Let's review Chief Justice John Robert's tender and caring feelings for the plight of the wealthy and powerful.
Today, from Dana Milbank of the Washington Post….
Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs — mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans — have received no punitive damages from Exxon.
A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages — a record level, for a record disaster — and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
What more could a poor, broken down, multi-national corporation with record profits have done?
Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."
Oops.
The Exxon Valdez spill "spoiled 1200 miles of Alaska's coastline" and these anti-American plaintiffs want Exxon to pay $2.5 billion in damages. These jokers want three weeks of profits from the world energy behemoth. The audacity of these fishermen can only be described as breathtaking.
The reason Bush nominated Roberts and then later, Alito, was to help the powerful and the wealthy in America, after all, Bush called these people, "my base". Conversely, Roberts and Alito(who had to sit this case out) were nominated to keep the weak and vulnerable from getting too uppity.
However, as neo-cons constantly are reminding me, Bush isn't on the ballot this year.
Well, yeah, he kind of is.
Here are the words describing how the GOP nominee for president, John McCain, really feels about judges like Roberts and Alito….
"Let me just look you in the eye," the Arizona senator said, "I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked." Link
Okay Straight Talker, we believe you.
If you like Justices who will continue to dismiss the complaints of the poor and unwashed while simultaneously favoring the beleaguered rich and powerful, then vote this year for John McCain, by all means.
From the Post article comes the moral of the Exxon-Valdez story.
Brian O'Neill, one of the Alaska victims' lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, Exxon had already won. "I guess the lesson you learn," he said, "is that if you're big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt." Link
Even though Exxon long ago "won", it's still necessary for Chief Roberts to continue to advocate for the most powerful. He can't let his judicial guard down. If he does the people would be in danger of receiving equal justice under the law. We really can't have that, now, can we? Roberts has to send a message throughout America. The message that the powerful and the wealthy need not fear huge damage awards for their negligence. Particularly if it's a case brought by the weak and vulnerable.
That's exactly what George Walker Bush, and John Sidney McCain, want their judges to do.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Even at $5 billion and assuming the attorneys work pro bono and incur zero expenses, these plaintiffs would win about $150,000 a piece. That's not much if their livelihoods were taken away, and I'm sure that number would get pared way, way down by the time anyone other than the lawyers saw any dough.
A more effective way to apply pressure on Exxon would be making them defend 22,000 separate cases. If my work was threatened for a decade, I'd ask for at least a million.
Unless I'm completely mixed up this case seems like a very good example of the need for some kind of torte reform.
Of course I meant 'tort' rather than 'torte.' I've got no problem with pastry.
Maybe.
But 22,000 cases winding for 20 years through the maze instead of one?
The powerful have control. It's why we call them the powerful.
It wasn't just the drunk Captain Hazlewood.
The oil companies were also negligent because they did not keep the oil spill recovery equipment in good order. There had been a minor spill a few weeks earlier and the lazy b*st*rds didn't bother to clean and store the equipment properly for the next spill. So when the Exxon Valdez pinnacled on Bligh Reef, the oil companies could not do much to capture the oil.
Visigoths.
Exxon would have to hire thousands of lawyers to defend 22,000 cases, rather than the handful of firms they've probably got working on it now. It would be quite costly and they would probably incur a lot more political pressure due to tying up the courts.
What's the advantage to the present situation, except the large number that makes headlines? The plaintiffs will get next to nothing but it's pretty much business as usual for Exxon and the lucky lawyers.
I've personally been the beneficiary of several credit card/insurance/consumer/etc. class action law suits and would be about 50 cents the richer for it if I had signed the forms they send out. I assume those companies ripped me off for an amount greater than that and the lawsuits are well worth it for them.
Your comment demonstrates many conservatives viewpoint about America's system of jurisprudence.
The thinking seems to be, why even allow class action suits? If thousands of indiviuals do not profit somehow from these suits, why even do them?
The strongest reason I can think of flies in the face of another problem conservatives seem to have.
Accountability.
Class action lawsuits are meant to deter mammoth corporations from, you now, effing everything and everybody up and then simply walking away from taking responsibility for their actions. Think George W. Bush. Think of it in the same way that conservatives TALK about capital punishment being a deterrent.
Oh, but that would mean mammoth corporations wouldn't just be able to do what they wanted, you know, to stay competitive. Right?
Now I suppose we could outlaw class action suits, like Republicans would have America do, but then when thousands of Americans died from toxic products, children were born deformed, geographical areas in America were cordoned off because they had become polluted so badly…..then what? What would we do? Send a 'please don't do this anymore' letter out?
Why conservatives rail against accountability for the powerful is beyond my comprehension. Accountability, like Leona's views on taxes, must only be for "the little people."
The answer to your question, "what's the advantage to the situation?", is that no person, group, business, or multi-national is above being held responsible for their actions. It very well may be an insignificant ruling after 19 years but at least it reminds us that America still has laws that are enforced.
Conservatives aren't against law and order, are they?
A 'reminder' that America still has laws that are enforced? Are you joking?
Rev, your hyperbolic partisan rhetoric that shifts the blame for the Exxon Valdez spill over onto conservatives is silly and SO typical of you, but if I put that aside (which is 90% of your post), then I tend to agree that Roberts is making an error here. Exxon was negligent and the Valdez spill is kind of a poster boy for why we have tort law in the first place. The jury agreed.
Exxon has incurred costs that you didn't mention, including the cleanup effort that cost $2.5 billion, and another $1.1 billion in various settlements. Exxon didn't walk away scot-free as you implied, but neither did the penalties cause them any real harm. This class action you are speaking of came from a 1994 suit, where a federal jury fined Exxon an additional $5 billion for its "recklessness," which Exxon appealed. That is the specific issue Roberts is addressing.
And since when have Republicans ever proposed we outlaw class action lawsuits ? That's a new one on me. The only proposal I ever heard was to cap monetary awards. That idea sounds reasonable. Btw, even at the $5 billion award amount, this class action wouldn't have come anywhere close to the max tort caps I've heard tossed about. As usual, I suspect you are making most of this stuff up.
larry: There's that cynicism I've come to expect. Joking about what? That there are laws that are enforced? That there are way too many laws being enforced? What?
King: You say…
"The only proposal I ever heard was to cap monetary awards."
Oh, that's the only one, huh? That's a pretty big "only".
If mammoth corporations do not have to concern themselves with any wild-card punishments for, you know, negligence…..then why would they give a damn about preventing the negligent acts from happening?
These mountains of money and privilege known as corporations would simply be able to plug in to their budgets whatever percentage they need to in order to pay for medical costs, etc. resulting from their indifference and neglect.
Taking away punitive damages IS outlawing class action suits in a manner of speaking. In addition, that's all GOP'ers ever talk about is tort reform. The Ohio Supreme Court has already institutionalized anti-Constitution rules for the sake of big business.
Second. It is purely unConstitutional for "the jury of our peers" part to be excised for the benefit of huge monied interests. Republicans say it's perfectly fine to honor the Constitution EXCEPT when it isn't.
It's been twenty years and these plaintiffs will probably get a few thousand bucks a piece, if anything. Exxon has probably made the $2.5 billion in interest from the Valdez/rainy day fund they created two decades ago and most of the lead executives at that time probably retired years ago.
But you say the system is working fine as long as we're reminded that this nation has laws. That's the part I thought you were joking about.
I never said the system was perfect. It's the only one we have presently.
To take away class action punishment awards, or capping them, is only chipping away at Constitutional guarantees.
And besides all that….my post was on McCain and his love affair with Justices who have love affairs going on with the powerful.
Ipso facto….vote Obama.