More judicial activism in Exxon case

The 1989 Valdez oil tanker spill that fouled Alaska's coastline caused such severe losses that in 1994 a jury ordered Exxon to pay $5,000,000,000 in punitive damages. That, however, wasn't judicial activism. That was justice. The jury simply followed the law to make sure thousands of Alaska residents who lost their livelihoods and property were treated fairly.

But the law was no match for the forces of Exxondom, and in 2006, the real judicial activism occurred. The incredibly profitable oil giant got its conservative friends on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to slash the judgment in half.

It was an activist ruling. No question about that.

But today it got worse.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has cut the remaining $2,500,000,000 of the ruling to a mere $500,000,000. To Exxon, that's pennies, because Fuxxup rakes in some $40,000,000,000 a year. Just think how much Exxon owns in assets.

The Supremes ruled that punitive damages can't exceed what the company has already had to pay for economic damages. Oh yeah? What part of the Constitution or any statute or legal theory says that?

Quite the contrary, punitive damages are usually several times the economic damages. They're called punitive damages for a reason. The word 'punitive' is related to 'punish'. It's hardly much of a punishment for the wealthiest corporation in the world to have judgments against it slashed to only one-tenth of what the jury said was fitting.

With the 9th Circus and the Federalist Society extremists on the Supreme Court, Corporate America knows they're going to get paid when their case gets heard.

So sing it, corporate types:

We've got the 9th
Who needs those juries
We've got the 9th, babe
And the SCrOTUS today!

(That's sung to the tune of Bob Seger's tender love ballad "We've Got Tonight.")

(Source: http://www.kypost.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=2f961f2e-fcab-4776-8bf1-4a2e29789bd7)