Monday, February 25, 2008

Chief Justice Roberts Sides With Exxon On Alaskan Oil Spill

Yesterday, the Supreme Court finally heard arguments on what ExxonMobil should have to pay for the Exxon Valdez oil spill of nineteen years ago. Yes, that’s right, Exxon still hasn’t forked over what the appeals court's judgment had ordered them to, as their cadre of attorneys have been fighting it tooth and nail in the courts for years. Fighting, paying the equivalent of a lousy three weeks worth of profits. During oral arguments, Bush appointee and Chief Justice John Roberts was predictably disturbed by the judgment against Exxon. The $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon had been ordered to pay, was to provide restitution for the devastating spill that polluted a large coastal area of Alaska, destroying wildlife, pristine wilderness and the livelihoods of thousands of mostly indigenous, poor fisherman. The 32,000 fishermen and business owners affected stood to receive about $75,000 apiece and they have been waiting for justice for almost two decades now. Yet, Roberts astoundingly asked the following,
What can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?
Jeffrey Fisher the lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen whose ability to make a living was harmed by the spill, and clearly referring to Exxon’s negligence in allowing a known alcoholic Captain Hazlewood to pilot it’s tanker said this in response,
Well, it can hire fit and competent people.
If you ever want to understand clearly why elections make such a difference, this should do it. In 2000 and 2004, progressive voices cried out in vain, warning about the effect of a Bush victory in the context of his ability to make Supreme Court nominations that would be critical in moving the Court far to the right. They largely fell upon deaf ears and Samuel Alito and John Roberts are the result. So think about that when John McCain speaks about appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. It’s not just about upholding Roe v. Wade; it’s also about being able to legally challenge corporate America’s stranglehold on the working people of this country; like the fisherman of Alaska. A couple of more conservative appointments to the high court and the judicial battle will be irrevocably lost for a generation, with utterly disastrous consequences as a result.

No comments: