Doubtless conservative pundits all across the land will howl with outrage at the gross judicial activism of the Supreme Court in slashing punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case from $5 billion to $500 million, thus saving ExxonMobil, $4,500 million dollars.
« Straight Talk | Main | Activism I Can Believe In »
Annals of Jurisprudence
26 Jun 2008 09:50 am
Comments (17)
To be fair to conservatives, they would view the initial punies to represent "judicial activism" (in terms of judges/juries abusing punies when it would be more proper for legislatures to establish specific laws -- which would, of course be fought tooth and nail by these same conservatives ... I'm not saying the conservative arguments here would be made in good faith! -- proscribing certain corporate behavior) and all SCOTUS did was overturn an "activist" ruling.
There are many examples of conservative hypocrisy in re. to "judicial activism" (and SCOTUS was, IMHO, wrong here) but this would not be not one of them.
OTOH, all the right wing whining about "personal responsibility" and "punishing wrongdoers" would mean that the wingers should be complaining about letting a corporation (a fictive, legal individual) get off with such a light punishment for malfeasance ... but of course, hypocritically, they won't complain.
Of course, NPR, at least, is still repeating the Exxon-Mobile/BP spin that it was all Hazelwood's fault and isn't even mentioning who really was responsible for what (the companies' insisting the RADAR system not be used to save money, not having spill response teams ready as they promised to, etc.).
Wasn't it Hoover (or Coolidge, I get them mixed up) who said the business of America is business. So the Supreme Court is doing what is best for America which is helping out business. After all, it is business that employs all the Americans in the private sector. And, remember the majority of Americans are stockholders through their small funds or retirement accounts. So saving ExxonMobil $4,500 million is really giving these Americans some extra money sort of like the rebates.
By the way, I see the Supreme Court is going on holiday after today until October 4th. Not bad, even better than the kids, a three month summer vacation. No wonder Scalia and Roberts are seeking a pay raise. It's expensive to have so much leisure time.
Clearly, the SCOTUS judges wants to vanquish the tendency of the lower courts to encourage liberal fascism in the land, what with their inclination to award damages to people seeking redress from the negligence of large corporations. A country in which the public has the right to successfully sue multinational corporations for punitive damages is clearly an authoritarian state, and any movement in such a direction should be nipped in the bud.
No doubt Exxon-Mobile/BP will pass the savings on to the consumer.
My favorite example of conservative judicial activism is Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Matt, judicial activism is generally thought to involve judicial encroachment into legislative functions, by court either inventing causes of action not contemplated by the legislature or expressly set forth in the Constitution, or by canceling or limiting statutes passed by the legislature. This case, by contrast, dealt with the reversal of a lower court's damages award--a reversal of a judicial function. Most reasonable people would agree that a higher court can and should review the propriety of lower court actions.
You're right that some people on the right side of the spectrum hypocritically invoke complaints against judicial activism only when the outcome of the case runs counter to their policy preferences, but this isn't the case to use to make your point.
Snarkiness doesn't substitute well for minimal understanding of the law. Did you actually read Souter's opinion?
Matt, judicial activism is generally thought to involve judicial encroachment into legislative functions, by court either inventing causes of action not contemplated by the legislature or expressly set forth in the Constitution
Such as giving corporations the rights of persons... oh wait, we're not supposed to talk about that
"This case, by contrast, dealt with the reversal of a lower court's damages award--a reversal of a judicial function. Most reasonable people would agree that a higher court can and should review the propriety of lower court actions."
Just to add to this point, Souter specifically stated that this decision could be changed by the legislature, but that in general Admiralty Law is the exception that proves the rule in which judges do make the law. Unlike Boudemine in which the court overruled both the executive and the legislature.
...which falls within a federal court’s jurisdiction to decide in the manner of acommon law court, subject to the authority of Congress to legislate otherwise if it disagrees with the judicial result. See U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, cl. 1; see, e.g., Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256, 259 (1979) (Admiralty law is judge-made law to a great extent);Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U. S. 354, 360361 (1959) (constitutional grant empowered the federal courts . . . to continue the development of [maritime] law).
"Unlike Boudemine in which the court overruled both the executive and the legislature. "
Posted by Dave
Um, high school civics wasn't offered in your school, was it?
My understanding is that the award had already been reduced to 2.5 billion by the 9th Circuit. If the award had been upheld, with interest it would be 4.5 billion, so the Supreme Court saved Exxon 4,000 million, rather than 4,500.
What punitive damages did Exxon wind up paying? Newspapers say they paid x, but when I looked at what x was for, it was actually for damage done. And pretty minimal at that considering how broadly things were damaged.
"Um, high school civics wasn't offered in your school, was it?"
It obviously was the extent of your legal training if you do not understand the concept of judicial restraint and the jurisprudence of the court creating new rights in direct opposition to the will of the legislature.
This isn't a case where the court is striking down a statute as unconstutional. It is a case in which the court ruled that congress had the power to grant detainees rights, and then later told congress that it had not gone far enough and legislated those rights directly from the bench.
Judical activism is a vague and politically charged term but calling this decision judical activism is really distorting its usual meaning.
The court makes its decision based on common law, which is a body of judge-made law that can be overruled by congress if they want.
Even the dissenting judges admit that the court has legal power to make the decision, they only challenge whether it is good policy.
Dave,
You're right, admiralty law is a world unto itself and doesn't create binding precedent on non-admiralty law suits, even though federal district courts sit as courts of law, courts of equity or courts of equity depending on the action filed.
Its funny, a semester of admiralty law back in the day, all I remember is "Seamen are the wards of admiralty" (which I vaguely remember to mean the wages of a ship's crew have more legal protection in an admiralty court than the wages of a company's employees in a law court).
I hate to sound like Richard Steven Hack or somebody, but our gracious host is way out of his depth when discussing legal decisions. There are frequent posts here about Supreme Court rulings, and I don't think I've ever read one that wasn't entirely results-focused. If the court rules that this punitive damage was excessive, it doesn't mean the court thinks Exxon deserves $4.5 billion more dollars. There are actual legal issues at stake, which would be clear if you at least skimmed the opinion before writing about it.
If you read this decision together with the opinions in Kennedy v Louisiana, it seems that the right wingers on the Court think that $5 billion in punitive damages was excessive, and that we should have hanged the Exxon Board of Directors instead.
Comments closed July 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Once again, the US Chamber of Commerce gets a stunning ROI.
Posted by dry_fish | June 26, 2008 9:59 AM