Roberts worried about how to eliminate Corporate Liabilties aclaimed by ... citizens.

[boutons_]

"What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.


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."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/...defends-exxon/


May all you right-wingers and Repugs be crushed by the militant fascism your Repugs have installed in the USA.

[fyatuk]

[indent]"What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.

Well, punitive damages awards in this country have been insane anyway, and need stronger limitations put on them. Roberts apparently feels that a punitive damage award something like 5 times larger than the award for damages is excessive.

In many cases I'd agree with him, but not this particular one. Five times actual damages is about the most I'd say is acceptable for punitive damages.

You jump all over the "he's protecting the oil industry" angle apparently not realizing that this was more of an example of something he considers wrong with the system.

[spurster]

It's not surprising that BushCo's appointees are more concerned with corporations' rights rather than citizens' rights. I think the question should be "So what can citizens do to protect themselves against corporations destroying their environment?"

[Holt's Cat]

Context, of course, is everything and in this particular appeal the issue at hand is whether or not a punitive damage award to those who brought suit against a particular corporation should be allowed to collect, in light of the fact that the corporation faces such a damage award due to the conduct of one of its employees and federal law may in fact prohibit and/or limit that. So, I'm not sure exactly how a consideration of the position of one of the parties in this appeal is somehow inappropriate for a justice. Roberts' question addresses the heart of the matter.

Granted, if you believe that companies pursuing profit are by their very nature criminal enterprises and deserve to be relieved of all of their assets then I guess context is merely trivial.

Further, if there are no limits on punitive awards might not that have some negative effect on business investment in these United States? Surely we need less of that today. But I guess that would be something else to castigate "BushCo" and "dubya" about here on the internets.

[boutons_]

straw man alert: "if you believe that companies pursuing profit are by their very nature criminal enterprises"

please provide a link.

When companies break the law or are incompetent, they should have the same accountability the individuals. you up, you pay. Pretty simple, even for right-wingers limited grasp. Corps want to have all the right of physical persons without any of the accountability and responsibility.

America under the Repugs has become totally fascist, where the public and private ins utions have primacy over and can crush individuals, just like in France. The Great People of the USA are no longer sovereign in their own country.

Also, SCOTUS is apparenty going to shield BigPharma from liability suits as long as the drug that

1) killed or injured people went throught FDA aproval process (usually financed by BigPharma with BigPharma cherry-picking study results to obtain approval)

2) was sold according to FDA rules.

3) and can be shown to have helpe some people.

iow, the politicized/compromised/scuttled FDA is infallible.

If Vioxx or HPV helps some people, but kills/maims 10s of 1000s, no problem. Tough for the victims, they won't even get in the door of the courthouse.

[Holt's Cat]

straw man alert: "if you believe that companies pursuing profit are by their very nature criminal enterprises"

please provide a link.

I hereby submit the last 100 posts by boutons_ which contain the phrase "evil corporations" or its derivatives.

When companies break the law or are incompetent, they should have the same accountability the individuals. you up, you pay. Pretty simple, even for right-wingers limited grasp. Corps want to have all the right of physical persons without any of the accountability and responsibility.

Sure, and the corporation in question has been held accountable for the damages to the plaintiffs. Now we are discussing the punitive damages awarded.

America under the Repugs has become totally fascist, where the public and private ins utions have primacy over and can crush individuals, just like in France. The Great People of the USA are no longer sovereign in their own country.

Well, I guess we can scratch France off the list of desirable locales for you to relocate to in order to avoid living in this horrid land any longer.

Also, SCOTUS is apparenty going to shield BigPharma from liability suits as long as the drug that

1) killed or injured people went throught FDA aproval process (usually financed by BigPharma with BigPharma cherry-picking study results to obtain approval)

2) was sold according to FDA rules.

3) and can be shown to have helpe some people.

iow, the politicized/compromised/scuttled FDA is infallible.

If Vioxx or HPV helps some people, but kills/maims 10s of 1000s, no problem. Tough for the victims, they won't even get in the door of the courthouse.

"Apparently" is? Or is that merely in your hyperbolic estimation?

Anyways, it is proper for the court to consider what a party in the suit could have done to avoid the event that gave rise to the suit when reviewing the punitive damages awarded.

Next non-issue.

[boutons_]

"Apparently"

I wasn't in court,but people who were thought the Justices' questions and at udes were leaning towards indemnifying BigPharma (and as a precedent, any company).

"love it or leave it" was simplistic bubba bull 40 years ago, and it still is. GFY

[Holt's Cat]

Good for you too.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.


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."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/...defends-exxon/


May all you right-wingers and Repugs be crushed by the militant fascism your Repugs have installed in the USA.

Yet you support a fascist for president in 2008...

[Nbadan]

Yet you support a fascist for president in 2008...

...seriously, buy a dictionary...

[inconvertible]

if it walks like a duck,
if it sounds like a duck
then its a ............................

[Nbadan]

fascists are would-be socialist are as ideologically apart as you and a good edumacation...

[inconvertible]

I was talking about Roberts........isn't what this thread is about?


being defensive is a sign of your weakness.

[smeagol]

boutons should be deported from America as an act of merci.

I think it is the only way to put him out of this misery.

Cuba would be a good destination, if he likes the change of administration taking place there.

Otherwise, el comandante Chavez wil always accept him as a son.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I hereby submit the last 100 posts by boutons_ which contain the phrase "evil corporations" or its derivatives.




Sure, and the corporation in question has been held accountable for the damages to the plaintiffs. Now we are discussing the punitive damages awarded.



Well, I guess we can scratch France off the list of desirable locales for you to relocate to in order to avoid living in this horrid land any longer.



"Apparently" is? Or is that merely in your hyperbolic estimation?

Anyways, it is proper for the court to consider what a party in the suit could have done to avoid the event that gave rise to the suit when reviewing the punitive damages awarded.

Next non-issue.

So what could the State of Alaska done to avoid the spill?