EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER: Sarah Palin was critical of Supreme Court’s Exxon decision
Tony Mauro at The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) notes that according to Stanford Law School professor and Davis Wright Tremaine partner Jeffrey Fisher, Sarah Palin and her husband could have but did not join the class action lawsuit that stemmed from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, since they were both (or at least Todd was) commercial fishers at the time. The BLT writes 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.
Furthermore, Sarah Palin was critical of the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker:
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.”
However, one commenter thought that Sarah Palin was disappointed in the decision because “her husband works for BP.” Another commenter observed that “fishermen got screwed by the Bush court, and that the only way to reverse the trend is to elect Obama, who will likely fill Supreme Court vacancies with individuals who care about justice for people, justice for ALL people, and not justice for the wealthy and the corporate interest only.”
It’s hard to understand where Sarah Palin stands on Big Oil and the environment, because although she was critical of the Supreme Court’s Exxon decision, she was enthusiastic for or channeled the mantra: “Drill, baby, drill!” at the Republican National Convention. Furthermore, she supports domestic drilling despite that (1) oil is sold on an international market, so “American” oil will go to China and India, (2) oil companies will profit most from domestic drilling and not the American people, (3) oil companies have yet to explore all their federal leases, (4) the significant public opposition (5) domestic drilling will have an insignificant impact on energy prices and will do nothing to curb world demand.
Sara Palin seems to frequent both sides of the fence. However, she can’t have her cake and eat it too. As a result, she doesn’t deserve or qualify to speak out against Big Oil if she wants to give Big Oil the rights to drill in wildlife refuges or other public lands. Drilling for oil is not new energy policy.
