Supreme Court Slashes Exxon Valdez Verdict, Citing “Free Oil Was A Gift”

Supreme Court Justice David Souter told a hastily arranged Washington, D.C. news conference that the Court had reduced the verdict against ExxonMobil for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill by $4.5 billion because “the appeals court had overlooked Exxon’s gift of 10 million gallons of oil to the people of Alaska.”

“The Court is shocked by the ingratitude of Alaskans toward Exxon,” Justice Souter said. “I mean, here’s an oil company recognizing that there’s a lot of, you know, poverty and deprivation. We’re talking Alaska here. It’s like, what do you get cross the South Bronx with the South Pole? Alaska!

“And people in Alaska burn a lot of oil,” the Justice continued, “because it’s so cold in the winter. And here comes this incredibly generous company, freely donating more than 10 million gallons of oil to the Alaskan people. No strings attached. You don’t have to get Exxon credit cards. It’s just like, here’s some oil, people.

“And then these Eskimos—they’re lucky to be Americans, for God’s sake—stab Exxon in the back and file a lawsuit,” Souter added, shaking his head angrily. “Have they no shame?”

The original penalty against Exxon, the predecessor company to ExxonMobil, was $5 billion. The Supreme Court yesterday reduced the verdict to $507 million. ExxonMobil’s profit for 2008 was $40.6 billion, which means that the newly lowered verdict amounts to approximately four days’ profit for the giant oil company. Thousands of Alaskans may be pushed into bankruptcy by the Court’s decision.

“If we had allowed the $5 billion verdict to stand,” Justice Souter told reporters, “it would have sent the wrong message to the business community. We need more ExxonMobils, not fewer. And again, all the Alaskans had to do to get the oil was row out a little ways from the harbor, scoop up the oil in a bucket, and put it right into their snowmobiles.

“Let me put it this way: there’s no such thing as a Constitutional right to ingratitude.”