Justice Department Defends Retroactive Liability Limit on BP

By Tom Doggett | May 26, 2010

  • May 26, 2010 at 8:51 am
    Interesting in Louisiana says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How can the Obama regime set aside the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws (the act of outlawing and exacting punishment for a prior act)?

    I very upset with the whole affair being played out in our state waters. The Feds don’t want to do this or that yet no one wants to lead. Our Governor, Bobby Jindal, finally understands the frustration of his predecessor, Kathleen Blanco, who fanned the flames of indecision in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. He has decided to copy the plan that was enacted in Alabama shortly after the well blow-out – building berms along the beach on Dauphin Island. Louisianans can do it but not without the concerted efforts of the Federal government and the private business responsible for the oil spill.

  • May 26, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I favor unlimited liability for economic damages, this retroactively shouldn’t be applied to anyone or any entity. This raises an issue of a bill-of-attainder for the amount in excess of the current law.

    This is why the DemonRats are dangerous; they’ve no respect for the rule of law, let alone, a constitutional form of gov’t.

    Vote them out to pasture this November.

  • May 26, 2010 at 1:03 am
    Sheltowee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You’re analysis is muddled. I will be voting for the person and not the party.

  • May 26, 2010 at 1:07 am
    Quintus Fabius Maximus says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It doesn’t have to retroactive at all.

    Simply legislate that all oil spilled after 12:01 AM tomorrow will be fined at one dollar per molecule.

    if they don’t want to pay they can get it fixed today.

  • May 26, 2010 at 1:11 am
    Brokette says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Or maybe, if we make it onerous enough, BP will walk away, leave the U.S. holding the bag and wait the 20+ years for the litigation to settle.

  • May 26, 2010 at 1:14 am
    Sue says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It makes me sick that two weeks went by after the spill before anyone began doing anything to fix this horrible problem. All the finger pointing as to who’s responsible. Environmentally, does it matter who did it? Couldn’t they have cleaned it up and then figured out how to pay for it. I can barely listen to this anymore.

  • May 26, 2010 at 1:23 am
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    anytime we hear of a proposed law change that is designed to go ‘back in time’ to punish someone/something that we didn’t have the foresight to prevent or properly set the punishment prior to the disaster in this case…while no fan of BP, if the government can do it to BP, they can do it to you, too. Keep in mind all costs BP incurs will just be factored into their costs for oil; so up goes the price again. Making caps so high will prevent smaller companies from doing drilling, while further out in what is considered ‘international waters’, we cannot restrict exploration nor impose caps. Even Vietnam is looking for oil in the Gulf; let’s not issue a knee jerk law to punish BP and the American people in the long haul.

  • May 26, 2010 at 2:01 am
    maritime mel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    §1004 The liability for tank vessels larger than 3,000 gross tons is increased to $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million, whichever is greater. Responsible parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports are liable for up to $350 millon per spill; holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs. The Federal government has the authority to adjust, by regulation, the $350 million liability limit established for onshore facilities.

  • May 26, 2010 at 3:12 am
    Smitty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Retroactive laws are unconstitutional, our justice dept is occupied by commie criminals and everything is a political agenda, they’d prefer to simply hand over BP to NewOrleans-you know to pay for “damages”.

    NewOrleans is &%#$%@$# up because of BP and they need to PAY. “no justice no peace”

  • May 27, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Which one says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Shettowee I would be interested to know which one of the current morons you would want to retain in office. They are all idiots.

  • May 27, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Which one says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Shettowee I would be interested to know which one of the current morons you would want to retain in office. They are all idiots.

  • May 27, 2010 at 3:30 am
    Hooray for Capitalism says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well considering the justice dept still hasn’t read the Arizona immigration law, and it’s only 16 pages, it’s hard to believe they’ve had time to brush up on this one. They were confident they could squash Arizona too.

    I guess if you don’t have time to do your on line legal research, you can just make up a new law and make it effective yesterday.

    This is what happens when your kronies have never had a real job.

  • May 27, 2010 at 3:39 am
    Hooray for Capitalism says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    November 2010 represents the real Independence Day this year…….



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*