"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out the record $2.5 billion (1.3 billion pounds) in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp had been ordered to pay for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, the nation's worst tanker spill. By a 5-3 vote, the high court ruled that the punitive damages award should be slashed -- limited by the circumstances of the case to an amount equal to the total relevant compensatory damages of $507.5 million. The justices overturned a ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals that had awarded the record punitive damages to about 32,000 commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others harmed by the nation's worst tanker spill. In the majority opinion, Justice David Souter concluded the $2.5 billion in punitive damages was excessive under federal maritime law, and should be cut to the amount of actual harm." I agree, so why reduce it again, 20 years later. As a side note; I wonder how much coincidence (any cynicism by me in asking the question) lies in Justice David Souter being a Bush appointee? Exxon Valdez oil spill ruling overturned
I wish Exxon could be either nationalized by the state, or kicked out. I wonder how many years they can drag their feet on paying even the reduced amount.
Just more proof this world needs to be cleansed of all human life. Only with a fresh start will things ever improve.
Speaking as a former Alaskan, this really irks me. One of the "complaints" that Exxon used as an excuse was that they had already spent 3.9 Billion to compensate the people affected and to clean up the area that was ruined by the spill. It's amazing that they think that was enough. To me, it should be EXPECTED that a company that does as much damage as it did would foot the bill for cleaning it up. The punative damages was PUNISHMENT for allowing a captain with a known drinking problem to be manning the helm of a ship carrying that much crude oil.
You know, as the consumption of ice cream increases each year, the number of drownings also increase. Of course, those two separate facts have nothing to do with each other...except being tied to the same season...summer. Now, I'd apply that same thought process to Souter...Bush I...this case. He's been a consistent liberal ever since making it to the court. Most republican nominees that turn liberal at least wait a suitable number of years (like Anthony Kennedy - who must have been waiting for O'Conner to retire to completely cross the road) before flip-flopping their beliefs but Souter did right out of the box.
Whom are you suggesting as Adam and Eve II? May I be considered for either role? I promise not to get anywhere near an apple unless it is certified 100% USDA organic.
I dont either joe, because of this. Lesson learned, those with the most money always win. I actually learned that 10 years ago...
All power trends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. quote by Lord Action Or in this case money talk, while shit walks. :wink: quote by unknown. Exxon should be ashame.
