The Exxon Valdez spill aftermath: What will be Palin's position there?...

[cascadiance]

Reports here are that she disagreed with the earlier Supreme Court decision with Bush justices ruling that the previous award to the plaintiffs against Exxon was "excessive", and that her fellow Alaskans and her husband (who was a fisherman also) deserved more.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/08/veep-nominee-pa.html

August 29, 2008
Veep Nominee Palin and the Exxon Valdez Case

A lawyer for the class of Alaskan commercial fishers who sought punitive damages stemming from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 confirmed this afternoon that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- Sen. John McCain's pick for vice president -- and her husband Todd, both commercial fishers at the time, could have qualified as members of the class. But neither filed claims by the deadline this past February. "They were both eligible to participate," says Stanford Law School professor and Davis Wright Tremaine partner Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court last term.

...

Fisher notes that Alaska and Gov. Palin were strongly supportive of the plaintiffs in the litigation. "The justices Sen. McCain likes," Fisher added, were were not as supportive. In the 5-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was in the majority that cut the punitive damages award, and Justice Samuel Alito Jr. recused because he owns Exxon Mobil stock. The others in the majority written by Justice David Souter were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy.

After the Supreme Court ruled, Gov. Palin was critical of the outcome. “I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” she was quoted as saying. “While the decision brings some degree of closure to Alaskans suffering from 19 years of litigation and delay, the Court gutted the jury’s decision on punitive damages.” She also said, “It is tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision. My heart goes out to those affected, especially the families of the thousands of Alaskans who passed away while waiting for justice.”

It will be interesting to see if she can get pressed on this issue by us to the point that she's got to choose between alienating her Alaskan voters (in case she and McCain don't get elected) or the oil company lobbyists like Exxon's that are the lifeblood of the neocons.

[Doug.Goodall]

1. She will tow the Republican line

Drill here
Drill now
Pollute more

[cascadiance]

2. And we hope piss off a lot of fisherman voters if she backs off supporting their lawsuit!

[stillcool]

3. and then there's this...

Palin backed Alaskan windfall-profits tax
posted at 8:50 am on August 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

John McCain and nearly every economist agrees that a windfall-profits tax on the oil industry would drive away investment, increase prices to consumers, and make Americans more dependent on foreign oil. If anyone wants to see that in microcosm, they only need look at Alaska. With the backing of Governor Sarah Palin, the state managed to drive away investment in development by hiking taxes on oil companies drilling on state lands:

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared. …

BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/