Words from the frontlines are good to hear. And while I sympathize with you (I’ve never experienced that level of tragedy, so could never empathize) I feel I must stick to the definitions of “compensatory” and “punitive”. If the area has not been made whole the compensatory damages were not properly calculated and should be revisited. Punitive damages are designed to punish and should not be counted upon to be made whole.
I fully agree that Exxon should pay full compensatory damages. I do not agree that huge punitive damages should be awarded because compensatory damages failed to make whole.
How about another class action suit against politically motivated reporters using an industry forum to “report” their political opinion and intentionally omit all of the facts. Whether I agree or not, nowhere in the article did it state as to why a majority of the justices (not all Bush appointees, I might add) voted against Charter Communications investors, one of the cases that set a key precedent on this issue. This is an OpEd piece, not news article. The author should go back to journalism school where they presumably teach that all of the facts tell the real story, everything else is just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
Wow Seriously, that’s pretty edgy. Let’s take a quick look – out of 30+ articles on today’s IJ, some are wholly pertinent and objective, some are decidely subjective, some are thinly-veiled advertisements, etc. If IJ’s management/editorial staff only posted the wholly pertinent and objective articles, they’d have about 1/3 the material. Subsequently, 1/3 the ad revenue. 1/3 the staff. 1/3 the influence. So they make some exceptions, draw the line a little further out, make it fuzzy. Have they expanded the site’s scope a bit beyond your ideal? That’s a sad story. They’re trying to make money and grow. They evolve and adapt, fight for market share. Get over it.
“The author should go back to journalism school…”
LOL
Maybe you should go back to Capitalism School and learn how to be an American? Seriously Guy.
How about that Boumediene v. Bush decision! Justice Scalia wrote that the majority decision “warps the Constitution” and that “[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” Scalia further warned the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed… that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”.
Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.
“Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.”
Yes, you did miss something, this was the total award, compensatory PLUS punitive. Or is that too hard to comprehend for your puny insult-spewing mind?
And no, it’s not like a back seat driver. A captain of a ship is not like the night manager at McDonalds. The captain is responsible for his entire ship at all times. When you become captain, you take this responsibility. You are on call 24-7 and responsible for everything, no exceptions. Try reading up on the subject. And don’t forget this wasn’t his first instance of drunk “driving.” Exxon had knowingly promoted him despite other episodes of drinking on the job.
Joe, you make two good points. I’ll bet Good Hands thinks the Alaskans should be responsible since it was their rocks the Valdez crashed into. Damn nature…always getting in the way of things like corporate responsibility. What are all those people in Alaska thinking, trying to recover fair damages for a disgusting and avoidable travesty? Exxon – THEY should be getting the benefit of the doubt!
Has this become a communist Blog. Not for nothing, it was an accident and Exxon is being punished heavily. Now maybe $500mm doesn’t seem like much to you Marxist folk, but to a lover of free trade and capitalism, it is a hell of alot of money.
PS. Alaskan Fisherman and others affected were compensated by their own insurance companies, last I checked indemnity meant getting whole, not getting rich.
Ouch Joe, did I touch a nerve?
Reread the article, it says the puni award was cut to the amount of the actual losses but it is a separate award. In effect, the puni doubles the damages. No one is saying there is going to be no punitive damage award.
Yes, the captain is responsible for his ship at all times; I get that. Ever hear of hyperbole? The fact stands that the Exxon Valdez was not being driven around the sound by a drunken sailor. It just ran onto the rocks; an accident. The captain is responsible but he still was not at the wheel.
I don’t even have a dog in this fight!
The ancient English jurisprudential principle of habeas corpus shriveling under right wing attack.
The legal fiction that gives corporations the legal status of persons and indeed requires them to always act selfishly as such (“in their shareholders’ interests”).
Lobbyists write our laws.
The oil industry has seized our governments.
Right wing SCOTUS (or is it SCROTUM?)”Scalito” partisans actively reinterpret the constitution with their made up idea they can tell us its original intent on things like stem cell research and internet privacy.
The pendulum reaches its rightie peak and begins to swing back.
Throw the bums out before it is too late. It may be too late but throw them out anyway.
I suggest reading the first several paragraphs of the still wonderful Declaration of Independence and rethinking things.
Good Hands – You apparently did touch a nerve with Joe. Not sure whether it was his last or only nerve, but a nerve nonetheless. Maybe I am in a minority, but did understand the meaning of your first post. For some reason, the meaning was apparently lost on Joe Blow. Also, in all the excitment stemming from an opportunity to put you in your place (and do some name-calling as well), he completely whiffed on the settlement amount. I’m sure it is immaterial to him, though, since he seems like the type that would never let something as trivial as facts get in the way of making a point. $500 million? $1 billion? It’s all just fun money for an evil corpation like Exxon anyway, right?
“I suggest reading the first several paragraphs of the still wonderful Declaration of Independence and rethinking things.”
You mean where it says that we get our rights from our Creator, not from govt? Souter, Ginsburg et al are the ones that need to avquaint themselves with the DofI.
The court has not been favoring business, but property. Those who want to control other people’s property don’t like that.
You are obviously one who would be happier in a workers paradise like Cuba. It’s only 90 miles, and you can float there on an inner tube. Oh wait, people are floating HERE opn inner tubes trying to get out of Democrat Utopia. nevermind.
If Al didn’t need all that fuel to fly around in his private jet, then maybe this accident/incident could have been avoided. Seriously, punishing Exxon is taking $$ out of your own pocket if you have anything invested in mutual funds in your IRA/401K or pension plan. It’s time for Alaskans to turn the page and move on with life.
Big business haters will never be happy with a settlement or judgement until it kills the business involved. Death penalty for evil businesses. They don’t beleive in restitution only retribution.
Ive noticed a lot of the Republicans on this comments section are really struggling to get their facts straight. Many of you are suffering in low paying jobs in the insurance industry, while your more intelligent classmates went on to get high paying jobs in more exciting fields. Its actually kind of sad.
I love the republicans on this site who would bend over backwards to defend big business, but are just small fish in the insurance industry. Meanwhile the rich get richer in a system that is set up for them to prosper. But just because some old small time Republican has a few bucks in Exxon he will defend them. Its sooo sad. I send these comments to my liberal friends on Wall Street in NY and they just laugh at you small minded insurance folks who defend big business, while you get hood winked!!
Your life is so exciting that you are commenting right here with us lowlives? To me “exciting” means repelling, climbing, traversing, white water rafting, selling a large premium policy, shopping, then again why AM I still here? I can leave, Im my own boss. How about you big shot?
Gee Mike, you big brain, I guess us stupid insurance people should just shoot ourselves. Your insightful criticism of our poor selves just shakes me to the core. Why do you want to even lower yourself to speak to us lesser ignorant beings? Typical Liberal, everyone is stupid because they disagree with the Liberal talking points. This is their way of making themselves feel important.
Mike and Rock – I marvel at your brilliant insight. I am very sorry to disappoint you, but your attempt at making us simple-minded Republicans (at least this one anyway) understand the error of our ways was quite futile indeed.
By the way, I’m not impressed with the fact that you have friends – liberal or conservative – on Wall Street. Nice try, though. I will also take it as compliment that they you and your liberal friends get a laugh at the expense of us insurance hayseeds.
On the topic of getting an education, you might want to take your own advice. Your post included some insults (none taken, though) as well as a few barbs from the liberal playbook. However, I read your post a few times and failed to find a single point. Sorry, I must be intellectually inferior to you and your Wall Street pals.
Where do you see anyone saying that Exxon shouldn’t be held liable for a reasonable amount? I believe that their should be a limit to the penalties and they should bear some relationship to the damage, not the net worth of the company. You seem to want to kill the company for their evil ways. Another Liberal big business hater.
Thats cute, im gonna send that to my friends. Only liberals have talking points not republicans! Thats so great. They are going to get a laugh out of you. Just out of curiosity, are you one of the older guys on here?
Oh Jennifer, you youngsters just run rings around us old people. I hope you grow up some day and learn the stupidity of the Liberal talking points. Of course the Conservatives have talking points. What exactly does that have to do with the point that was made? Buckeye was right, many of the posts on this line have no point to make except to insult the people with opposing viewpoints.
You don’t seem to be all that occupied with your real important job today either. Better go back to your “office” and get your cart so you can finish cleaning the office.
They want a court that sides “with the little guy” regardless of the law. How long could we (can we?) remain a nation with a standard like that? Rather than moving to Cuba they want to move Cuba here. Amazing. Vote for B. Hussein Ocastro!
I agree with Al, once Obama gets in office things will get a lot better for the little guy. It will be a great day as long as some radical restumblican doesnt kill him.
You really have me on the ropes now, Dicky. I am obviously intellectually and occupationally overmatched by you, Mike and Rock. I tried really, really hard, but my feeble mind was unable to locate a point in your post. Love the “restumblican” made up word, by the way. My inadequate educational experience did not include an opportunity to enroll in a class to learn such skills.
Sorry Good Hands, yes you touched a nerve, but I didn’t mean to insult you.
I have an uncle who has been a fishmerman based in Juneau for years. The damage is still evident, and the fish population is still not what it was pre-Valdez.
The point was that the $500m is called punitive, but it is in place of compensatory. The total amount paid by Exxon is $500m, not twice that.
BTW, that’s less than one day’s revenue for Exxon. Those who think $500m is excessive are only looking at the amount, not the damage that was done. The damage caused by Exxon has added up to WAY over $500m, the lawyers just couldn’t prove it.
IMHO, what is so wrong with Exxon paying retribution? Do they not deserve to pay? Did they not do something wrong? Did they not promote somebody they knew to be an on-the-job drinker to captain? Did they not kill $100s of millions of dollars worth of fish? Not to mention the damage caused to the water, birds and seals etc???
If all they pay is enough to balance the harm they caused what is the motivation to ensure it doesn’t happen again? Punitive damages are there for a reason. It has nothing to do with hating business.
I prefer to avoid trouble, if possible…
You really think Barack Hussein Obama will make things better! A civil rights trial attorney in office making things better.
One minuite he’s islamic the next he’s christian. For 20 years he went to the same church but never heard the pastor speak. For the war today, against it tomorrow. White people invented the HIV virus to kill black people. (How horrible) The padded Countrywide deal. He has said he will raise taxes and leave gas at the price its at now.
Yeah thats change-
-what about common sense?
I take it you werent the one who got the good grades! If you were, I would ask for my money back, you got the shaft. (And the cubical.)
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear ExxonMobil’s reasons to void the $2.5 billion punitive award in the Exxon Valdez case hit the town of Cordova, Alaska, hard. This small coastal fishing community — my hometown — along with the Alaska Native villages in Prince William Sound have borne the brunt of the largest crude oil spill in America’s waters; a spill that took place more than 18 years ago, but one that continues to hold the region hostage.
The second painful blow was the high court’s decision to not even hear our reasons why the award should be restored to the full $5 billion that a jury of peers decided was necessary to punish the corporate giant back in 1994.
While media pundits, lawyers, and scholars play the Supreme Court’s decisions back and forth like a ping-pong ball, people in Cordova share a completely different perspective of this story. It’s not about whether the Supreme Court should hear the case. To us, it’s about justice and reparation — making us whole, a promise Exxon made to the community five days after the spill. A promise that Exxon broke before the trial even started five years after the spill.
To us, it’s about more than an oil spill, the world’s largest oil corporation, and a small fishing community in Alaska. It’s about America’s failed legal system that inherently cannot dispense justice in the face of corporate globalization.
U.S. corporations have outgrown America’s justice system. The system won’t work for any community in America that is traumatized by disaster that triggers class action lawsuits — hurricanes like Katrina, terrorist acts like 9/11, or oil spills like the Exxon Valdez. Yet sociologists warn such disasters will be a hallmark of the 21st century.
People in Cordova wonder how this happened and why our legal system no longer metes out justice. When did “punitive” stop meaning to punish? If the original punitive award of $5 billion was sufficient to change corporate behavior why was Exxon the last corporation to double hull its oil tankers to reduce risk of future spills rather than the first?
Why shouldn’t Exxon be expected to pay to clean up its mess, pay penalties for breaking laws, compensate victims for losses, and pay punitive damages? This is what responsible corporations do — and it’s certainly what Americans expect.
The spilled oil — somewhere between 11 to 38 million gallons (the figure is elusive because as we learned the hard way, the truth was one of the first casualties of the spill) — created a big mess and broke a lot of federal laws. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Exxon paid $2.5 billion for its cleanup and another $1 billion for penalties. But, it might surprise people who live outside Alaska to learn that taxpayers, not Exxon, paid a majority of that bill. Exxon recouped most of its remaining expense from its insurance companies and from money it paid to settle damages for natural resources — publicly-owned wildlife and lands.
Further, Exxon rewarded its primary cleanup contractor, formerly VECO, with a cost-plus contract that acted like steroids, bulking up this small-time oilfield service contractor into one of the biggest — spending, pro-oil lobbyists in the state — until its fall from grace this year under charges of federal bribery, conspiracy, and more. You may have heard of the ongoing FBI investigation that is sweeping Alaska’s politicians — from state legislators to congressional delegates — into its widening net.
While that’s another story, it serves to illustrate what our justice system deems “good corporate behavior” worthy of consideration to reduce its punitive award.
We ask all of you who share in the cost of this cleanup and the devastation of this spill: How could Exxon fool seemingly everyone into believing that the Sound is now clean, wildlife recovered, and fishing back to “normal”?
How could they fool everyone? Because the reality goes against the “good corporate behavior” meme Exxon has pushed for now nearly two decades in the courts, in the media, and in Congress.
This is our world, our reality: Three of Cordova’s five fish processors (canneries) went bankrupt after the spill. The largest one never recovered, leaving the town with not enough capacity to buy and process large salmon returns like this year. Further, the town lost it’s only locally owned and operated processor cooperative, leaving fishermen with fewer resources to leverage high grounds prices for their catch. The town tumbled from its ranking as one of the top ten seaports in the nation, based on harvest value, to 53rd after the delayed, spill-related pink salmon and herring population collapses in 1992 and 1993.
The salmon recovered; the herring did not. The herring fisheries are closed indefinitely. Fishermen who held $300,000 commercial fishing permits for salmon and/or herring fisheries at the time of the spill now own pieces of paper worth around 10 percent their former value — that is, the fishers who did not go bankrupt, lose their permit in foreclosures, take a loss and sell out, die, or commit suicide. Fishermen who buy into the fisheries now pay less for the privilege and expect less in return, while the spill survivors deal with ever mounting debt on permits that the fisheries no longer supports — and in many cases that exceeds their individual share of the punitive award at the full $5 billion.
This is our world, our “normal.”
I am a Survivor of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I owned and fished a salmon drift permit in Prince William Sound until I sold out after the fish run collapses in the early 1990s. I have a stake in the Exxon Valdez litigation. But so, in a sense, does every American. Here’s why.
No other country in the world has a legal system that is as adversarial, costly, formal and complex as the United States system. At its core the American legal process is an adversarial system that pits disputing parties against each other before an impartial judge. Justice is “a zero-sum game,” meted out through punishment of the guilty to make the injured whole.
If the Exxon Valdez case is a harbinger of litigation to come, it does not bode well for people, civic society, or the environment. In this case, simply put, a giant corporation used its wealth to aggressively drive up legal expenses and to reduce, delay, and eliminate payment of awards to spill victims for more than 18 years and counting. By so doing, the giant corporation denied justice to thousands of people. In this case, the corporation is Exxon Mobil, but other giant corporations that do battle on class action turf wield similar weapons.
You said it way better than I ever could. I’m sure the corporate loving sycophants will find plenty wrong with your post, but the more sophisticated folks will read it for what it is.
1. Punitive damages are designed to punish bad conduct and discourage future mis conduct. The “Business Friendly” Supreme Court sold out the people of Alaska and told EXxON/MOBIL that its OK to put drunk captains to sea and destroy peoples lives. You will get what amounts to a parking ticket. To be effective, punitive damages must “sting”. They are celebrating in the EXxON/MOBIL board room!
2. The last decent Republican president was Theodore. He busted the Standard Oil (EXxON/MOBIL)Trust.
3. Please let the Greedy Old Perverts (GOP) DRY UP AND DIE!
Ah yes…another original poster who has to resort to using Obama’s middle name (Hussein) as though it’s an insult. Wow, did you know that Hussein is the SAME LAST NAME of an evil dictator that we removed in Iraq? Therefore, Obama must also be evil!
Look, Obama may have TONS of things wrong with him. He’s a flip-flopper, he doesn’t speak well unless he has a teleprompter, he has no real experience etc. etc. Problem is, he’s going to win and it doesn’t really matter if you like it or not (I don’t).
Let’s not resort to name-calling because he happens to have an Arab middle name (yes, I’m talking to you, Ann Coulter). It’s borderline racist and makes you sound as bad as everyone else with their parrot-like Talking Points.
I don’t get this “flip-flopper” thing. It’s one thing if politicians say they support something then a week later with nothing changing and no new information coming in saying they don’t support it. It’s entirely different when politicians come out with a reasoned argument why they changed their views, even if it boils down to a change in beliefs.
There’s not a single politician out there that isn’t a “flip-flopper” and I wouldn’t want one. The whole “stay the course” thing is insanity. McCain is a “flip-flopper” too since he originally opposed the tax cuts he now says should be made permanent. Should that count against him?
A working definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. I don’t want insane politicians running the joint. I want people who are willing to change their minds and alter their positions.
This string has gotten a little unnecessarily heated but I do have a couple final (for me) comments before I move on to things more productive.
I am not at all impressed with those who equate a pro-business stance with lack of education (or the reverse): I don’t know if the attitude is ‘liberal’ or ‘commie’; I do know that it is elitist snobbery at its worst. “Disagree with me and you are either ignorant or blind.” I think the discussion can rise to a higher level.
For ‘Words from Alaska’ I find your comments particularly moving. Full reparation should be made to those injured. Our courts system here is NOT designed to resolve disputes equitably. If anything, there is a bias in the legal system toward prolonging disputes in ways that only benefit counsel. Nonetheless, there are limits that attach to punitive damages. We may not agree where to draw the line but we can agree that SCOTUS has drawn it for this case. Punitives no larger than the specific award is not unusual; linking punitives in this case to the size of the company opens the door to outrageous awards for relatively minor bad acts based solely on the pocket of the payer. ‘We gotta get their attention!’ Because of the extended litigation, the specific award may yet never have been paid.
By the way, does anyone know who will get the punitive award? Citizens or government? Or lawyers?
Many of the anti-business posters who haunt this site would not know the truth. Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for your company hating illogical posts and go back to your usual cubicle activies.
Words from the frontlines are good to hear. And while I sympathize with you (I’ve never experienced that level of tragedy, so could never empathize) I feel I must stick to the definitions of “compensatory” and “punitive”. If the area has not been made whole the compensatory damages were not properly calculated and should be revisited. Punitive damages are designed to punish and should not be counted upon to be made whole.
I fully agree that Exxon should pay full compensatory damages. I do not agree that huge punitive damages should be awarded because compensatory damages failed to make whole.
How about another class action suit against politically motivated reporters using an industry forum to “report” their political opinion and intentionally omit all of the facts. Whether I agree or not, nowhere in the article did it state as to why a majority of the justices (not all Bush appointees, I might add) voted against Charter Communications investors, one of the cases that set a key precedent on this issue. This is an OpEd piece, not news article. The author should go back to journalism school where they presumably teach that all of the facts tell the real story, everything else is just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…
Wow Seriously, that’s pretty edgy. Let’s take a quick look – out of 30+ articles on today’s IJ, some are wholly pertinent and objective, some are decidely subjective, some are thinly-veiled advertisements, etc. If IJ’s management/editorial staff only posted the wholly pertinent and objective articles, they’d have about 1/3 the material. Subsequently, 1/3 the ad revenue. 1/3 the staff. 1/3 the influence. So they make some exceptions, draw the line a little further out, make it fuzzy. Have they expanded the site’s scope a bit beyond your ideal? That’s a sad story. They’re trying to make money and grow. They evolve and adapt, fight for market share. Get over it.
“The author should go back to journalism school…”
LOL
Maybe you should go back to Capitalism School and learn how to be an American? Seriously Guy.
How about that Boumediene v. Bush decision! Justice Scalia wrote that the majority decision “warps the Constitution” and that “[our] nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” Scalia further warned the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed… that consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”.
Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.
“Pat Leahy bemoans the loss of justice for those harmed by Exxon here. Did I miss something or was this a punitive damages award ABOVE actual losses already compensated.They are being paid TWICE for their losses but that isn’t enough for the good liberal senator.
Every article written about this refers to the captain being drunk when, in fact, his sobriety contributed in no way to the actual loss. He wasn’t on duty or at the wheel when the ship ran aground. It is like saying a passenger in the back seat is responsible for an auto accident because he was wearing a blue jacket.”
Yes, you did miss something, this was the total award, compensatory PLUS punitive. Or is that too hard to comprehend for your puny insult-spewing mind?
And no, it’s not like a back seat driver. A captain of a ship is not like the night manager at McDonalds. The captain is responsible for his entire ship at all times. When you become captain, you take this responsibility. You are on call 24-7 and responsible for everything, no exceptions. Try reading up on the subject. And don’t forget this wasn’t his first instance of drunk “driving.” Exxon had knowingly promoted him despite other episodes of drinking on the job.
Joe, you make two good points. I’ll bet Good Hands thinks the Alaskans should be responsible since it was their rocks the Valdez crashed into. Damn nature…always getting in the way of things like corporate responsibility. What are all those people in Alaska thinking, trying to recover fair damages for a disgusting and avoidable travesty? Exxon – THEY should be getting the benefit of the doubt!
Has this become a communist Blog. Not for nothing, it was an accident and Exxon is being punished heavily. Now maybe $500mm doesn’t seem like much to you Marxist folk, but to a lover of free trade and capitalism, it is a hell of alot of money.
PS. Alaskan Fisherman and others affected were compensated by their own insurance companies, last I checked indemnity meant getting whole, not getting rich.
Ouch Joe, did I touch a nerve?
Reread the article, it says the puni award was cut to the amount of the actual losses but it is a separate award. In effect, the puni doubles the damages. No one is saying there is going to be no punitive damage award.
Yes, the captain is responsible for his ship at all times; I get that. Ever hear of hyperbole? The fact stands that the Exxon Valdez was not being driven around the sound by a drunken sailor. It just ran onto the rocks; an accident. The captain is responsible but he still was not at the wheel.
I don’t even have a dog in this fight!
The ancient English jurisprudential principle of habeas corpus shriveling under right wing attack.
The legal fiction that gives corporations the legal status of persons and indeed requires them to always act selfishly as such (“in their shareholders’ interests”).
Lobbyists write our laws.
The oil industry has seized our governments.
Right wing SCOTUS (or is it SCROTUM?)”Scalito” partisans actively reinterpret the constitution with their made up idea they can tell us its original intent on things like stem cell research and internet privacy.
The pendulum reaches its rightie peak and begins to swing back.
Throw the bums out before it is too late. It may be too late but throw them out anyway.
I suggest reading the first several paragraphs of the still wonderful Declaration of Independence and rethinking things.
Good Hands – You apparently did touch a nerve with Joe. Not sure whether it was his last or only nerve, but a nerve nonetheless. Maybe I am in a minority, but did understand the meaning of your first post. For some reason, the meaning was apparently lost on Joe Blow. Also, in all the excitment stemming from an opportunity to put you in your place (and do some name-calling as well), he completely whiffed on the settlement amount. I’m sure it is immaterial to him, though, since he seems like the type that would never let something as trivial as facts get in the way of making a point. $500 million? $1 billion? It’s all just fun money for an evil corpation like Exxon anyway, right?
“I suggest reading the first several paragraphs of the still wonderful Declaration of Independence and rethinking things.”
You mean where it says that we get our rights from our Creator, not from govt? Souter, Ginsburg et al are the ones that need to avquaint themselves with the DofI.
The court has not been favoring business, but property. Those who want to control other people’s property don’t like that.
You are obviously one who would be happier in a workers paradise like Cuba. It’s only 90 miles, and you can float there on an inner tube. Oh wait, people are floating HERE opn inner tubes trying to get out of Democrat Utopia. nevermind.
If Al didn’t need all that fuel to fly around in his private jet, then maybe this accident/incident could have been avoided. Seriously, punishing Exxon is taking $$ out of your own pocket if you have anything invested in mutual funds in your IRA/401K or pension plan. It’s time for Alaskans to turn the page and move on with life.
Maybe Leahy is so sensitive to the drunk thing because he is a drunken shamrock himself
Dude, this isnt a blog – its a comment section. Look up the definition of a BLOG.
Big business haters will never be happy with a settlement or judgement until it kills the business involved. Death penalty for evil businesses. They don’t beleive in restitution only retribution.
Ive noticed a lot of the Republicans on this comments section are really struggling to get their facts straight. Many of you are suffering in low paying jobs in the insurance industry, while your more intelligent classmates went on to get high paying jobs in more exciting fields. Its actually kind of sad.
I love the republicans on this site who would bend over backwards to defend big business, but are just small fish in the insurance industry. Meanwhile the rich get richer in a system that is set up for them to prosper. But just because some old small time Republican has a few bucks in Exxon he will defend them. Its sooo sad. I send these comments to my liberal friends on Wall Street in NY and they just laugh at you small minded insurance folks who defend big business, while you get hood winked!!
Keep us laughing guys, you are too funny.
Your life is so exciting that you are commenting right here with us lowlives? To me “exciting” means repelling, climbing, traversing, white water rafting, selling a large premium policy, shopping, then again why AM I still here? I can leave, Im my own boss. How about you big shot?
Sounds good to me boss, so leave then…..
Gee Mike, you big brain, I guess us stupid insurance people should just shoot ourselves. Your insightful criticism of our poor selves just shakes me to the core. Why do you want to even lower yourself to speak to us lesser ignorant beings? Typical Liberal, everyone is stupid because they disagree with the Liberal talking points. This is their way of making themselves feel important.
Mike and Rock – I marvel at your brilliant insight. I am very sorry to disappoint you, but your attempt at making us simple-minded Republicans (at least this one anyway) understand the error of our ways was quite futile indeed.
By the way, I’m not impressed with the fact that you have friends – liberal or conservative – on Wall Street. Nice try, though. I will also take it as compliment that they you and your liberal friends get a laugh at the expense of us insurance hayseeds.
On the topic of getting an education, you might want to take your own advice. Your post included some insults (none taken, though) as well as a few barbs from the liberal playbook. However, I read your post a few times and failed to find a single point. Sorry, I must be intellectually inferior to you and your Wall Street pals.
Where do you see anyone saying that Exxon shouldn’t be held liable for a reasonable amount? I believe that their should be a limit to the penalties and they should bear some relationship to the damage, not the net worth of the company. You seem to want to kill the company for their evil ways. Another Liberal big business hater.
Liberal Talking Points :)
Thats cute, im gonna send that to my friends. Only liberals have talking points not republicans! Thats so great. They are going to get a laugh out of you. Just out of curiosity, are you one of the older guys on here?
Hey Buckeye its not personal, someones got to do the jobs no one wants, and thats where you come in :)
Guess you shoulda worked harder in school. Im going to go back and finish reading that “playbook” now. The restumblican one this time.
Oh Jennifer, you youngsters just run rings around us old people. I hope you grow up some day and learn the stupidity of the Liberal talking points. Of course the Conservatives have talking points. What exactly does that have to do with the point that was made? Buckeye was right, many of the posts on this line have no point to make except to insult the people with opposing viewpoints.
You don’t seem to be all that occupied with your real important job today either. Better go back to your “office” and get your cart so you can finish cleaning the office.
“Ive noticed a lot of the Republicans on this comments section are really struggling to get their facts straight.”
Wow, you really crushed me. So what facts are you doubting, Mr. Maturity?
Now Al, don’t be picking on these people. That’s child abuse. They know much more than their elders about how the world should be run.
They want a court that sides “with the little guy” regardless of the law. How long could we (can we?) remain a nation with a standard like that? Rather than moving to Cuba they want to move Cuba here. Amazing. Vote for B. Hussein Ocastro!
Reagan’s comments are beneath contempt – sounds like he is part of the No Nothings of the 1800s. Totally racist.
I agree with Al, once Obama gets in office things will get a lot better for the little guy. It will be a great day as long as some radical restumblican doesnt kill him.
You really have me on the ropes now, Dicky. I am obviously intellectually and occupationally overmatched by you, Mike and Rock. I tried really, really hard, but my feeble mind was unable to locate a point in your post. Love the “restumblican” made up word, by the way. My inadequate educational experience did not include an opportunity to enroll in a class to learn such skills.
Sorry Good Hands, yes you touched a nerve, but I didn’t mean to insult you.
I have an uncle who has been a fishmerman based in Juneau for years. The damage is still evident, and the fish population is still not what it was pre-Valdez.
The point was that the $500m is called punitive, but it is in place of compensatory. The total amount paid by Exxon is $500m, not twice that.
BTW, that’s less than one day’s revenue for Exxon. Those who think $500m is excessive are only looking at the amount, not the damage that was done. The damage caused by Exxon has added up to WAY over $500m, the lawyers just couldn’t prove it.
IMHO, what is so wrong with Exxon paying retribution? Do they not deserve to pay? Did they not do something wrong? Did they not promote somebody they knew to be an on-the-job drinker to captain? Did they not kill $100s of millions of dollars worth of fish? Not to mention the damage caused to the water, birds and seals etc???
If all they pay is enough to balance the harm they caused what is the motivation to ensure it doesn’t happen again? Punitive damages are there for a reason. It has nothing to do with hating business.
I prefer to avoid trouble, if possible…
You really think Barack Hussein Obama will make things better! A civil rights trial attorney in office making things better.
One minuite he’s islamic the next he’s christian. For 20 years he went to the same church but never heard the pastor speak. For the war today, against it tomorrow. White people invented the HIV virus to kill black people. (How horrible) The padded Countrywide deal. He has said he will raise taxes and leave gas at the price its at now.
Yeah thats change-
-what about common sense?
I take it you werent the one who got the good grades! If you were, I would ask for my money back, you got the shaft. (And the cubical.)
Joe, Exxon has already paid billions in compensatory damages. These are strictly punitive damages that are being talked about.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear ExxonMobil’s reasons to void the $2.5 billion punitive award in the Exxon Valdez case hit the town of Cordova, Alaska, hard. This small coastal fishing community — my hometown — along with the Alaska Native villages in Prince William Sound have borne the brunt of the largest crude oil spill in America’s waters; a spill that took place more than 18 years ago, but one that continues to hold the region hostage.
The second painful blow was the high court’s decision to not even hear our reasons why the award should be restored to the full $5 billion that a jury of peers decided was necessary to punish the corporate giant back in 1994.
While media pundits, lawyers, and scholars play the Supreme Court’s decisions back and forth like a ping-pong ball, people in Cordova share a completely different perspective of this story. It’s not about whether the Supreme Court should hear the case. To us, it’s about justice and reparation — making us whole, a promise Exxon made to the community five days after the spill. A promise that Exxon broke before the trial even started five years after the spill.
To us, it’s about more than an oil spill, the world’s largest oil corporation, and a small fishing community in Alaska. It’s about America’s failed legal system that inherently cannot dispense justice in the face of corporate globalization.
U.S. corporations have outgrown America’s justice system. The system won’t work for any community in America that is traumatized by disaster that triggers class action lawsuits — hurricanes like Katrina, terrorist acts like 9/11, or oil spills like the Exxon Valdez. Yet sociologists warn such disasters will be a hallmark of the 21st century.
People in Cordova wonder how this happened and why our legal system no longer metes out justice. When did “punitive” stop meaning to punish? If the original punitive award of $5 billion was sufficient to change corporate behavior why was Exxon the last corporation to double hull its oil tankers to reduce risk of future spills rather than the first?
Why shouldn’t Exxon be expected to pay to clean up its mess, pay penalties for breaking laws, compensate victims for losses, and pay punitive damages? This is what responsible corporations do — and it’s certainly what Americans expect.
The spilled oil — somewhere between 11 to 38 million gallons (the figure is elusive because as we learned the hard way, the truth was one of the first casualties of the spill) — created a big mess and broke a lot of federal laws. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Exxon paid $2.5 billion for its cleanup and another $1 billion for penalties. But, it might surprise people who live outside Alaska to learn that taxpayers, not Exxon, paid a majority of that bill. Exxon recouped most of its remaining expense from its insurance companies and from money it paid to settle damages for natural resources — publicly-owned wildlife and lands.
Further, Exxon rewarded its primary cleanup contractor, formerly VECO, with a cost-plus contract that acted like steroids, bulking up this small-time oilfield service contractor into one of the biggest — spending, pro-oil lobbyists in the state — until its fall from grace this year under charges of federal bribery, conspiracy, and more. You may have heard of the ongoing FBI investigation that is sweeping Alaska’s politicians — from state legislators to congressional delegates — into its widening net.
While that’s another story, it serves to illustrate what our justice system deems “good corporate behavior” worthy of consideration to reduce its punitive award.
We ask all of you who share in the cost of this cleanup and the devastation of this spill: How could Exxon fool seemingly everyone into believing that the Sound is now clean, wildlife recovered, and fishing back to “normal”?
How could they fool everyone? Because the reality goes against the “good corporate behavior” meme Exxon has pushed for now nearly two decades in the courts, in the media, and in Congress.
This is our world, our reality: Three of Cordova’s five fish processors (canneries) went bankrupt after the spill. The largest one never recovered, leaving the town with not enough capacity to buy and process large salmon returns like this year. Further, the town lost it’s only locally owned and operated processor cooperative, leaving fishermen with fewer resources to leverage high grounds prices for their catch. The town tumbled from its ranking as one of the top ten seaports in the nation, based on harvest value, to 53rd after the delayed, spill-related pink salmon and herring population collapses in 1992 and 1993.
The salmon recovered; the herring did not. The herring fisheries are closed indefinitely. Fishermen who held $300,000 commercial fishing permits for salmon and/or herring fisheries at the time of the spill now own pieces of paper worth around 10 percent their former value — that is, the fishers who did not go bankrupt, lose their permit in foreclosures, take a loss and sell out, die, or commit suicide. Fishermen who buy into the fisheries now pay less for the privilege and expect less in return, while the spill survivors deal with ever mounting debt on permits that the fisheries no longer supports — and in many cases that exceeds their individual share of the punitive award at the full $5 billion.
This is our world, our “normal.”
I am a Survivor of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I owned and fished a salmon drift permit in Prince William Sound until I sold out after the fish run collapses in the early 1990s. I have a stake in the Exxon Valdez litigation. But so, in a sense, does every American. Here’s why.
No other country in the world has a legal system that is as adversarial, costly, formal and complex as the United States system. At its core the American legal process is an adversarial system that pits disputing parties against each other before an impartial judge. Justice is “a zero-sum game,” meted out through punishment of the guilty to make the injured whole.
If the Exxon Valdez case is a harbinger of litigation to come, it does not bode well for people, civic society, or the environment. In this case, simply put, a giant corporation used its wealth to aggressively drive up legal expenses and to reduce, delay, and eliminate payment of awards to spill victims for more than 18 years and counting. By so doing, the giant corporation denied justice to thousands of people. In this case, the corporation is Exxon Mobil, but other giant corporations that do battle on class action turf wield similar weapons.
You said it way better than I ever could. I’m sure the corporate loving sycophants will find plenty wrong with your post, but the more sophisticated folks will read it for what it is.
Thanks for the info!
1. Punitive damages are designed to punish bad conduct and discourage future mis conduct. The “Business Friendly” Supreme Court sold out the people of Alaska and told EXxON/MOBIL that its OK to put drunk captains to sea and destroy peoples lives. You will get what amounts to a parking ticket. To be effective, punitive damages must “sting”. They are celebrating in the EXxON/MOBIL board room!
2. The last decent Republican president was Theodore. He busted the Standard Oil (EXxON/MOBIL)Trust.
3. Please let the Greedy Old Perverts (GOP) DRY UP AND DIE!
HAVE A NICE DAY!
How stupid do you have to be to kiss up to and defend a huge multinational company that doest give a heck about anyone but itself??
Reagan, tell us, whats your IQ?
Ah yes…another original poster who has to resort to using Obama’s middle name (Hussein) as though it’s an insult. Wow, did you know that Hussein is the SAME LAST NAME of an evil dictator that we removed in Iraq? Therefore, Obama must also be evil!
Look, Obama may have TONS of things wrong with him. He’s a flip-flopper, he doesn’t speak well unless he has a teleprompter, he has no real experience etc. etc. Problem is, he’s going to win and it doesn’t really matter if you like it or not (I don’t).
Let’s not resort to name-calling because he happens to have an Arab middle name (yes, I’m talking to you, Ann Coulter). It’s borderline racist and makes you sound as bad as everyone else with their parrot-like Talking Points.
Im voting for Nader who is Palestinian! hes awesome, and the world would be better for everyone if we would all just vote for Nader.
I’m gonna be honest with you, that smells like pure gasoline.
I don’t get this “flip-flopper” thing. It’s one thing if politicians say they support something then a week later with nothing changing and no new information coming in saying they don’t support it. It’s entirely different when politicians come out with a reasoned argument why they changed their views, even if it boils down to a change in beliefs.
There’s not a single politician out there that isn’t a “flip-flopper” and I wouldn’t want one. The whole “stay the course” thing is insanity. McCain is a “flip-flopper” too since he originally opposed the tax cuts he now says should be made permanent. Should that count against him?
A working definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. I don’t want insane politicians running the joint. I want people who are willing to change their minds and alter their positions.
Excellent point, lastbat. I was just regurgitating some of the talking points.
it’s like Stephen Colbert says, “I’m not a fan of facts. Facts can change, but my opinion will never change regardless of the facts!”
This string has gotten a little unnecessarily heated but I do have a couple final (for me) comments before I move on to things more productive.
I am not at all impressed with those who equate a pro-business stance with lack of education (or the reverse): I don’t know if the attitude is ‘liberal’ or ‘commie’; I do know that it is elitist snobbery at its worst. “Disagree with me and you are either ignorant or blind.” I think the discussion can rise to a higher level.
For ‘Words from Alaska’ I find your comments particularly moving. Full reparation should be made to those injured. Our courts system here is NOT designed to resolve disputes equitably. If anything, there is a bias in the legal system toward prolonging disputes in ways that only benefit counsel. Nonetheless, there are limits that attach to punitive damages. We may not agree where to draw the line but we can agree that SCOTUS has drawn it for this case. Punitives no larger than the specific award is not unusual; linking punitives in this case to the size of the company opens the door to outrageous awards for relatively minor bad acts based solely on the pocket of the payer. ‘We gotta get their attention!’ Because of the extended litigation, the specific award may yet never have been paid.
By the way, does anyone know who will get the punitive award? Citizens or government? Or lawyers?
Sooo…….
Rebups are big business, but Dems get support from the Hedge Fundies on Wall street and all the lawyers.
Sooo, Dems get the vote of poor people and blacks, but repubs win them back by supporting the NRA and hating gays.
Do you think they worked this out ahead of time so they could corner the market and never allow anything to get done and have a built in excuse?
They just do the bidding of their controllers, the wealthy power world elite.
Check out the big brain on Mark! Wow you are really piecing it together one iota at a time. What’d you buy a sociology book?
I agree with Mark.
I guess the truth hurts for many!
Jennifer,
Go eat your Activa and shut up like a good little girl
Many of the anti-business posters who haunt this site would not know the truth. Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for your company hating illogical posts and go back to your usual cubicle activies.
O.K.cash hording pig!
Gee Pud, that really hurts. Now I just wish you would tell me where I am hoarding all that money.