Supreme Matters?

Mike and his coworkers have been very interested to know whether the Supreme Court would decide to hear the (final) appeal by Exxon regarding the damages assessed for the Valdez incident. According to yesterday's news, the High Court has decided to hear the case.

I do not pretend to be a legal expert. Having said that, it's strange to think that the S.C. should find something worthy of reviewing here. As portrayed in the media, the case seems to be about whether Exxon should have to pay punitive damages, and if so, how much. As a layperson, it's hard to see how this is a question of constitutional law.

One of the points Exxon's spokespeople mention is this:
"It is also important for the Supreme Court to uphold long-standing maritime law that provides that ship-owners are not liable for punitive damages based upon conduct by the ship-master who disregarded the owner's rules and policies."
So, court after court found reason not to uphold this law, because they were soft-hearted? I'm not buying it.

Yet, now that it has reached this level, there is a chance that the business-friendly court could actually overturn the ruling, and/or reduce the damages. It's weird that the court, which is im place to protect "inalienable" rights, should be thought of as "business-friendly." Again, as a lay person, it seems like the "rights" should be constant.

This is hardly the most sensitive issue the court will face this term, but since I know Mike, and Mike has a stake in it, it's one I will watch.