John Roberts asks a stupid question...

[Adam]

...and gets a hilarious answer:

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."

[Freddy]

From the article:
"Arguing for the Alaskans, Fisher, a tall and lanky Stanford professor with unruly gray hair, pointed out to the justices that the spill "destroyed an entire regional economy." Yet Exxon fired only one person, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who even the oil company admitted was drunk at the time of the accident, while executives received bonuses and pay raises. "What you have today are 32,000 plaintiffs standing before this court, each of whom have received only $15,000 for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages," Fisher argued."

Maybe someone should dump crude oil all over John Robert's property and maybe then he might have a clue!

[D. Scarlatti]

"I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation responsible," Antonin Scalia said, "and I doubt whether a captain is high enough."

High enough? Capt. Hazelwood was pissed as a newt.

[Octavia]

Poor Exxon. My heart bleeds for them, it really does.

[Qingdai]

"I said rum on the rocks, not run on the rocks!" Captain Hazelwood.

[Caligulette]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

"I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation responsible," Antonin Scalia said, "and I doubt whether a captain is high enough."

High enough? Capt. Hazelwood was pissed as a newt.

I did not realise that newts are notorious drinkers. I am enjoying the image this brought to mind- newts in party hats always make me smile.

I think holding the entire corporation responsible would be fab, personally, as there seems to have also been something about double vs single hulled boats involved if I recall.

[Qingdai]

"Too damn expensive to put in those double hulls, let's just keep shipping in single hulls, what could go wrong." That's why they got the big bonuses.

[D. Scarlatti]

Newts walk funny or something.

My favorite English euphemism for drunkenness remains "tired and emotional."

[1Samuel8]

This is unfortunately interesting.
I will link the dueling interests of environmentalism and the state privilege of corporate status or limited liability.

Due to corporate status -- a condition supported by statehood -- we have people who are "higher up" that make decisions without the full risk of their failure. They get government support for this power.

Even if the Exxon firm was forced to pay everything they owned to the Alaskans, I would posit that justice could still not be served from an environmental perspective. The damage to the environment is irreversible. In my eyes, it would be analogous to paying huge sums of money to the family of a murder victim to repair the murder.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe this might not happen again and again and again. I do not see any incentive for any future corporation to be more careful.

Originally Posted by Freddy

Maybe someone should dump crude oil all over John Robert's property and maybe then he might have a clue!

Correct. It probably would be the only way he could understand.

[Crumb]

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe this might not happen again and again and again. I do not see any incentive for any future corporation to be more careful.

Correct. It has to be made more expensive to the company than the cutting corners that lead to it. If it is cheaper to cut environmental corners and pay the fine then companies will continue to cut environmental corners. Considering this company's profits, I don't think $2.5 bill is enough.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by 1Samuel8

The damage to the environment is irreversible.

That is just so much hyperbole. In 100 years or so you won't even be able to tell it ever happened. It's not like a nuclear bomb went off making it radioactive for 10,000 years (wait, still not irreversible on a large enough time-scale).

Please note that I am not defending Exxon-Mobil Corp. or oil spills, they are both damaging the environment enough to justify huge punitive damages. I think perhaps their entire profits for 10 years would be more appropriate.