UPDATE: US Senate Panel Votes To Eliminate Spill-Liability Cap

The Wall Street Journal ^ | June 30, 2010 | Siobhan Hughes

[2ndDivisionVet]

A U.S. Senate panel on Wednesday voted to remove the cap on damage claims that BP PLC and other companies would have to pay for disasters like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the measure by a voice vote. The current limit on claims for damage that goes beyond the costs of cleanup is $75 million. That is widely regarded on Capitol Hill as too low.

The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will on Thursday take up a related measure to remove the liability cap for offshore operations. It isn't clear when the bills will come up for a vote in the full Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives, or be combined into a single package and sent to U.S. President Barack Obama to sign into law.

The Democratic-controlled Congress and the Obama administration have been toughening their position on liability limits as oil continues gushing out of a broken BP well a mile below the surface in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster is already one of the worst oil spills in U.S. history. Oil has reached the shore in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.(continued)

[2ndDivisionVet]

I thought you couldn't change a law after the fact ... or was that back in the old days when the constitution was in effect?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I love the smell of Ex Post Facto in the morning.

[cripplecreek]

This should have been done prior to the spill.

[Ancient Drive]

let's send this to Congress: Ex post facto Ex post facto is a Latin term meaning "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto often refers to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. The U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. However, the Supreme Court has held that that the prohibition of retroactive laws applies only to criminal, not civil, laws. A sentencing law violates the ex post facto prohibition if it operates both retrospectively and to the potential disadvantage of the defendant. This is not limited to substantive changes in the content and criteria of legal rules. Restrictions on the extent of favorable discretion that a court can exercise are within the ex post facto prohibition, too. The ex post facto clause generally prohibits states from enacting any law that “changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime, when it was committed.” For example, sex offender registration laws have been held not to violate the ex post facto clause on the basis that they are not intended as punishment, but as a deterrent against future offenses

[Siena Dreaming]

Oh, yeah, this is really going to help economic growth in the energy sector (which underlies the entire US economy).

[VictoryGal]

Theoretically this could apply to the damage from the oil spilled from here on out.

I actually don’t have a problem with this legislation, and am perplexed at why Republicans have been fighting so hard against it. Maybe if someone could explain it to me, but I don’t get the objections. If BP or any compnay is at fault in causing damage to livelihoods and property, they should pay for the damage they have caused. That’s just common sense. Part of the cost of doing business is either being able to pay for whatever damage you could do as part of your risk liability, or purchase insurance to cover that liability.

[Ancient Drive]

this is straight singling out of a lawful business entity being driven into extinction by Government.

[Orange1998]

GM bondholders thought they were safe based on precedent until Obama TOLD them otherwise.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Where did you get the idea that the Obama regime cares about private sector economic growth?

[LibLieSlayer]

There is no Constitution and no justice left in obamaland.

LLD

[newfreep]

I wonder how much has to do with BP being British and OBOZO’s hatred of Britain and what happened to OBOZO, Sr.?

[cripplecreek]

The words of James Madison still ring true.

'What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?'

[Siena Dreaming]

Guess I forgot my sarcasm tag.

[PapaBear3625]

I thought you couldn't change a law after the fact ... or was that back in the old days when the constitution was in effect?

Unlimited liability just means that there will be no drilling done by companies with any assets (or at least, any assets that can be seized by US courts).

In the future, drilling will only be done by asset-less shell corporations, using borrowed money and rented equipment.

[Orange1998]

This effectively bankrupt BP and ANY other oil company disaster. They will simply move the rigs to friendly waters.

[Spktyr]

It establishes precedent, that’s why.

If you speed 6mph over the limit Friday, get caught, and your fine is $200, but you can’t pay because the court has closed for the day, that’s no big deal - you have several days to pay before it becomes a legal issue, just because of this sort of reason.

However, if Saturday they change the law that speeding 6mph over the limit is now punishable by $200,000 in fines, and that your offense committed the day before is subject to that fine, well, by this precedent you want them to set, that’s okay, too, right?

[Siena Dreaming]

If BP or any compnay is at fault in causing damage to livelihoods and property

Problem is...when lawyers and/or politicians are involved they will twist the facts so everything ends up the fault of business. Remember McDonald's and the hot coffee case?

If our marxist politicians continue down this path they can raise business caps sky-high all over the place and then raid the companies for cash on the flimsiest of excuses.

BP is not the only entity at fault here. But because politicians are twisting the message people don't see the Gov't machinations which helped to cause this disaster so we get Gov't raiding the private sector instead of also being held accountable.

[PGalt]

$ince there’s no $pending cap on Con-gre$$ why not open up the printing pre$$ $pigot$ fa$ter than the oil $pill damage? Ab$ent that, nice ex-po$t facto work Con-gre$$

IDIOT$

[Orange1998]

"purchase insurance to cover that liability"

LOL, the insurance is no longer affordable unless Oil is 100 buck a barrel.

[MrB]

More of a Bill of Attainder,
targeting a specific person or entity for punishment with a law.