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.