19 years after the fact, it appears that the Supreme Court has reduced Exxon's fine by 80% or
two billion dollars.
My first question is: How on earth is this a Constitutional issue? Why are fines now the province
of the Supreme Court?
My second question is: On what basis were the fines reduced? How did the court end up deciding
on the fee equal to one half of a day's profit as appropriate for the negligent decimation of
Alaskan land and wildlife which persists today, almost two decades later?
Why are all of the complainers about 'legislation from the bench' suddenly silent about this
ruling? How does this not prove that even the so-called objective courts are mired in business
associations.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio"Activist judges" has been adopted by right-wingers (especially the evang. wing of the Rep party). Therefore only moderate-to-liberal judges can be deemed "activist." All others are simply "strictly" interpreting the Constitution.
19 years after the fact, it appears that the Supreme Court has reduced Exxon's fine by 80% or
two billion dollars.
My first question is: How on earth is this a Constitutional issue? Why are fines now the province
of the Supreme Court?
My second question is: On what basis were the fines reduced? How did the court end up deciding
on the fee ...[text shortened]... ove that even the so-called objective courts are mired in business
associations.
Nemesio
Punatitive damages are to punish a company for a wrong doing. The Supreme Court decide that based on the actual damages the punative dmage is excessive. It is defenitely the Supreme Court's function to set standards for punishments and decide whether or not a veridct after trial is reasonable.
Originally posted by NemesioThe issue was not "fines" but rather punitive damages.
19 years after the fact, it appears that the Supreme Court has reduced Exxon's fine by 80% or
two billion dollars.
My first question is: How on earth is this a Constitutional issue? Why are fines now the province
of the Supreme Court?
My second question is: On what basis were the fines reduced? How did the court end up deciding
on the fee ...[text shortened]... ove that even the so-called objective courts are mired in business
associations.
Nemesio
The former are imposed by legislative mandate or statutory law and enforced by law enforcement authorities. The latter are imposed by a court of law in what is known as an action in tort. Not a dessert, btw.
The SupCt decided that Exxon had suffered enough -- so it reduced the punitive damages meant to cost them more than chump change.
Check out what Exxon made in profits just last qusrter and then look up what the damage done by the original oil spill did to the local area and how long its effects were felt. Then ask yourself whether the punitive damages of some $500 million seem adequate to send the appropriate message to other companies as well as to Exxon about how to transport their stuff.
Of course, the current SupCt is made up of a lot of differing points of view -- but in this instance, the "corporatist" philosophy of justices like Scalia prevailed.
I guess the majority went along with the Exxon Valdez' captain's defense, which was that he was below and the first mate caused the ship to run aground, spilling the cargo. The captain claimed he had said: "Bring me a rum and coke on the rocks," not "Run the ship on the rocks."