. Individuals are free and responsible for their own behavior. They can get rich or go to jail. But a Corporation cannot be put in jail. So our wise forefathers made the punishment for Corporate crime dissolution of the Corporation. This did happen once in New York, but only once. Then in 1875, ONE Santa Clara Judge granted the same rights to Corporations as human beings are entitiled to.

Given Corporate lifetimes and resources the best interests of human beings have been removed from serious legal consideration, especially at the Federal level. Roberts, Scalia and Thomas have made no secret of their distain for working class people and the basic rights granted them. Yet they fall over eachother trying to make sure inanimate Corporations are given every benefit of the doubt, while our jails overflow.

As Mussolini explained Corporatism and Nazism are the same thing and I would add so was Medeival Society.

Rockerfeller is a Democrat and the staunchest supporter of Globalism. Kissinger was and remains his gopher and BushCo's favorite consultant. Destroyers of human beings, nations and their entire infrastructure. In short, heartless assholes that Jesus would condemn.

Try doing a little reading before you shit your pants.


Is that how you do it?

Rockerfeller is a Democrat and the staunchest supporter of Globalism. Kissinger was and remains his gopher and BushCo's favorite consultant. Destroyers of human beings, nations and their entire infrastructure. In short, heartless assholes that Jesus would condemn.

THIS.

A Thousand times THIS.

Thread over. Nutcase WINS!

Be Well.

Conservative racists like Jeff J can eradicate all the laws enforced by the Warren Court and live happily ever after.

Ah yes, because I oppose Warren's court I must be a racist.

Life is so simple in Buffalo Bob's world.


I think Warren sucks because he was the poser-boy for judicial activism, and no, I am not talking about Brown, dipshit.

I agree that they should pay the ORIGINAL 5 Billion!
However, I read everyone trashing Exxon and large corporations all of the time on here. If any of you have a 401K there is a GREAT chance that the money you are earning comes from some of those disgusting corporations. I suggest, that as a protest, you sell YOUR stocks in these companies. This will allow ME to get a better deal on them for my retirement account!

I suggest, that as a protest, you sell YOUR stocks in these companies. This will allow ME to get a better deal on them for my retirement account!

Yeah but if you add up all the shares owned by the liberals here it wouldn't amount to 12 shares of anything anyway. I don't think that will impact the market in your favor anyway.

EBERLY...great point. I should have thought about who I was talking to before making that remark! Have a good weekend.

Yeah but if you add up all the shares owned by the liberals here it wouldn't amount to 12 shares of anything anyway. I don't think that will impact the market in your favor anyway.

Posted by eberly at 2008-02-29 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

EBERLY...great point. I should have thought about who I was talking to before making that remark! Have a good weekend.

Posted by wifenothome at 2008-02-29 04:38 PM | Reply |

Two idiots agreeing on idiotic posts trying to make an idiotic point. well done kids.

"Two idiots agreeing on idiotic posts trying to make an idiotic point. well done kids."

Those two clowns should get a room.

I guess you two dumb shits are right. No self respecting lib would ever have his own retirement account or own any evil stocks in a large corp. You just sit on your fat asses and wait for the government to take care of you.

Your post has got to be the stupidist post I have seen here ever.

You can bet if those fishermen had damaged Exxon to the extent of a few billion they would have paid up AND gone to jail long ago. Note that what's at stake is 3 weeks profit for Exxon. This is not about trashing Exxon, it is about making a company bear responsibility for damage it has caused--a concept that is as old as our system of laws. A concept which no longer applies if you are rich and powerful.

"Supremes Worried About Exxon"

Why on earth should Diana, Mary, and Cindy be concerned about an oil company?

Oh. Learn how to write a headline, whydontcha?

My my my! Look at all the angry people angry at big corporations. It's a shame their hatred blinds them to the even bigger corporation called the federal government. Or maybe their heads are just up their asses?

I know all caps means YELLING. does Bold mean you have, like, a really low voice or something?

They should make Scalia drink oil the way they did to Mark Walberg in 'The Three Kings'..."hey, what is wrong with you, my main man"

I agree that they should pay the ORIGINAL 5 Billion!
However, I read everyone trashing Exxon and large corporations all of the time on here.

"everyone" seems like quite a generalization.

Exxon's reputation speaks for itself. They've owed this bill for 19 years. If the situation were different, and a fishing boat had breached and sunk the Valdez do you think the owner of the boat would still be in the fishing business? Or, would Exxon have sued them into oblivian?

Exxon can either pay up, or be trashed.

DT,

There is a legitimate point to your lament. All inanimate institutions, Corporations, Governments, Labor Unions, Charities, Churches, tend to lose their moral center over time, without strong honest leadership. But, our Constitution and Bill of Rights charged our Federal Government responsible for providing defense and promoting prosperity (for the common good). Corporations have no such responsibilities and the Feds have failed theirs. They have important different responsibilities than Corporations. For one thing they are the only institution with the power to force Global Corporations to act in the best interests of human beings. For another those Corporations will never act that way on their own.

Wake up, if you rob a 7-11 or bank or smoke a joint in the wrong place, you will go to jail. If you invade a country, rob all its inhabitants of their lives, jobs, destroy trillions in productive property or just tax the living shit out of them, you can buy an island and a Justice on the Supreme Court. The S&L crisis, California energy crisis, nationwide pension vaporization and current banking crisis are all hidden taxes.

Unless the Corporations are held financially accountable for their crimes things will not get better. It is actually easier to hold the Government accountable by voting greedfuckers out of office. Not that enough people have a clue to do it.

"Your post has got to be the stupidist post I have seen here ever."
POSTED BY SNIPER

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

...stupidist...

Posted by Sniper at 2008-02-29 05:41 PM | Reply |

stupidist is what stupidist does.

stupidest - it was close at least.

Panhovilla (granted, I made this up):
Stupidist: noun One who studies stupidism.
A member of the profession of stupid, He was a remarkable stupidist.
See stupidize

From my helpful dictionary:
THE RIGHT WORD
If you want to impugn someone's intelligence, the options are almost limitless.
You can call the person stupid, a term that implies a sluggish, slow-witted lack of intelligence.
Asinine is a harsher word, implying asslike or foolish behavior rather than slow-wittedness (: a woman her age looked asinine in a miniskirt).
Calling someone dumb is risky, because it is not only an informal word (: you dumb bunny!), but because it also means mute and is associated with the offensive expression "deaf and dumb," used to describe people who cannot hear or speak.
Dense implies an inability to understand even simple facts or instructions (: too dense to get the joke), while dull suggests a sluggishness of mind unrelieved by any hint of quickness, brightness, or liveliness ( | a dull stare).
Slow also implies a lack of quickness in comprehension or reaction and is often used as a euphemistic substitute for stupid (: he was a little slow intellectually).
Obtuse is a more formal word for slow-wittedness, but with a strong undercurrent of scorn (: it almost seemed as though he were being deliberately obtuse).
You can't go wrong with a word like unintelligent, which is probably the most objective term for low mental ability and the least likely to provoke an angry response (: unintelligent answers to the teacher's questions).

Some on the SCOTUS appear to be surprisingly unintelligent with respect to the Exxon catastrophe.

Wait for it.....wait for it......wait for it.........wait for it......:

case dismissed.

Bought to you by BushCo.

How many of you are on medication? WOW

Some of you are actually scary.....

Any competent judge would laugh at a lawyer who bases their theory on a case that is 190 years old.

Posted by JOE at 2008-02-28 11:26 PM | Reply

After all, we should not allow our judges to follow precedent and tradition when meting out justice. They are only supposed to follow the whims of the mob.

Exxon is unpopular among the Leftie slobs who buy gasoline and petrochemicals. Therefore, Exxon should be punished (along with the old ladies whose retirement includes Exxon stock). And punished far beyond the scope of the law.

After all, they don't make cute TV commercials with corn fields and bunnies.

nationwide pension vaporization

Posted by nutcase at 2008-02-29 07:37 PM | Reply

George Soros impoverished thousands of retired teachers to get filthy rich. But he gave some money to MoveOn and the Clintons, so it's all OK.

What's with all this oil and ecosystem crap? We have gays to persecute and need to pat ourselves on the back for blowing up a big chunk of space junk which the Chinese did 3 months earlier.

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

Not destroy a coastline by spilling oil, you corporate meat puppet POS. DUH! I can't believe this fool is a chief justice. 5-4 5-4 5-4 decisions on everything along party lines. A real Chief Justice would build a consensus. Warren managed to convince RHENQUIST to vote with him in the Brown vs Board of education decision! It was a UNANIMOUS decision among a group of very different judges, and THAT is the mark of a true Chief Justice: leadership.

What's Robert's fucking problem?

Any competent judge would laugh at a lawyer who bases their theory on a case that is 190 years old.

Posted by JOE at 2008-02-28 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dred Scott case was in 1856. 152 years ago. Would a judge laugh at that too?

Here's hoping everyone said "yes" in that case, but not because of it's age.

What's Robert's fucking problem?


He's actually gotten off to a pretty good start. he got all of the court's caseload pushed through. He's not had an unusually high number of 5-4 decisions. His affable demeanor and likeability has enabled him to serve as a mediating force with more contentious decisions on the court.

Many feel that in each and every case against a corporation, the corporation has to be wrong and no amount of money, no matter how high, is sufficient punishment against them.

Sorry jeff....but 5-4 decision after decision is a mark of poor leadership. Part of a Chief Justice's job is keeping the court from being so polarized.

He may be "likeable" but lacks the ability to build a consesus. Seems the onyl thing the court HAS agreed upon is that they and other judges aren't paid enough. Typical.

TO be fair to roberts, scalia is a BAD judge who often gives his unchanging legal opinions in upcoming cases, then refuses to recuse himself on the basis that he's already made up his mind. Thomas isn't very good either.

Alex,


Rehnquist wasn't on the court when Brown was heard. And, if memory serves he was a dissenting opinion on Roe.

Hagbard Celine. Sorry I picked the wrong judge. THis is why I stopped posting late at night.

Many feel that in each and every case against a corporation, the corporation has to be wrong and no amount of money, no matter how high, is sufficient punishment against them.

This may be true, but I think its besides the point. It's not even really the corporations fault though they are the direct actors... The problem is that they are given the rights of a person, which, in their extreme, equates the rights of stockholders to make money with the lives of anybody. Once that happened, people were merely guppies whirling round the leviathan.

The problem is us.... sorry, gotta run, Saturday morning cartoons and all.....

Jeff- There have been so many 5-4 decisions it's absolutely ridiculous.

Breyer on this new SCOTUS:

"It is not often in law that so few have so quickly changed so much." And not for the better IMHO.

Excellent post, H Celine. Giving Corporations "personhood" yet paradoxically making them difficult to successfully sue was a HUGE mistake for our legal system.

OK, it was a bad idea. Mistake would imply that it was an accident.

Alex,

What are you basing this on?

Roberts' court has not had an unusual number of 5-4 decisions.


Regarding Scalia's lack of recusal, do a little bit more research on that infamous hunting trip with Dick Cheney. Do a bit more research on whether or not such a trip puts him, or any other justice, in a position where they 'should' recuse themselves.

I could be wrong, but I suspect you are getting your info solely from left-wing sources that seek to bash Conservative judges.

Scalia is not a bad judge. He has the best understanding of the Constitution of any justice currently sitting on the court. Scalia's problem is that he's abrasive and is so beholden to his philosophical jurisprudence that he's unable to ever be swayed by his colleagues. As a result, he's rarely able to sway his colleagues. This lack of ability to persuade makes him a not particularly powerful or influential justice. He writes great dissenting opinions, but rarely gets his way on close, highly contentious decisions.


Side note: Do you realize that 2 different cases came before the recent court involving religious displays on public property? Sandra Day O'Connor voted in favor of the display on one case and against the display on another. Believe it or not, her legal arguments in both really strike me as consistent with the Constitution. When it comes to SCOTUS the devil is really in the details.

There have been so many 5-4 decisions it's absolutely ridiculous.


I disagree. It's not ridiculous and I don't recall the number of 5-4's being unprecedently high.

I wasn't rreferring to the hunting trip, but it was in bad taste now that you mention it. A SCOTUS justice shouldn't even allow a hint of compromised rulings.

Scalia already ruled on torture in a european interview....sadly using jack bauer as his reasoninbg like some idiot drudge poster. Sad. Now he has a possible torture case coming up. He will not recuse himself even though it's obvious by his demeanor(and the fact that he constantly interrupts other justices) that he will not change his mind.

As far as his claim to being a strict constructionist, it's a sham. He's for states rights sometimes maybe never. It depends on his PERSONAL opinion/rightwing ideology and not legal wording. For a man that claims to be for states rights he has shockingly gone against them whenever theres even a whiff of liberalism involved.

I apologize for the glaring rhenquist error with isn't like me. This is what happens when I wake up at 6am and post at 2am. *sigh*

Gotta run. Take care, jeff.

Sorry I picked the wrong judge

LOL. I had a hysterical time trying to imagine how that could even be possible.

"he'd have been over 100 when he died... could he actually be an immortal?"

ha ha.

Being a huge exxon fan, and a shareholder....it's time for them to shut the fuck up, pay the bill, and move on.


It might be a sailor's right to get shit faced, but this dipshit Hazelwood, drove the boat right out of the channel (he missed a waypoint, duh) 3 sheets to the wind.

When he did this, I had a Micrologic Loran on my 17' Whaler that would have prevented this mishap...HOW they could have made this error on an oil tanker is unthinkable. Even his crew should have known better as well, WTF??????

The action that made corporations "persons"--was that a Constitutional Amendment?

No, just an example of 19th Century right-wing judicial activism.

Find for me in the Constitution where corporations are "persons."

This is one of the biggest legal shams ever perpetrated on America.

Put it in perspective. Exxon would have to give up almost 3 WEEKS of profits to pay for the spill. No wonder Roberts is worried about them. How will they ever absorb the loss. Pass it on to consumers? Exxon would never do that. No----Roberts was right. Exxon should be forgiven and have their taxes lowered. The people along the coastline need to STFU---after all, they're just people. Corporations need to be protected from them.

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?"


Corporations don't give a shit about people or the environment. This world could turn into one giant cesspool and the people running corporations could care less, as long as they are making money. The Supremes are bought and paid for by the corporations: Do the math.

By the way, you can thank Bush for picking Roberts. I guess it takes one piece of shit to know another.

The Supremes are bought and paid for by the corporations: Do the math.

You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.


By the way, you can thank Bush for picking Roberts. I guess it takes one piece of shit to know another.

Yeah, because he has the audacity to question the amount of punitive damage and/or question the allegation that the corporation didn't do enough to prevent this he's a piece of shit. Uh huh. My guess is that you view anyone to be a piece of shit if their views don't conform with your worldview.

What's utterly amazing to me is the number of bitter hacks who levy all sorts of nasty insults based simply upon probing questions asked by certain justices.

Now, once this case is decided and an opinion is rendered, I think the insults might carry a bit more weight.

What most of you clowns don't seem to understand is that these justices don't write law, they adjudicate it. Unless said law is in violation of the Constitution, how they personally feel about a given law is irrelevant. They are umpires, not lawmakers.

"You have no idea what in the hell you are talking about."

If you don't understand that the Supreme Court has been handing down one pro-corporate decision after another, then it is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.

"What most of you clowns don't seem to understand is that these justices don't write law, they adjudicate it. "

That's why you never hear conservatives whine about legislating from the bench, right Jeff?

If you don't understand that the Supreme Court has been handing down one pro-corporate decision after another, then it is you who doesn't know what you're talking about.


So, if they decide in favor of a corporation, regarldess of the facts surrounding the case, they are bought and paid for?

They have lifetime appointments. They aren't up for re-election. Many, many appointed justices have proved to be disappointments. David Souter. William Brennan. Earl Warren. Etc.

My point being these justices appear to be anything but 'controlled'.

That's why you never hear conservatives whine about legislating from the bench, right Jeff?


Do you have recent examples of this happening anywhere near of the scale that it occurred on the Warren court?

Regardless, throughout SCOTUS's history examples here and there have always existed where bench legislation occurred. However, the Warren court transformed the court into a political entity.


Nevertheless, I cede your point and back off of my comment to an extent.

Spud hates corporate fat cats


By corporate fat cats do you mean the top executive at each and every public company employing more than 100 people?

'Corporate fat cat' is a vague term and as such I am seeking some specificity.

"They have lifetime appointments."

And that's one thing that should be changed. It's sham democracy. It's absurd to give so much power to them for life. What is this, a banana republic?

Commandante Roberts is accountable to no one.

And that's one thing that should be changed.


What do you propose?

Jeff- Earl Warren was a disappointment?

Jesus...

Alex,


"The 2 biggest mistakes of my presidency are sitting on the bench." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Corporations don't give a shit about people or the environment."

?? How can people type/think such CRAP?????

sooooo no corps care about the envior? Nor any Republicans and only a choice few dems do? The dr left is a hard on for righteousness, and a very self centered myopic view of the world.....wake up dude!

sooooo no corps care about the envior?

I think the people are referring to larger corporations. Most of them care about the bottom line and that's about it. When you see BP commercials discussing how they are doing all these things for the environment, it isn't because they care about being good stewards of the planet, it is simply a marketing ploy to convince people they care. You will see a lot more of this as consumers demand environmentally safer products. The corporations will deliver because it will be profitable.

Unfortunately, corporations are afforded even better rights and government services than individuals. They are considered more important by government than you and unless you can afford a better lawyer than them, they can get away with all kinds of shit without paying restitution.

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed to interpret the constitution...not to rewrite socio-economics. Do Big Corporations suck?...yes, especially the ones run by big union bosses who have priced themselves outta competition w/ global mkts and support socialist democrats.

Good to see so many righties defending the 3 week punitive damages against Exxon. The 1200 miles of coastline mean nothing next to 3 weeks of profit. I see your logic and expected as much. Nice to see your don't disappoint. I'm sure you would feel the same way if a driver got drunk and crashed his Exxon truck into your yard spilling a few thousand gallons of diesel fuel around for your kids and pets to play in for the rest of their lives---no problem as long as you don't interfere with oil profits.

I hope they burn.....

The 1200 miles of coastline mean nothing next to 3 weeks of profit.

Is that the basis of your reasoning BB? Because they have the money, they should pay?

If I recall correctly, Exxon was proactive in cleaning up the coastline and compensating the residents. When is enough enough? It's not like flagrantly polluted the environment out of corporate greed.

Suppose you got drunk and ran your car into a restaurant, putting the owner out of business for say three months? And he sued you for his losses plus triple damages? What would be your excuse then? You're too poor?

So in your view, the issue doesn't rest on excess punitive damages; it rests on ability to pay?

2.5 billion will probably encourage the Exxon execs to make sure no drunks are captains of their ships.

Posted by danni at 2008-02-29 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Better read the R.C.A. on that accident....
It was a lot more than just the Cap'n having a late night out.

They were short handed and If I remember correctly the the Doast Guard had stopped the guiding they were previously giving them.

Doast=Coast

Thanks lfthndthrds. Instead of applying reason, these retards have a lynch mob mentality.

Instead of applying reason, these retards have a lynch mob mentality.

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-02 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I work for an oil company.... They pay good and I like my career with them.... I don't want to see anyone lynched for an accident but I think that stalling for 20 years is a bit of a character issue in the core management team of Exxon.

from the court transcript:
"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.

In order to claim a loss in a suit you must first show a loss.

I live in Louisiana and Exxon has a huge refinery here.

The State in recent years sued Exxon's ass for millions, can't remember how much but it was nasty.
They sued them because of tax evasion. Ex. they were trading one good for another and it never was recorded until a wistle blower told on them and the email was confiscated

Exxon does have a history of falling short of integrity...

So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.


Posted by onna at 2008-03-02 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



I honestly don't think that it's Roberts place to try to save Exxon or any other company money... I think we was out of bounds.

Exxon does have a history of falling short of integrity...

For tax evasion? That's my kind of company.

BP is a company short on integrity. Because of poor maintenance, they had one or two Alaska pipeline spills and a major fire in a Texas refinery.

Exxon has the balls to stand up to climate warming alarmists while BP pretends to be on their side. While alarmists wail Exxon should do something about oil depletion, Exxon refuses to coddle to that bullshit.

Funny how libertarians always claim to oppose corporate power but spend all their time defending corporate power.

Exxon has the balls to stand up to climate warming alarmists

Sure Ray, and Phillip Morris had the balls to stand up to cancer alarmists.

Clue to Ray:

Exxon spends multi-millions of dollars every year to manufacture pseudo science to cloud the waters of the Climate Change debate. In many instances they use the exact same pseudo scientist who used to stand up in court and say that cigarettes don't cause cancer. They fund global warming denial web-sites and then try to make it look like there's no connection.

You, sir, are being played.

There IS a massive Hoax going on.

It's called the Global Warming/Climate Change disinformation campaign and apparently they have suckered you right in.

Tsk Tsk.

In an effort to not get played they ended up pwning yer ass.

If the stakes weren't so serious that would be seriously funny.

As it is? Not. So. Much.

Be Well.

Property rights is one thing. Crony capitalism is something else. If someone can produce evidence that Exxon is lobbying against its competitors, I'll be first in line to condemn them.

All I see here is hate because they are big. If that be the case, where is the umbrage against big government?

Funny how libertarians always claim to oppose corporate power but spend all their time defending corporate power.

I think if you reread my last post, it was quite clear that I was not defending corporate power.

Sprague, that was a response to Ray.

And I agree with your last post, Sprague.

"Unfortunately, corporations are afforded even better rights and government services than individuals. They are considered more important by government than you and unless you can afford a better lawyer than them, they can get away with all kinds of shit without paying restitution."

A constitutional amendment ending this fiction of "corporate personhood" would be a great place to start to end this insanity.

Exxon spends multi-millions of dollars every year to manufacture pseudo science to cloud the waters of the Climate Change debate.

Oh great! Talk about being played. Potato Head thinks he understands the logic of the scientific method. The ICCC is composed of a gang of government bureaucrats playing with computer models so they look ominous. It's the tried and true way to scare up grants.

So the climate is changing. So what's new? If we ever get a carbon tax, you're only screwing yourselves.

They are considered more important by government than you and unless you can afford a better lawyer than them, they can get away with all kinds of shit without paying restitution."

Some corporations bed with the politicians; some don't. Nulli makes these sweeping generalizations as if they all do it.

And what about the politicians? Why do they get a free ride? Let's take monopoly rights away from government while we're at it.

Exxon spends multi-millions of dollars every year to manufacture pseudo science to cloud the waters of the Climate Change debate.

Do you have proof of that or is it opinion?

Obviously this isn't true. Why would they spend money to deny climate change? People like you are still going to suck down their product as fast as you can no matter what. If not for big oil, how would you get to your next anti-big oil rally and global warming awareness concert? Walk? hahahaha

"Why would they spend money to deny climate change?"

For the same reason any corporation would spend money to defeat proposals that might reduce demand for their product.

People who don't know science, think they can decide who is right based on motive.

For the same reason any corporation would spend money to defeat proposals that might reduce demand for their product.

That was my point exactly. There will never be a reduced demand for their product. I'll say it again: NEVER. In fact, the public is screaming for more of it so that we don't have to depend on ME oil.

So I ask again, why would Exxon spend $$$ to promote false climatology claims?

For tax evasion? That's my kind of company.

BP is a company short on integrity. Because of poor maintenance, they had one or two Alaska pipeline spills and a major fire in a Texas refinery.

Exxon has the balls to stand up to climate warming alarmists while BP pretends to be on their side. While alarmists wail Exxon should do something about oil depletion, Exxon refuses to coddle to that bullshit.

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-02 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

First of all it is stealing and lying, but hey, if that is your game go for it. It'll catch up with you sooner or later.

Paying your share of taxes = being A responsible member of the community.
I don't especially like giving money to the Govt. but I like the roads I drive on etc...

Large corporations pay small "percentages" compared to what I pay. So why does it make it all right to stiff the state and feds?? when they are the ones that keep up with the water ways so they can make this profit.

BP is a company short on integrity. Because of poor maintenance, they had one or two Alaska pipeline spills and a major fire in a Texas refinery.
Posted By Ray
The Baton Rouge refinery has had at least 2 fatal explosions and the coker unit burned with fatalities in my short 38 years here.

They all have there share of safety issues.
So dont pat ole exxon on the back so quick..
BP has just had some recent shit going down thats why they are the first to come to mind.

The question is: who is doing the stealing? Like most, you've been conditioned to believing there is some kind of morality to paying taxes. I see it as mass organized extortion. The way they waste money is obscene. If I got my money's worth I wouldn't object.

To corporations of any size, taxes are another expense to pass on to consumers like you and me. The politicians use the business tax to hide some of the real taxes. In the final analysis, people pay for every nickel government spends, present and future.

That's why I support tax resistance.

I see it as mass organized extortion. The way they waste money is obscene. If I got my money's worth I wouldn't object.

Posted by Ray at 2008-03-02 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The only thing that I'm conditioned to beleive is that It is a law... In this country I follow the laws... I dont think I should have to wear a seat belt or helmet either, but i do because it is a law.. You see the patern here??

Companies are only as responsible as the people leading and it's easy to see which ones have soem integrity.. They are the ones that are involved in the community and have good relationships with their neighbors.

If you dont like paying taxes change the law... until then i'm paying mine

Well I'm not conditioned that way. I hold morals above laws. Government has no more moral right to steal than you are I. We have a system of government that operates with the same scruples as a super crime syndicate. Murder, stealing, lying, graft, corruption, cronyism, counterfeiting, money laundering, etc.

Any honest profit seeking company serves the community by serving its customers and its owners or stockholders.

I pay my taxes because I'm forced to. That's why it's robbery. The law won't change unless there is resistance to it. That's why I support companies like Exxon who can afford the lawyers.

Lfthndthrds, you have a lot to learn about the evils of political power.

That's why I support companies like Exxon who can afford the lawyers.

Ray, I agree with you about taxes, but it seems like you are confusing them with restitution. Exxon isn't being charged a tax, they are being charged for infriging on the rights of others and for that they should pay dearly - that is one of the core beliefs we share as libertarians, right?

And one of the evils of political power is the fact that companies like Exxon have massive lobby power and receive subsidies despite record profits at our expense. If these corporations weren't afforded the same rights as individuals, they wouldn't be able to receive welfare like people do.

And I have to agree with null that maybe a constitutional amendment defining corporate rights is in order this late in the game. But which politicians would support something like that? Not many... They don't want to bite the hand that feeds.. and feeds.. and feeds...

And I have to agree with null that maybe a constitutional amendment defining corporate rights is in order this late in the game. But which politicians would support something like that?

The only one I can think of is Ralph Nader.

Which probably explains why the corporate media will stuff him under the carpet.