Originally Posted by sgallan  I think this one was ruled mostly on a technical constitutional issue. It sort of sucks but the courts can't (or are not supposed to) rule on emotion, and perceived fairness; but on the law. If the liberal side of the court was the decider that is even more ironic because that side of the court would annecdotally be expected to rule for keeping the punitive damages as they were originally set. |
I don't think it sucks at all that courts rule on law, not emotion or percveived fairness. For thousands of years courts could rule on emotion, and they could kill anyone they simply did not like. Ruling on law alone, without emotion or perceived fairness, protects us all from unjust prosecution. Would you like it better if the court ruled on emotion and their emotion, in this case, was to award money to Exxon, instead of just canceling out some damages? If we allow emotion into the decisions, how can we besure of the just and equal application of the law?
That is a very telling sentence in your post, gallan. It speaks volumes.