Drink Up Plebes!

How is your clairvoyance? Mine is so f-ing good if I did drag I'd call myself "Clair Voyant." But what of those poor souls not gifted with a Godwhacker's insights?

TFB, says the Supreme Court!
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of homeowners in North Carolina can't sue a company that contaminated their drinking water decades ago because a state deadline has lapsed, a decision that could prevent thousands of other property owners in similar cases from recovering damages after being exposed to toxic waste.  
In a 7-2 decision, the justices said state law strictly bars any lawsuit brought more than 10 years after the contamination occurred - even if residents did not realize their water was polluted until years later.

The high court reversed a lower court ruling that said federal environmental laws should trump the state law and allow the lawsuit against electronics manufacturer CTS Corp. to proceed.  
The decision is a setback for the families of several thousand former North Carolina-based Marines suing the federal government in a separate case for exposing them to contaminated drinking water over several decades at Camp Lejeune. The government is relying on the same state law to avoid liability. That case is currently pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Meanwhile in Louisiana:
Rejecting the advice of his own attorney general and dozens of legal scholars, Louisiana governor and potential presidential contender Bobby Jindal effectively blocked a New Orleans-area levee board from suing oil and gas companies for allegedly destroying the state’s coasts – and in so doing, may have also derailed state and local claims against BP for damages and tax revenue lost following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Do you see a pattern here? We get the poison and they get the profit. What's fair is fair, right?


  1. Not sure I follow. Seven of the justices -- including Sotomayor and Kagan -- concluded that CERCLA didn't preempt a statute of repose. The dissenting judge on the panel in the appeals court thought the same thing. And apparently there was a circuit split on the issue, resulting in Supreme Court review. Are you suggesting that the outcome was motivated by improper reasons?

  2. We can debate the merits of this case or that case but my point was the larger pattern of rulings and laws that favor the rights of corporations over the rights of people. If a ruling implies that one needs clairvoyance, i.e. the knowing of the unknown, in order to assert what should be guaranteed rights then the law isn't being applied in a manner that is fair. I know it sounds blasphemous but I like the idea of considering implications.

  3. I hear you. I'll have to read it more carefully. You make a good point about the real-world effect that this decision has, even if the decision purports to be about a rather technical legal issue.

  4. There is never a wrong reason to do the right thing.

  5. Supreme Court did the same thing to victims of pollution that they did to Lily Ledbetter. If the wrongdoer can keep it hidden long enough, they get away with it.


Post a Comment