Comments on: Supreme Court To Hear Exxon Valdez Case

19 Years After Worst Oil Spill In U.S. History, Alaskans Will Find Out If Company Pays Damages

[crusherking]

bobnjersey,

We hold corporations accountable every single day. Their trials are all over the news. To say that we offer blanket immunity to businesses is baseless.

[crusherking]

Rafterman,
Again, you have no clue. I have watched to hearings for the last 4 supreme court justice nominees. I certainly don''t recall any questions about corporate liability being asked by a republican or a democrat. So its not ''naive'', its informed. If you would take the time to research and or actually pay attention to these things, maybe you wouldn''t be so naive.

[bobnjersey]

[Crusher you got it all wrong!! I''''m sure Bush sat down with John Roberts & said, "If by CHANCE an oil company gets sued & it happens to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, you''''ll back me on that one, right buddy?"]
[Posted by easeup at 01:39 PM : Feb 26, 2008]

the remnants of gwb''s ideaological preference will likely ring for a long time since he''s appointed a long list of ''like minded'' federal judges ... who may in fact influence rulings ... rulings like whether exxon should pay up ... or exxon even gets in front of the ussc. it''s not just about exxon ... but about any general view of what business has a right to do ... and what liability is appropriate for their actions.

hard core capitalists believe that we should all just trust business to do good by everyone ... we should all be thankful they are there to give anyone a job. they''ll be on the honor system and do the right thing.

it''s this thinking ... in the minds of those who have authority to allow something to continue ... or not ... that effects other peoples lives. and it''s this thinking ... that defines the thresholds of responsibility ... a responsibility to hold business accountable ... or giving them a pass on their undesirable and/or damaging actions.

[crusherking]

Bobnjersey,

So let go over your statement about the Florida votes and the supreme court ruling basically halting the recount. DO you know why that was done? the florida supreme court stepped in and ordered yet another recount first, basically making up law and subverting the will of the florida legislature. if you dont believe me, go read the dissent of the chief justice in that case (who is a democrat, by the way). You can argue that the supreme court overstepped the bounds of federalism, but in terms of judicial activism, what they did merely canceled out the judicial usurption of the legislative power commited by the florida supreme court. Its amazing how the left conveniently forgets the actions of the florida supreme court when talking about the 2000 elections, its like it never happend. magic.

[easeup-2009]

"Antonio,

Do you honestly believe that supreme courts justices are nominated based on whether or not the think that businesses should not pay for damages??? REALLY?? WOW. Thats not even close to reality. In fact, I''''ll take the stance that that had absolutely NOTHING to do with them getting nominated. In fact, I''''ll tell you what were the issues that got them nominated. Their opinions on Abortion rights, civil rights, tort reform, whether they view the constitution as a "living document" or as a static document and also how they interpret the constitution. THOSE are some of the issues they were asked when placed in front of congress and guess what.. Dems got to vote on whether they were chosen or not and had enough votes to stop any of the nominees from getting in( at least with the last 2). So, do the research before you spew stupid statements that have no foundation in reality.

Posted by crusherking at 01:36 PM : Feb 26, 2008"

Crusher you got it all wrong!! I''m sure Bush sat down with John Roberts & said, "If by CHANCE an oil company gets sued & it happens to make it all the way to the Supreme Court, you''ll back me on that one, right buddy?"

[crusherking]

bobnjersey,

I am hoping your post was sarcasm and that you really DON''T believe he had a hand in the wrecking of the Valdez.. What, did he ship 2 cases of Jack Daniels to the captain just before the shoved off? Was he in scuba gear secretly manipulating the rutter to steer it? Honestly folks, you have to be a moron to continue down this path of "its Bush''s fault" on this story.. NO really.. I mean you HAVE to be a MORON!

[bobnjersey]

[But to state that they are going to openly contradict any law is naive at best. Such an attempt would clearly be visible in their ruling and would be pointed out by the opposing opinion.]
[Posted by crusherking at 01:28 PM : Feb 26, 2008]

the descision in 2000 to prevent the recount of the votes in florida ... based on the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment ... is a clear example of their partisan view of things ... and a clear example of creative legal interpretation.

[crusherking]

Antonio,

Do you honestly believe that supreme courts justices are nominated based on whether or not the think that businesses should not pay for damages??? REALLY?? WOW. Thats not even close to reality. In fact, I''ll take the stance that that had absolutely NOTHING to do with them getting nominated. In fact, I''ll tell you what were the issues that got them nominated. Their opinions on Abortion rights, civil rights, tort reform, whether they view the constitution as a "living document" or as a static document and also how they interpret the constitution. THOSE are some of the issues they were asked when placed in front of congress and guess what.. Dems got to vote on whether they were chosen or not and had enough votes to stop any of the nominees from getting in( at least with the last 2). So, do the research before you spew stupid statements that have no foundation in reality.

[bobnjersey]

[One day you will wake up(hopefully after you have matured a bit) and realize that all the time you spent bashing Bush for things he has no hand in at all was simply that much of your life you wasted.]
[Posted by crusherking at 12:17 PM : Feb 26, 2008]

how do you know he doesn''t have a hand in it somehow ... they do most of what''s considered controversial in secret.

however ... being the honest upstanding guy he is ... i''m sure that if he finds anyone in his administration that''s involved ... they won''t be working for his administration any more ... bwahhhhh!

[crusherking]

RickNuber,

No One here claims that the gov''t is infallible. Thats ridiculous. I think its quite the opposite in fact, that Dems state the gov''t/Bush can do no right. Even when it has nothing to do with Bush you guys are on here blaming him somehow. Honestly, its petty and misguided. This happened 11 years before Bush was elected... I don''t think he had anything to do with this and certainly don''t think any of the points about how the supreme court have any validity. They base their decisions on rule of law, precedence and the constitution. Sure, opinions play a role because everything has to be interpreted. But to state that they are going to openly contradict any law is naive at best. Such an attempt would clearly be visible in their ruling and would be pointed out by the opposing opinion.

[easeup-2009]

Posted by mjlewis6 at 01:14 PM : Feb 26, 2008

What''s bad policy is letting these oil conglomerates merge together & reduce competition, which keeps prices up and lessens the need for innovation.

[antoniof123]

Just remember, after November our country will be under new management. (Hold that thought, Scallia).

Posted by nikosk1 at 08:01 AM : Feb 26, 2008

You are correct but the sad part is you still need 2/3 majorities to remove anyone. Unless you can hold a monkey trail and send them to prison.

Oh wait the GOP did that with the ex-governor from Alabama. Don''t worry GOP we may have that 2/3 majority soon if you keep up the good work.

[killtheliars]

I would recommend that anyone in alaska who does not get what they were origianlly promised go and damage Exxon property. We have seen how effective blowing up a pipeline can be. If your govt'' won''t fight for you you have to fight yourself

[jwind11]

You idiotic leftist sheep. All you can do is find some way to blame everything on Bush. Well, guess what. This has nothing to do with Bush. Sorry to burst your bubble but its the truth. You can make all these ridiculous claims about the Supreme Court being paid off, feeling beholden to Bush etc., but its all smoke and you dam well know it. I sure don''''t see any Democrats standing up and pressing the issue forward. Why are they so silent? One day you will wake up(hopefully after you have matured a bit) and realize that all the time you spent bashing Bush for things he has no hand in at all was simply that much of your life you wasted. Way to go losers!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by crusherking at 12:17 PM : Feb 26, 2008

couldnt have said it better myself.....tired of the liberals "victim" attitude....gets them no where in life.

[antoniof123]

Are you so narrow-minded that you think Supreme Court justices are at the beck & call of the President who nominated them? These people are called "conservative" or "liberal" for their SOCIAL ideologies (i.e. abortion, civil rights, etc.) NOT because they are owned by the President.

Posted by easeup at 10:45 AM : Feb 26, 2008

Your mistake is they are chosen by the President because they hold his political belief and if that belief is one that business should not pay for any damages then that is why they got chosen.

But the good will be that the people in Alaska may move away from the wacko conservatives they helped put into office. Too bad it takes destruction of their enviornment for them to see it.

[antoniof123]

I don''t want to hear the crying from these people in Alaska they voted for the ones that run the court you know the ones appointed by dumbo.

[mbcsmith]

I wonder how many posters here buy gas from Exxon or one of their distributors.

[ricknuber]

Oh, good...mbcsmith is up from her nap. Ready to throw your first cursing, incoherent tantrum of the day?

[jlbear60]

Looks like the oil compnay gets away with murder again, they have this country in the hole and they have congress/senate/courst in their pockets. They will never own up to the strangle hold they have because it''s all baout money, it the governmnet wasn''t in their pockets, the oil companies won''t be running this country in to the hole. STOP THE OIL/GAS companies and this country would be safe and the average American would have money in the banks too.
So until we stop the oil/gas companies and the insurance companies, we as Americans will never be free from debt.

[mbcsmith]

"I doubt that a justice who was appointed by Bush was appointed for any other reason then their slavish loyalty to Bush/Cheney."

Posted by RickNuber at 11:41 AM : Feb 26, 2008"

j-witless by any other name is still witless.