SCOTUS: Piss off, Exxon Valdez victims

Ben_Hecht · Jun 26, 2008

Don't have to try very hard. After the B actor gave us Cheney chum Scalia and Sandy (if it's not a womans' issue, I'm as big a big-business toady as ANYONE) O'Connor, Poppy blessed us with Frogman Thomas -- and lameduck Fredo has given us the precious gifts of Roberts and Alito, two of the most doctronaire right-wingers the court will ever see.

novelist_wannabe · Jun 26, 2008

Killick said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/7473968.stm

What was a $5 billion ruling for 33,000 fishermen and businesses crippled by the spill was later pared down to $2.5 billion by the appeals court. SCOTUS knocked that down to $500 million on Wednesday, yet I didn't find this on CNN, USAToday sites.
Each of those 33,000 now get $15,000 sted of the $150,000 they originally won in court.
Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that the $15,000 is punitive damages, which, the way the story reads, is about half what the victims will actually get -- the other half being the actual damages. Which brings their total to $30,000 on average. Still a far cry from $150,000, but let's not make it look worse than it is.

Inky_Wretch · Jun 26, 2008

novelist_wannabe said:

Killick said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/7473968.stm

What was a $5 billion ruling for 33,000 fishermen and businesses crippled by the spill was later pared down to $2.5 billion by the appeals court. SCOTUS knocked that down to $500 million on Wednesday, yet I didn't find this on CNN, USAToday sites.
Each of those 33,000 now get $15,000 sted of the $150,000 they originally won in court.
Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that the $15,000 is punitive damages, which, the way the story reads, is about half what the victims will actually get -- the other half being the actual damages. Which brings their total to $30,000 on average. Still a far cry from $150,000, but let's not make it look worse than it is.
Click to expand...

Going from $150,000 to $30,000 is pretty damned bad as it is. Especially since the people in Alaska were affected by the oil spill for several years.

Ben_Hecht · Jun 26, 2008

"What's good for Exxon is good for the USA."

(with apologies to Li'l Abner)

Mystery_Meat · Jun 26, 2008

Inky_Wretch said:

novelist_wannabe said:

Killick said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/7473968.stm

What was a $5 billion ruling for 33,000 fishermen and businesses crippled by the spill was later pared down to $2.5 billion by the appeals court. SCOTUS knocked that down to $500 million on Wednesday, yet I didn't find this on CNN, USAToday sites.
Each of those 33,000 now get $15,000 sted of the $150,000 they originally won in court.
Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that the $15,000 is punitive damages, which, the way the story reads, is about half what the victims will actually get -- the other half being the actual damages. Which brings their total to $30,000 on average. Still a far cry from $150,000, but let's not make it look worse than it is.
Click to expand...

Going from $150,000 to $30,000 is pretty damned bad as it is. Especially since the people in Alaska were affected by the oil spill for several years.
Click to expand...

The $15,000 is an average figure, not a mandated cap for everyone who files a claim. So the ones who got affected the most should still get a lot more than 15K

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS: Piss off, Exxon Valdez victims

Ben_Hecht Active Member

novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Mystery_Meat Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

SCOTUS: Piss off, Exxon Valdez victims

Ben_Hecht Active Member

novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Mystery_Meat Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches