Chief Justice Roberts Defends ExxonMobil

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

WOW! Can we all just admit that there is nothing "supreme" about the supreme court anymore. Just looking out for the $$$$$$

THis is exactly why bush put roberts and alito into the supreme court...they are federalists who lost the battle for the US Constitution in 1776 and have been wanting to kill it ever since.

Now, is this not a reason to get the Republicans out of office?

We need to IMPEACH this asshole too!

Of course he supports Exxon he was after all a coporate lawyer before he was a justice. I think it is high time that the lifetime appointments for justices is removed and that they are given term limits. This travesty of justice is an insult to the great people of Alaska. Impeach Roberts, Alito, hell all of them lets start over in 2009

I just want to know how anyone, especially a Chief Justice on SCOTUS, could arrive at a station in life where they could even ASK how corporations could "protect themselves" from damages when they've been as grossly negligent as Exxon.

Is this the result of being born with a silver spoon and sucking up to other rich people for one's ENTIRE LIFE?

Our government, our entire judicial system appears to be in a state of corporate greed related meltdown. .

Duh

If the SCOTUS upholds INSANE corporate profits over the citizen's Rights, there may be little left of OUR country to fight for, but EVERYTHING to protest against.

ACCORDING TO SCALIA AND OTHERS ON THE SUPREME COURT ONE A JURY HAS FOUND YOU GUILTY YOU GO TO JAIL AND YOU PAY FOR BREAKING THE LAW.

BUT NOT EXXON OR BIG BUSINESS JUST AMERICAN CITIZENS

Whatever is said by Roberts or anyone else will have to be explained to Ginsburg.

Aside from the finer parts of the law, one thing that really bothers me about Roberts is his perpetual, creepy grin. I noticed this during his confirmation hearings and the fixed smile is still there. Maybe he experiences some sort of sadistic pleasure in screwing ordinary middle-class Americans by precluding them from suing corporations.

Of course Roberts defends Exxon-Mobil. That is what good Republicans do. They have become the party of big business, the party that uses payoffs from big business to make themselves rich while fooling the American public into voting for their hair-brained schemes.
It is a true indication of how widespread corruption is in our government, that 1.) Exxon has not paid any fines for their actions, and 2.) Exxon continues to ship crude oil, in American waters, in single hull tankers. Exxon's lobbyists are so competent, they even got the American taxpayers to pick up the cost of the oil cleanup in Alaska, when the Republican Congress gave them the huge tax breaks back in 2002.
Long Live Exxon-Mobil.

Exxon Still Sails Single-Hulled in Alaska

Marianne Lavelle, U.S. News & World Report

February 28, 2008 05:02 PM ET








'In its fight to avoid paying $2.5 billion in punitive damages"a sum that amounts to three weeks of the company's astounding profits"Exxon's lawyer, Walter Dellinger, asked the justices to look at the $3.5 billion that the company had already spent on cleanup and to settle state and federal fines. "That amount is enough to deter anyone from anything," Dellinger said.'








'But it has not been enough to deter Exxon from continuing to use a single-hulled tanker to ship its crude oil out of Alaska through Prince William Sound. Ray Botto, spokesman for SeaRiver Maritime, the wholly owned Exxon affiliate that now runs the oil company's U.S. shipping operations, confirms that one of the three tankers that the company uses in Prince William Sound has a single hull.'






'The debate over the value of double-hulled tankers is, indeed, an old one, and a history of how the oil industry in the 1970s lobbied against a double-hull requirement in Alaska is in this New York Times story, which ran soon after the Valdez accident:'


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DB1E3BF936A25756C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all








'Roy Mason, a British tanker industry analyst who is editor of the publication Oil Movements, tells me today there's a sizable premium in the market for chartering a double-hulled vessel; it's about 38 percent more expensive than moving oil in a ship with a single hull.'







'The debate, of course, is all about whether the protection you get is worth that premium. I don't have any scientific studies, only this note: All 24 of the major oil spills (costing more than $1 million) from tankers or tank barges in U.S. waters since 1990 involved vessels with single hulls, according to a footnote on Page 29 of this Government Accountability Office report:'







'(33) OPA requires that all tank vessels (greater than 5,000 gross tons) constructed (or that undergo major conversions) under contracts awarded after June 30, 1990, operating in U.S. navigable waters must have double hulls. Of the 51 major oil spills, all 24 major spills from tank vessels (tankers and tank barges) involved single-hull vessels.'

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071085.pdf









http://www.usnews.com/blogs/beyond-the-barrel/2008/02/28/exxon-still-sails-single-hulled-in-alaska.html?s_cid=rss:exxon-still-sails-single-hulled-in-alaska.html

Hmmm. Can't find this story on Fox.

Last thing reported was the SCOTUS was going to start hearing the case yesterday.

WOW. Just another few sentences down, just SCALIA (most CONSERVATIVE member of the court) reminds the council for the fisherman of a case that supports his argument and he attempts to answer attacks by GINSBURG!

Shesh...this is reading a bit differently than the news reports would have you believe. Imagine that?

WOW! I'm just reading it myself and I've learned a couple of things in the first couple of pages.

1. It appears that this case is before the Supreme Court because the OVERWHELMINGLY liberal 9th circuit court of appeals overtuned the award of punitive damages. Shall we impeach those judicial hacks as well?

2. Justice Ginsburg (perhaps the most liberal justice on the court) starts by asking some pretty hard questions to the council representing the fisherman. Why aren't her questions making news? Oh yea, we're trying to pain Conservatives as the villan...forget. I'll keep reading.

Here's a link to the argument transcript. It's fine to criticize folks, but do it from an informed position. The best way to do that is to read and analyze it for yourself.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-219.pdf

And keep in mind that this was just the argument phase. A decisions hasn't been reached yet. Might be best to reserve all of your bluster until AFTER a decision is announced.

defending the un defenceable

It might serve folks on this site well to actually go and read the transcripts of a few court cases before the Supreme court. Despite what this blogger would have you believe, there is NOTHING unusual in the line of questioning by Roberts. Generally the justices go after both sides with some vigor.

The questions before the court are NOT questions of emotion. Heaven help us if we had a bunch of emotional reactionary folks like the responders on this blog judging the constitution of the United States. They are, as is the case here, posed with technical and often procedural issues related to the legality of some action.

That's the problem with liberal justices. They'd probably like to have Exxon pay $100 billion simply because they have the money. Well, there has to be a rule and a precident, not some willy nilly emotional reaction to how these cases are decided.

Read the transcripts and understand the intracacies of the case before you start leveling "impeachment" claims. Those of you making such calls, I'm CERTAIN, have never read all of the way through a supreme court decision to understand that there is more at stake than the high school debate argument that you are making.

Is it just me or does he look Roberts look like actor Greg Kennear?

In a Democratic administration complete with House and Senate Dem majorities, I woud like to see the impeachment of Roberts and Alito.

Impeach Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas. They are political hacks, not impartial judges. They are truly a disgrace to this nation. They make me want to puke. Those four are to jurisprudence what Fox News is to journalism.

What less would we expect from a, HAND PICKED, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Bush/Cheny White House??

Gawd! That's about 15/100ths of one percent of the total Exxon profits made since the Valdez wreck as compensation for the largest single marine environmental disaster in US history, still a long way from full recovery--assuming Robert's calculations are correct and projecting them over the two decades of operation. Enough to drive Exxon to the brink of bankruptcy; let's reduce the pain by lowering its taxes.

WHY is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making political arguments rather than citing legal precidents? It is beyond disgraceful that Bush was able to place poltical hacks on the Supreme Court of the United States. Our founding fathers are trying to rise from the dead and strangle George W. Bush and his shamelessly dishonorable enablers.