Export thread
Sex Criminals get double jeap...no wait its BP this time
#1
Necronic
Necronic
So there is a law in place that limits the maximum a company can be liable for an oil spill (beyond cleanup costs.) This is for stuff like fishermen that loose money and shit like that. The cap is currently 75 mil, which is, really low.
Its so low in fact, that Congress is trying to pass a bill that will increase that 75 mil to a more reasonable amount. 10 billion. That's not a typo. Its a B. And here's the best part, they are going to try and make the limit apply retroactively so BPs liability increases from 75 mil to 10 bil, and at this point I'm guessing its quite likely that 10 billion could easily be hit.
Like sex criminals, I don't think many people are fans of BP right now. As someone who works in the oil/gas industry their management somewhat disgusts me. They have a history of fucking up and killing people, which is a disgrace to the industry, and now they just created the greatest enviromental disaster this country has ever seen.
That said. How can anyone think its acceptable to do this? The precedent this sets is monstrous. Any federally mandated liability cap can be modified whenever we want? No. That's not ok. The argument some lawmakers are giving is that the risk has risen dramatically over the last 2 decades (I think the original cap was introduced in the 70s or 80s), but if that's the case (and I believe it is) then they should have increased the cap before. FFS, they could have at least stopped rubber stamping shitty designs like this one.
This is an appalling move by the democrats in my mind, and just shows to me how much they are interested in being crowd pleasers who will whore out the rule of law to look like Captain Planet. (I'm kind of drunk right now, to be honest I feel this way about pretty much everyone in politics. Except Obama, I think he's just giving the world the finger and doing it his way, which I respect.)
Its so low in fact, that Congress is trying to pass a bill that will increase that 75 mil to a more reasonable amount. 10 billion. That's not a typo. Its a B. And here's the best part, they are going to try and make the limit apply retroactively so BPs liability increases from 75 mil to 10 bil, and at this point I'm guessing its quite likely that 10 billion could easily be hit.
Like sex criminals, I don't think many people are fans of BP right now. As someone who works in the oil/gas industry their management somewhat disgusts me. They have a history of fucking up and killing people, which is a disgrace to the industry, and now they just created the greatest enviromental disaster this country has ever seen.
That said. How can anyone think its acceptable to do this? The precedent this sets is monstrous. Any federally mandated liability cap can be modified whenever we want? No. That's not ok. The argument some lawmakers are giving is that the risk has risen dramatically over the last 2 decades (I think the original cap was introduced in the 70s or 80s), but if that's the case (and I believe it is) then they should have increased the cap before. FFS, they could have at least stopped rubber stamping shitty designs like this one.
This is an appalling move by the democrats in my mind, and just shows to me how much they are interested in being crowd pleasers who will whore out the rule of law to look like Captain Planet. (I'm kind of drunk right now, to be honest I feel this way about pretty much everyone in politics. Except Obama, I think he's just giving the world the finger and doing it his way, which I respect.)
#2
Troll
Troll
No, it's perfectly okay. When a company fucks up, they should have to pay for it. When a company fucks up on a global scale like BP, they should still pay for it. Liability caps are nothing but love letters to the oil company. I'm not going to shed a tear if that changes, and the oil company has to actualy take responsibility. Or are you really going to say that the taxpayers should have to cover the cost of a company's mistake, especially since that mistake will cost billions?
#3
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
Look, I'm all for punishing BP to the fullest extent of the law, and I think the liability cap is an outrage, but doing a retroactive change to the law iis about as directly and unambiguously against the constitution as possible.
---------- Post added at 05:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------
A better way to handle this, I'd say, is to make the law apply to all the oil that is spilled from the point the law is passed onwards. The leak, it seems, is going to take another three months to fix -- so the vast majority of it will be on BP's hands anyway.
Trying to make it retroactive is a surefire way to have the law accomplish nothing.
There's not even wriggle room there. It's simply not allowed, and passing it would be a waste of time, because BP's massively-expensive lawyers will certainly be able to get it overturned in the supreme court.U.S. Constitution said:No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
---------- Post added at 05:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------
A better way to handle this, I'd say, is to make the law apply to all the oil that is spilled from the point the law is passed onwards. The leak, it seems, is going to take another three months to fix -- so the vast majority of it will be on BP's hands anyway.
Trying to make it retroactive is a surefire way to have the law accomplish nothing.
#4
SpecialKO
It's too bad that BP will end up paying a tiny tithe, but that's what class action lawsuits (and injury suits, etc) are for.
SpecialKO
100% agreed. It's right there in the Constitution, and for good reason.Look, I'm all for punishing BP to the fullest extent of the law, and I think the liability cap is an outrage, but doing a retroactive change to the law iis about as directly and unambiguously against the constitution as possible.
There's not even wriggle room there. It's simply not allowed, and passing it would be a waste of time, because BP's massively-expensive lawyers will certainly be able to get it overturned in the supreme court.U.S. Constitution said:No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
---------- Post added at 05:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------
A better way to handle this, I'd say, is to make the law apply to all the oil that is spilled from the point the law is passed onwards. The leak, it seems, is going to take another three months to fix -- so the vast majority of it will be on BP's hands anyway.
Trying to make it retroactive is a surefire way to have the law accomplish nothing.
It's too bad that BP will end up paying a tiny tithe, but that's what class action lawsuits (and injury suits, etc) are for.
#5
JONJONAUG
JONJONAUG
Ahahaha
Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma used procedural move to stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor, saying that raising the cap would hurt smaller drillers.
"Big Oil would love to have these caps up there so they can shut out all the independents," he said.
In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership pacs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[48]
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).
Fuck it all.
Oh and this bill isn't aimed at BP. This is so that if a disaster like this ever happens again the government won't have to take oil companies on good faith that they'll repay the massive damages that result from oil spills.
Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma used procedural move to stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor, saying that raising the cap would hurt smaller drillers.
"Big Oil would love to have these caps up there so they can shut out all the independents," he said.
In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership pacs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[48]
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).
Fuck it all.
Oh and this bill isn't aimed at BP. This is so that if a disaster like this ever happens again the government won't have to take oil companies on good faith that they'll repay the massive damages that result from oil spills.
#6
Necronic
Necronic
ok, if its not aimed at BP the why is there an attempt to make it apply retroactively?
#7
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Dude, someone has to pay up for this oil spill, and I'd prefer it to be BP.
---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------
---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------
He has a good point. It's the same reason tobacco companies LOVE the taxation and regulations on cigarettes. They have NO competition because of it.Ahahaha
Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma used procedural move to stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor, saying that raising the cap would hurt smaller drillers.
"Big Oil would love to have these caps up there so they can shut out all the independents," he said.
In the 2008 election cycle, Senator Inhofe’s largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership pacs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories.[48]
In 2010, his largest donors represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654).
Fuck it all.
Oh and this bill isn't aimed at BP. This is so that if a disaster like this ever happens again the government won't have to take oil companies on good faith that they'll repay the massive damages that result from oil spills.
#8
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Because the Federal Government likely can't handle the clean up themselves and BP is happy to let them foot the bill if they don't have to pay for it? This is an environmental disaster that is going to basically destroy the sea-based local economies of the Southern United States. It's going to cost us A LOT more than 75 million dollars. There needs to be more than token accountability.ok, if its not aimed at BP the why is there an attempt to make it apply retroactively?
#9
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
BP still pays the cleanup cost. The $75mil cap is for damages payed to fishermen and the tourist industry.
I love watching the news, getting the latest update on the direction the spill is going... then see it go to a Southwest Airlines ad for low fares to NW Florida.
I love watching the news, getting the latest update on the direction the spill is going... then see it go to a Southwest Airlines ad for low fares to NW Florida.
#10
Soliloquy
So... it is aimed at BP, then.
Soliloquy
Because the Federal Government likely can't handle the clean up themselves and BP is happy to let them foot the bill if they don't have to pay for it? This is an environmental disaster that is going to basically destroy the sea-based local economies of the Southern United States. It's going to cost us A LOT more than 75 million dollars. There needs to be more than token accountability.[/QUOTE]ok, if its not aimed at BP the why is there an attempt to make it apply retroactively?
So... it is aimed at BP, then.
#11
AshburnerX
So... it is aimed at BP, then.[/QUOTE]
It likely is. And if it goes through BP WILL go out of business. The real question is if your okay with that, personally.
AshburnerX
Because the Federal Government likely can't handle the clean up themselves and BP is happy to let them foot the bill if they don't have to pay for it? This is an environmental disaster that is going to basically destroy the sea-based local economies of the Southern United States. It's going to cost us A LOT more than 75 million dollars. There needs to be more than token accountability.[/QUOTE]ok, if its not aimed at BP the why is there an attempt to make it apply retroactively?
So... it is aimed at BP, then.[/QUOTE]
It likely is. And if it goes through BP WILL go out of business. The real question is if your okay with that, personally.
#12
Chibibar
So... it is aimed at BP, then.[/QUOTE]
It likely is. And if it goes through BP WILL go out of business. The real question is if your okay with that, personally.[/QUOTE]
Well. If the damage is higher, all it does is make company MORE careful. Yea I know that BP's all fail safe devices kinda fail all at once, but recent articles (true or not, I'm not sure) that BP been cutting costs on the safety and change some stuff which is probably why it failed.
If the penalty is high, then companies are not likely to "jack" with the safety (so we hope in a perfect world)
Chibibar
Because the Federal Government likely can't handle the clean up themselves and BP is happy to let them foot the bill if they don't have to pay for it? This is an environmental disaster that is going to basically destroy the sea-based local economies of the Southern United States. It's going to cost us A LOT more than 75 million dollars. There needs to be more than token accountability.[/QUOTE]ok, if its not aimed at BP the why is there an attempt to make it apply retroactively?
So... it is aimed at BP, then.[/QUOTE]
It likely is. And if it goes through BP WILL go out of business. The real question is if your okay with that, personally.[/QUOTE]
Well. If the damage is higher, all it does is make company MORE careful. Yea I know that BP's all fail safe devices kinda fail all at once, but recent articles (true or not, I'm not sure) that BP been cutting costs on the safety and change some stuff which is probably why it failed.
If the penalty is high, then companies are not likely to "jack" with the safety (so we hope in a perfect world)
#13
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I'm okay with BP going out of business, just not via an ex post facto law. That's a horrible precedent, and seems clearly unconstitutional.It likely is. And if it goes through BP WILL go out of business. The real question is if your okay with that, personally.
#14
Soliloquy
Soliloquy
Yeah, if it passes as an ex post facto law, I'm fairly certain that BP won't go out of business, since it definitely has the money and lawyers to bring this case to the supreme court and win.
#15
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
possibly not. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that ex post facto only applies in criminal law and not civil law (see Calder V Bull), regardless of how unambiguous the wording in the constitution may seem to you or I. This change in the cap would definitely fall within the civil law category.
#16
Soliloquy
Here's what one of the justices at the time defined ex post facto as:
If it passes, we'll just have to sit back and see what happens. So whatever.
Stupid legal system, making everything all confusing...
Soliloquy
Huh, interesting. I looked it up -- old, old case (1798), but unless there's been another ruling that overturned it, I guess you're right.possibly not. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that ex post facto only applies in criminal law and not civil law (see Calder V Bull), regardless of how unambiguous the wording in the constitution may seem to you or I. This change in the cap would definitely fall within the civil law category.
Here's what one of the justices at the time defined ex post facto as:
So, it looks like there's some wriggle room on both sides. This bill may be interpreted as falling under the 3rd standard for ex post facto, (depending on the interpretation of the word "crime") but who knows?Justice Samuel Chase said:I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition.
1st: Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
If it passes, we'll just have to sit back and see what happens. So whatever.
Stupid legal system, making everything all confusing...
#17
Chibibar
Chibibar
I am guessing (wild guess on my part) that there will be a "time line" when the law will go into place.
It looks like it is "contain" to a certain level (not really but it is a better than what is before) so maybe congress will say you have 1 month to contain it 100% or the law will effect them from the point after 1 month and the damage done from that. Of course, I have no clue if congress can even DO that, but hey, the law has gotten so complicated I don't know all the "gameplay" anymore.
It looks like it is "contain" to a certain level (not really but it is a better than what is before) so maybe congress will say you have 1 month to contain it 100% or the law will effect them from the point after 1 month and the damage done from that. Of course, I have no clue if congress can even DO that, but hey, the law has gotten so complicated I don't know all the "gameplay" anymore.
#18
Tinwhistler
[/QUOTE]
It's still the controlling case...here's some discussion
http://law.jrank.org/pages/25261/Calder-v-Bull-High-Court-Rules.html
Basically, the courts have said "all ex post facto laws are retroactive, but not all retroactive laws are ex post facto".
You can still see it cited here in the discussion/definition of 'ex post facto'
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e086.htm
The cap is definitely a civil matter. It's not a criminal one (ie: changing the punishment of a misdemeanor or felony). With the way SCOTUS has upheld this legal theory in the past, congress has no barrier to passing a retroactive law upping the cap.
Tinwhistler
Huh, interesting. I looked it up -- old, old case (1798), but unless there's been another ruling that overturned it, I guess you're right.possibly not. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that ex post facto only applies in criminal law and not civil law (see Calder V Bull), regardless of how unambiguous the wording in the constitution may seem to you or I. This change in the cap would definitely fall within the civil law category.
[/QUOTE]
It's still the controlling case...here's some discussion
http://law.jrank.org/pages/25261/Calder-v-Bull-High-Court-Rules.html
Basically, the courts have said "all ex post facto laws are retroactive, but not all retroactive laws are ex post facto".
You can still see it cited here in the discussion/definition of 'ex post facto'
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e086.htm
The cap is definitely a civil matter. It's not a criminal one (ie: changing the punishment of a misdemeanor or felony). With the way SCOTUS has upheld this legal theory in the past, congress has no barrier to passing a retroactive law upping the cap.
#19
Necronic
Necronic
Interesting, thanks for the link