The High Court is making some pretty popular decisions these days

[mfwahl]

Supreme Court drastically cuts payouts for plaintiffs in Exxon Valdez oil spill

[jonbama]

This is a pretty bad decision in my opinion and largely spotlights the trend of courts taking the power out of the hands of juries nationwide. That said, the 1:1 ratio laid out by the court only applies to maritime cases and should not disturb the higher ratios for other reckless/wantonness cases. At least that is what the synopsis implies.

[MattZ]

I just read the majority's opinion and their rationale focused on the unpredictable nature of punitive damages. The potential "bad man" should have some reasonable sense of the outcome of his/her actions when undertaking those actions. The court gave examples of excessive punitive damages being awarded in some cases while none were awarded in others.

 

The court believed ratio of 1:1 (compensatory damages to punitive damages) was fair, reasonable, and predictable.

 

The court also acknowledged that the initial punitive damages of $5billion was meant to represent (roughly) one year's worth of profits of Exxon. Exxon made something like $20billion last year. The court lowered the $5billion to $500million.

 

So much for punitive.

[mfwahl]

So much for punitive.

And interest

[jonbama]

I my be wrong here, but i was under the impression that the 1:1 in this case was deemed reasonable "as a matter of maritime common law." This would imply that the common law of damages for other areas of law would not be disturbed and thus a ratio of say 3:1 could still be reasonable.

[mfwahl]

I thought this decision was bad enough on a case by case basis, but now that it's brought up, this is a little weird:

Nevertheless, Justice David Souter, writing for a 5-3 majority, seemed to go out of his way to hint that the rule he was announcing for federal maritime cases in the Exxon case - a rule that generally dictates a maximum 1:1 ratio between a punitive damages award and a jury

[bigshoulders]

Hearing this on the radio this morning just burned me the eff up. I just don't understand why, when they are making billions in profits, they would allow them to get off with such a small amount of retribution to those fishing communities. It's been nearly 20 years-- they still have not recovered, economically.

 

I am curious what the SC's ruling on the 2d Amendment will be.

(This being the possession of handguns w/in the District of Columbia case that they are expected to rule on today.)

 

Kevin

[MattZ]

I am curious what the SC's ruling on the 2d Amendment will be.

(This being the possession of handguns w/in the District of Columbia case that they are expected to rule on today.)

 

Just announced. 5-4. Scalia writes the opinion.

 

I guess we know what that means without seeing the opinion.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_...YnBhnsi8bus0NUE

 

I guess that'll be the end of Chicago's handgun ban, too.

[bleedorange]

Just announced. 5-4. Scalia writes the opinion.

 

I guess we know what that means without seeing the opinion.

 

Probably that it's a well-reasoned opinion based on the Constitution. That's my guess, anyway.

[cryptique]

Probably that it's a well-reasoned opinion based on the Constitution.

[MattZ]

Probably that it's a well-reasoned opinion based on the Constitution. That's my guess, anyway.

 

No argument from me on that. I dont think I have ever agreed with a Scalia penned opinion, but I certainly enjoy reading them and I acknowledge his ability to cloak his own "legislating from the bench" and "using his morals" with opinions that are well-reasoned, strict constructionist efforts.

[MattZ]

 

Its true, though. He does write well reasoned opinions based on the constitution. They are bullshit opinions written to justify his own morals (while he criticizes the liberals for doing the same), and he hangs them on a "framers intent" and "strict constructionist" hook, but they are well reasoned and based on the constitution. We've got to give him that.

[cryptique]

Scalia just proves that you can spin anything -- even the Constitution.

[bleedorange]

I've never understood the absolute hatred some people have for Scalia. He's easily the most brilliant mind on the bench right now. Of course, he's neither a constructionist nor a believer in framer's intent. And I'm not sure how he legislates from the bench or uses his morals as his guide.

 

I guess he's an easy target based on how outspoken he is on the bench, but I would take 9 Scalias over people like Kennedy, Breyer, or Ginsburg any day.

[cryptique]

You frighten me.

[bleedorange]

Here's a good essay he wrote on morality, the death penalty, and what that means as a justice.

 

And a key paragraph from it:

 

Capital cases are much different from the other life-and-death issues that my Court sometimes faces: abortion, for example, or legalized suicide. There it is not the state (of which I am in a sense the last instrument) that is decreeing death, but rather private individuals whom the state has decided not to restrain. One may argue (as many do) that the society has a moral obligation to restrain. That moral obligation may weigh heavily upon the voter, and upon the legislator who enacts the laws; but a judge, I think, bears no moral guilt for the laws society has failed to enact. Thus, my difficulty with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe (and, for two hundred years, no one believed) that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would-and could in good conscience-vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter.

 

and this one:

 

I pause here to emphasize the point that in my view the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty-and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do. This dilemma, of course, need not be confronted by a proponent of the “living Constitution,” who believes that it means what it ought to mean. If the death penalty is (in his view) immoral, then it is (hey, presto!) automatically unconstitutional, and he can continue to sit while nullifying a sanction that has been imposed, with no suggestion of its unconstitutionality, since the beginning of the Republic. (You can see why the “living Constitution” has such attraction for us judges.)

[John Smith]

I've never understood the absolute hatred some people have for Scalia. He's easily the most brilliant mind on the bench right now. Of course, he's neither a constructionist nor a believer in framer's intent. And I'm not sure how he legislates from the bench or uses his morals as his guide.

 

I guess he's an easy target based on how outspoken he is on the bench, but I would take 9 Scalias over people like Kennedy, Breyer, or Ginsburg any day.

 

At one point I believed Scalia to be one of the smarter justices. But all too often his dissents and decisions read like politcal pieces written for the opinion page. When he makes comments in and about cases and uses the show 24 as his reference point, he really loses credibility. The more i learn about him the less I like him, and I'm not talking politcal ideology. He just seems like a major league jerk. His conduct on the bench and twords his fellow justices is deplorable, not a pleasant guy. It's no wonder he and dirty dick are the best of buddies.

[mountain bed]

A few months ago I saw that show on C-SPAN where there's a room full of bright high schoolers who ask questions of the guest. Scalia was on for the full hour and I don't know if I've ever seen a more arrogant, condescending person. Sick-making.

[uncool2pillow]

Hearing this on the radio this morning just burned me the eff up. I just don't understand why, when they are making billions in profits, they would allow them to get off with such a small amount of retribution to those fishing communities. It's been nearly 20 years-- they still have not recovered, economically.

 

I am curious what the SC's ruling on the 2d Amendment will be.

(This being the possession of handguns w/in the District of Columbia case that they are expected to rule on today.)

 

Kevin

The Supreme Court has lifetime appointments because they are supposed to ignore the day-to-day whims of the masses. I have no idea about the constitutionality of this case and won't bother to read this decision because it doesn't really interest me, but if they were to "punish" Exxon for an oil spill that happened nearly 20 years ago because of their massive profits today, I would completely lose faith in our court.

[MattZ]

I've never understood the absolute hatred some people have for Scalia.

 

Here's why:

 

he's neither a constructionist nor a believer in framer's intent.

 

He is when it suits him. And he isn't when it doesn't. Same with legal precedent. He cites it when it suits him. He overturns it when it suits him.

 

I guess he's an easy target based on how outspoken he is on the bench

 

No, he's an easy target because of what I said above, and because he attacks the other justices for doing exactly what he does.

 

I would take 9 Scalias over people like Kennedy, Breyer, or Ginsburg any day.

 

I am not sure I understand why you think Scalia is so much more of a standup justice than those other 3. Scalia is a conservative leaning individual who goes hunting with Dick Cheney. If you think that his opinions from the bench are based in a more "true" or "consistent" reading of the constitution, I would strongly disagree with you. This is a guy who doesn't believe in abortion or gun control and he reads the constitution in a way to justify those beliefs. Same with the death penalty. Same with Bush v Gore. He uses his morals as much as anyone on that bench.

[ikol]

Scalia just proves that you can spin anything -- even the Constitution.

 

Yeah, somehow that nutcase spun the 2nd Amendment to mean that we have a right to bear arms.

[MrRain422]

Scalia is brilliant and arrogant and the best writer on the current court. I leave reading his opinions because they are often hilarious and clever. That being said, he's also prone to his own brand of hypocritical moralizing and ideological wackiness. He's also put himself on some pretty thin moral ground by not recusing himself for political reasons in several cases where he blatantly should have.

[MattZ]

Yeah, somehow that nutcase spun the 2nd Amendment to mean that we have a right to bear arms.

 

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

 

EDIT: It's amusing to me how many strict constructionists conveniently ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. You know, since well regulated Militias arm themselves with handguns in inner cities.

[ikol]

Scalia is brilliant and arrogant and the best writer on the current court. I leave reading his opinions because they are often hilarious and clever. That being said, he's also prone to his own brand of hypocritical moralizing and ideological wackiness. He's also lowered the bar considerably for justices weighing in on matters where he should have recused himself.

 

Scalia is brilliant and arrogant and the best writer on the current court. I leave reading his opinions because they are often hilarious and clever. That being said, he's also prone to his own brand of hypocritical moralizing and ideological wackiness. He's also put himself on some pretty thin moral ground by not recusing himself for political reasons in several cases where he blatantly should have.

 

You can say that again!

 

That is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

 

Fair enough. It actually says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not that the right actually exists. My bad.

 

 

EDIT: It's amusing to me how many strict constructionists conveniently ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. You know, since well regulated Militias arm themselves with handguns in inner cities.

 

But it only has that clause as a sufficient reason for protecting the right to bear arms, not as a necessary condition for having that right.