Bush's Supreme Court Slashes Exxon Valdez Judgemetn by 80%

[shmessy]

20 years later, the plaintiffs get stiffed by the Oilman's Court.

Give those Texans credit - - they knew if they held the Alaskan victims off about 20 years or so, they could get their Oil Boy and Halliburton VP to stack the court to justify the big money contributions.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...s_exxonvaldez/

[Real World]

How did Bush's supreme court slash the judgement?

The Supreme Court divided on its decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Alito (George Bush appointee) didn't take part in the case, and the vote was still 5-3.

[Holy Diver]

I just posted this below...sorry for the dubz.


This strikes me as a 100% EVIL decision, I could care less who was conservative/liberal. Its a matter of good vs. bad.

So let me get this straight.....the biggest oil spill in american history just had its fine cut by 75%. Keep that in mind the next time you do your taxes, or get a ticket for speeding...


WTF?

[otis p. driftwood]

And that wacky Souter wrote for the majority. I know he was appointed by A Bush, but it does seem to be reaching a little, since Souter is one of the reasons Sununu lost his job in Washington.

So seriously, Shmessy (and HD)...how is this Bush's court?

[BelichickFan]

Typical crap from the Left, RW. Schmessy is a smart guy but . . . . well you know. This is a ridiculous title. And he sure dropped out of his oil speculator "McCain punked" thread quickly when it was pointed out that oil speculation isn't just a U.S. issue and Granny Pelosi has no control over it.

Sorry, schmessy, you're losing points quickly as a partisan.

[shmessy]

Originally Posted by Real World

How did Bush's supreme court slash the judgement?



Alito (George Bush appointee) didn't take part in the case, and the vote was still 5-3.

Because he OWNS Exxon stock - - he's the dummy who got caught red-handed - - the others were smart enough to only take $60,000 speaking gigs from the American Petroleum Institute, etc.

[BelichickFan]

Originally Posted by shmessy

Because he OWNS Exxon stock - - he's the dummy who got caught red-handed - - the others were smart enough to only take $60,000 speaking gigs from the American Petroleum Institute, etc.

Owning Exxon stock is irrelevant, you're saying this is "Bush's court" and only one of Bush's appointees even voted. Give it up.

[otis p. driftwood]

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

I just posted this below...sorry for the dubz.


This strikes me as a 100% EVIL decision, I could care less who was conservative/liberal. Its a matter of good vs. bad.

So let me get this straight.....the biggest oil spill in american history just had its fine cut by 75%. Keep that in mind the next time you do your taxes, or get a ticket for speeding...


WTF?

The point is that allowing decisions like this, with money like that--as Souter said, these things need to be a little predictable. A decision in the billions, just because they can, could be disastrous for the corporations, and with it the economy.

Just think how high gas could go if XOM was trying to recoup that kind of loss?

[shmessy]

Originally Posted by a.paul

And that wacky Souter wrote for the majority. I know he was appointed by A Bush, but it does seem to be reaching a little, since Souter is one of the reasons Sununu lost his job in Washington.

So seriously, Shmessy (and HD)...how is this Bush's court?

Of course he didn't appoint them all, but he certainly was able to tip the scale over the past 7.5 years (at least his people put a stop to the Harriet Myers and Gonzo debacles and forced him to accept QUALIFIED conservatives like Roberts and Alito).

[otis p. driftwood]

Originally Posted by shmessy

Because he OWNS Exxon stock - - he's the dummy who got caught red-handed - - the others were smart enough to only take $60,000 speaking gigs from the American Petroleum Institute, etc.

How is he the dummy? He recuses himself and he's a dummy for it? What would you call him if he hadn't?