[Vision2020] Supreme Court supports terrorists but sticks it to

[Tom Hansen]

Chris -

Although you have a right to be upset (and maybe confused) by our Supreme 
Court and its decisions concerning tose cases you have cited, perhaps 
analysis of how each of the justices ruled on each case, will provide a 
deeper understanding of our current Court's culture.

In Boumediene vs. George Bush
(the GITMO detainee case)

The following justices concurred with the final opinion of the Court.

Kennedy
Souter
Breyer
Stevens
Ginsberg

------------------

The following justices dissented against the final opinion of the court.

Roberts 
Scalia
Thomas
Alito

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In Exxon Shipping Company vs. Baker
(the Exxon Valdez oil spill case)

Justice Alito was excused.

The following justices concurred with the final opinion of the Court.

Roberts
Souter
Thomas
Scalia
Kennedy

------------------

The following justices dissented against the final opinion of the court.

Breyer
Ginsberg
Stevens

Justice Stevens stated in his opinion:

- In light of Exxon’s decision to permit a lapsed alcoholic to command a 
supertanker carrying tens of millions of gallons of crude oil through the 
treacherous waters of PrinceWilliam Sound, thereby endangering all of the 
individuals who depended upon the sound for their livelihoods, thejury 
could reasonably have given expression to its “moralcondemnation” of 
Exxon’s conduct in the form of this award. Cooper Industries, Inc., 532 U. 
S., at 432. I would adhere to the principle that “‘it better becomes the 
humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty to give than to 
withhold the remedy, when not required to withhold it by established and 
inflexible rules.’” -

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that . . .

Although justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas did not favor providing 
appeal processes to GITMO detainees, they were in favor of drastically 
reducing the $5 billion previously awarded by the US Court of Appeals to 
victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, an award reduced by ninety percent 
to $500 million.

As I agree with your sentiment related to the Exxon decision, I hope this 
provides a deeper understanding.

Seeya at Farmers' Market, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho


> Morning all,
Last week the Supreme Court gave terrorists
> the right to use our court
system to address their
detent> ion in Gitmo, yet today the Supreme Court told
the
approx> imately 32,000 Native Alaskans who wanted justice from
Ex> xon after
the Exxon Valdez grounded itself on Bleigh
Reef>  in Prince William Sound that
they deserve practically
no> thing for their loss of livelyhood.   What an
odd Court,
> those who seek to destroy the U.S. are given rights,
thos> e who
are destroyed by one of the most powerful US
corpor> ations are told to piss
off!   We call this
jjustice?????> ?

I know that the sound has almost healed itself today
f> rom the spill, but
still the 32,000 who lost their
liveli> hoods for a entire generation should
have received just
c> ompensation from Exxon.   More than a few of you on this
> list have been in the Sound and have seen the dozens of
a> bandoned villages
that were the homes of Natives for
thou> sands of years.  These folks were
forced to move to
Ancho> rage or Fairbanks to find work, most would love to
return>  home but unfortunately harvest levels of salmon, ling
co> d, halibut,
and other valuable marine species just are
no> t yet high enough to support
their lifestyle.  Exxon
wins>  again and we all still continue to lose....
Hope all is
> well in Moscow,
Chris


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/