Aftermath of Supreme Court’s Exxon decision 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:40 am
   26 Jun 2008

   SupremesRoberts and Alito sacrifice the favored social issues of the fundamentalist right, abortion for instance, to boost the rights of corporate citizens like exxonmob.  
   They are neoconservatives, corporate feudalsts.
   Watch for more of this shift in the conservative side of the court to neoconservative.  The weak minded Scalia and the pubic hair on the coke can guy will follow their fearless leader, Roberts.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

2. 

   randino Posted 2:53 am
   26 Jun 2008

   What we haveis the Supreme Court as it has existed for most of its existence - namely the spur in boot of the status quo, and the ultimate defender of priviledge and corporate power. This is not an aberration. It is business (ie justice) as usual.
   Randy Cunningham
   
   Cleveland, OH  
   
   Randy Cunningham

   Permalink

3. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:17 am
   26 Jun 2008

   American RevolutionThe revolution started as a revolt against the Royal corporation, the british east india tea company.  Feudal corporatism.
   Now we have the neoconservative corporate fuedalism.  Pre-1776 thinking rules.  In terms on individual rights, like habeus corpus.  And protecting telecoms for liability for their violation of individual rights.
   This IS different.  Freedom has not been at this level on the index since 1775?  Hehey.  GM is at a 53 year low.  Bail out in the works?  Bernanke?
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

4. 

   Wolverine Posted 8:45 am
   26 Jun 2008

   Full Ecological RecoverySome species in this area may NEVER recover.  And of course the hundreds of thousands of animals killed never will.  But hey, Americans think it's more important to drive than to have proper respect for the natural environment, so we have incidents like this.
   And BTW, this was a 5-3 decision, with Alito having to recuse himself due to ownership in Exxon stock.  Justice David Souter, who is usually on the right side but totally sold out in this case, wrote the disgusting majority opinion.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 8:51 am
   26 Jun 2008

   Blind trust?Since when did supreme court justices get to trade stocks?  This is outrageous.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 9:59 am
   26 Jun 2008

   AlaskansThis was a strangely got-at decision, with an unfortunate result.
   Widely reported is the reaction of Alaskans: Although they want the oil companies to keep drilling in Alaska -- so long as there is some short-term financial benefit in it from them -- , in this regard they resent the long-delayed decision.  A large number of the original plaintiffs are dead, at this point; nor was Prince William Sound ever satisfactorily cleansed, with dangerous effects on wildlife and fisheries persisting.
   ExxonMobil (and other oil companies as well) can never do any wrong, it would seem.
   At least the Supremes got their (extremely unpopular) decision on restricting the death penalty right.  It pains me, to have to share this republic with lots and lots of short-sighted self-centred types who favor the death penalty.
   Regarding the Second Amendment, and Scalia's hypocritical re-reading of history, we might very well wish that he had shown true regard for classical linguistics, instead of just paying lip service to it, and fully regarded the limiting effect of the Amendment's "ablative absolute" with which it begins.
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

7. 

   Sean Casten Posted 11:06 pm
   29 Jun 2008

   On the other handAt least we've got this to cheer us up.

   Permalink