I grew up in Alaska and was a commercial fisherman for 13 years. I graduated high school in 1989, the year of the spill. Let me tell you, things have not been the same since.

The herring industry is gone. That used to make up about 40% of the fishing industry in Cordova. That went away with the spill. Since, at the time of the spill, there was no way to know what the lasting effects of the spill would be the loss of the herring was NOT factored into the "actual damages." Since the SCOTUS ruled that punitive damages must have a 1:1 ratio with actual damages and actual damages does not include the loss of the herring this award is wildly off base and highly disappointing.

Let's review briefly how the jury, in 1994, set the punitive damages. They decided 1 year of Exxon profits (5 billion dollars) was an equitable punishment. That is right, 1 year of Exxon profit back then was only 5 billion, my how things change. The award bounced between the 9th circuit court of appeals and the lower court for more than a decade. Judge Klienfeld was in charge of the case for the 9th circuit court of appeals. (Interesting side note, Judge Klienfeld enjoyed many all expense paid junkets paid for by Exxon surrogates during the 13 years the case was bouncing between courts.)

So now it comes to an end and the SCOTUS decides the award should be 10% of the original award or 500 million.

I'm sorry for this disjointed rant, but I'm a tad pissed off right now...

Ah, Exxon. You bastards.

Reminds me of a shirt a school friend (who had grown up in Alaska) had which read "We don't care. We don't have to care. We're Exxon. At Exxon, we're part of the problem."

I agree with Justice Stevens, too - it seems pretty insulting to the lower courts to do this after so long.

What does it take to impeach Supreme Court justices?

The Constitution (Article III) only says that judges and justices shall hold their offices "during good behavior". So it would seem to be up to the President and the Senate to decide when they are out of order, given that they are the appointing authorities.

HOWEVER: In Ron Paul's recent book he points out that the Constitution (also in Article III) gives Congress the power to make exceptions and regulations limiting the power of the Supremes.
In other words, if the Supremes consistently overstep their bounds, vis a vis the Constitution, in some area such as..., oh, Eminent Domain, Congress has a right to strip the Supremes of their power to rule on cases where that is in question.

To "The Supremes,"

SCOTUS was not overstepping its bounds in Kelo v. City of New London. It was engaging in judicial restraint by declining to determine as a matter of law whether or not something was for a public purpose when an elected body had determined that it was. SCOTUS's job isn't to go around fixing stupid decisions made by legislatures; it can only overturn something like that if it is unconstitutional.

But regarding this Exxon decision, I agree with nisl above--the punitive damages award functioned to help cover the very real future costs and damages that were difficult to quantify at the time of the original jury trial. It shouldn't have been cut, especially considering the fact that punitive damages are often the only real way to get the attention and change the behavior of massive entities like Exxon.

There's also something a little perverse about cutting a damages award so drastically that by the time it is finally paid out, the award is much less than the interest that would have been earned on the original award during that time period.

["SCOTUS was not overstepping its bounds in Kelo v. City of New London."]

That's one opinion.
Not mine.
Not that of most advocates of property rights who have written on the subject, either.
Nor, for that matter is it the opinion of quite a few Liberal authors, such as those at commondreams.org:

["Condemning Injustice
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

It is usually a good thing when the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court can cobble together a majority.
Not last week.

In Kelo v. New London, the liberal majority ruled that there is virtually no U.S. constitutional restriction on the government's power of eminent domain -- the authority to take property from private parties for a public purpose.

...the Court ruled that, if the government says that taking residential housing and giving over the property to private real estate developers for private use is a public purpose, then constitutional requirements are satisfied."
(Nice legal precedent, that. Eh?
If government SAYS something meets Constitutional muster, then it DOES!
How do you feel about turning the next, probably Worse George Bush loose with a precedent like that one?)

"Justice O'Connor, who wrote a scathing dissent that was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and fringe conservative Justices Scalia and Thomas, accurately predicted the near-certain results of the decision:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more."]

["... it can only overturn something like that if it is unconstitutional."]

Which a long list of previous S.C. decisions, going back to the nation's earliest days, would have indicated it was.

The dissenting opinions penned by the justices who opposed the decision are well worth reading, and contain numerous references to existing precedent that this decision turned on it's head.

h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html

h_t_t_p_:_/_/www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html

This should be under WTF as it's the first thing I said when I read the title. The SCOTUS should have looked at the profit Exxon has enjoyed by not double hulling their boats for X years, selected a percentage, and charged them with that. Arbitrarily choosing a big number that seems unfathomable to common folk is not acceptable punishment. Exxon made 500 million off one boat delivery. 500 million is not an adequate penalty.

What is with the Supreme Court are they losing their minds ? Is it possible they are so far removed from the rest of society that they have lost perspective and common sense. I hope that is the reason they could make such a glaringly horrid ruling. I dont beleive you need a law degree to understand the difference between right and wrong. Lately in my opinion they have been wrong far too regularly. Is there someway they can be removed besides old age?

Dann,
As I commented earlier, the Constitution in Atricle III defines the S.C., saying that they may hold their offices "during good behavior", but doesn't specify an exact mechanism for their removal.
I personally presume that the appointing authorities (Prez & Senate) hold the authority to remove them for "bad" behavior".

However it is also stated that Congress has the power to create exceptions to, and regulations on their powers.
That's another potential remedy when they don't seem to know the Constitution from a Hole in Their Heads.

The court did not overturn the verdict; it only reduced the punitive award. The plaintiffs are still recovering twice the amount of their compensatory damages. That is still a loss for Exxon and a victory for the plaintiffs.

First off, we all know what
oil family Exxon stems from.
Second, did we forget that
Exxon ownes a chunk of the
Federal Reserve?
Conflict of Interest I say!

And lest we forget.
Nowaday's, even if the Supreme
Court hands down a decision
that the big corp's don't
like, they can simply pay
to have that decision
overturned by the NAFTA
court via chapter 11.

In the words of ameature
photographer/pilot Steve
Fossett...............
"It's a Hostile Takeover"

I also am an Alaskan, and I have been saying for years that all Exxon is doing is waiting until the injured fisherman die off. With pockets as deep as Exxon's are, and on the other side, a bunch of fisherman, what do we expect? I am not in the least surprised by this, but maybe am a little that it was not thrown out altogether. When are people going to wake up and realize that corporations do not matter as much as individuals?

All the present psychopathic regime seems to care about is war profits and corporations.

It's time for change, people. ANY change, as it can hardly be imagined that it could get worse with Obama in power.

"It's time for change, people. ANY change, as it can hardly be imagined that it could get worse..."
--German Public-- January, 1933

Don't EVER buy a Pig in a Poke!!

It won't make much of a difference to Exxon but I won't buy petrol from Esso, Mobil and ExxonMobil companies here in the UK.
I'm sick of these people destroying our planet because of their greed.
Money is power and they always seem to get away with it.

Those currently responsible for appointing Supreme Court Justices are fond of calling any decisions by the courts "judicial activism." This decision is the clearest example of judicial activism I have seen in a long time. To change a lower court decision in a manner that makes the finding against Exxon inconsequential undermines the entire system of accountability for businesses (and individuals). Let's be real. The only way to impact the court is through appointments.

yea justice for the plaintiffs? right, thats justice, if u consider it right for OJ Simpson to walk the streets after cutting two peoples throats.