The West Virginia coal mine that exploded this week and killed 25 workers has a less than pleasing legal back story. Upper Big Branch mine, operated by the Performance Coal Company, is a subsidiary of Massey Energy. That should ring a bell for lawyers and academics as the company owned by Don Blankenship, who was at the heart of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Caperton v. Massey — a case involving Blakenship’s alleged control of the West Virginia bench through massive campaign contributions.
Blankenship is widely viewed as a corrupting influence in West Virginia where he uses his considerable wealth to place judges and legislators in key positions. As if to fulfill his reputation as the Mr. Montgomery Burns of West Virginia, he is quoted by ABC as saying if you take photos, “you’re liable to get shot.” (here).
The mine involved in the recent explosion has had a history of safety infractions and citations. Since 1984, it has amassed a huge number of such citations, including 57 infractions just last month for violations that included repeatedly failing to develop and follow a ventilation plan.
Blankenship is often accused of skirting safety regulations and fighting such fines. One of his subsidiaries agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal and civil fines just last year. He seems, however, all too willing to give money to West Virginia politicians and judges.
In the 2009 decision, Justice Kennedy wrote for a 5-4 majority that Blakenship’s massive contributions to Judge Brent Benjamin required the judge to recuse himself from cases involving Massey due to the “serious risk of actual bias.” The Due Process Clause required the recusal of Judge Brent Benjamin, according to the majority.
For the full story, click here.
goneville:
Clearly it doesn’t bother me, I know exactly what I meant to say. Am I now to understand you are a clairvoyant and can read my mind?
Do “tea baggers” bother you? Would you like to strangle them or eviscerate them? Personally I am not a “tea bagger”. Although I will admit I do like free markets and I do like individual rights.
And I do believe you and people like you would deny people that believe in free markets and individual rights any rights if you and your type ever came to power. I see it in your words, you are a bully purely and simply. Your type is all about control and manipulation and the quest for power over others.
“goneville:
I am of the opinion that your are either:
1. doing this for your personal amusement
2. really don’t understand what I am saying.
3. against free speech (by the way the Prof. didn’t seem to think there was any problem placing this on the web. I am sure he figured there would be discussion)”
***********************************
Well let me straighten you out then.
1. There’s nothing amusing about you and your partner Bdaman trying to lay blame on the miners.
2. I really do understand what you are saying, which is why it bothers you.
3. I’m all for free speech, which is why I make sure to exercise my right to free speech to challenge your rhetoric.
You chose to post those words. I didn’t tell you to defend Bdaman, or post this.
*********************************
“Byron 1, April 8, 2010 at 7:48 am
“those miners knew the risks” and “did so of their own volition”.
*********************************
That you try to conceal your greasy rhetoric by sliding it in between semi coherent pandering does not excuse nor alter it. The words speak for themselves.
Clearly it bothers you to see your own words without all the evasive rhetoric you wrap them in. But saying that the owner was “also” at fault does not altar the fact that you and your partner Bdaman are blaming the miners for their deaths. In fact, the partner you were lying to defend (he did say it was their fault contrary to your denials) went so far this morning as to allegorically call them stupid. Sick. Downright sick.
If you don’t like people calling out or challenging your slimy tea bagger rhetoric in a public forum, then I suggest you find a private one to post it in.
Bdaman:
It is probably a failing in my character.
Byron, why do you even engage loony Tunes.
goneville:
I am of the opinion that your are either:
1. doing this for your personal amusement
2. really don’t understand what I am saying.
3. against free speech (by the way the Prof. didn’t seem to think there was any problem placing this on the web. I am sure he figured there would be discussion)
So basically you believe in free speech to the point where you don’t believe in free speech. In other words in your world speech isn’t open and discussion is what you want it to be. If it doesn’t match your personal beliefs then it is despicable or some such appellation.
What you feel is all that matters. And you probably don’t even care that those miners died, all you care about is stifling the free speech of people who disagree with you. Using appeals to emotion, who would want to be uncaring or selfish, you shut them down. If you don’t agree with them just as certainly if you held a gun to their head you try and bully people to conform.
Didn’t the Soviets and the Nazis have political officers and citizen rat finks to monitor the thoughts of the populace? I bet you would make a good one and you would enjoy it, which is more to the point.
And one last thought, I heard on the radio today that those miners were working in water up to their waists. That owner had multiple violations and paid everyone off.
Lets see if this one floats.
**********************************
“Byron 1, April 8, 2010 at 7:48 am
“those miners knew the risks” and “did so of their own volition”.
**********************************
Nope. Sunk like a stone.
Buddha:
“i.e. corruption from corporate actors that any other time you’d be blaming on a pols willingness to take a bribe instead of placing at the proper place – the doorstep of the briber. How about a little consistency? Or is that your platform I hear cracking beneath your feet?”
No, in this case it appears, from what I have read, that he is a scumbag and did indeed bribe people to ignore safety issues. That all bribes are generated by business owners is not true universally. Nor is it true that all politicians accept bribes.
I think to be consistent one must have a basic philosophy from which to operate and look at all issues through that lens. If it does not comport with that philosophy then it should be reexamined as required to make sure that either the philosophy needs to be changed or that you have made faulty assumptions, etc.
Much the same way you would look at a ball thrown into the air. You know it cant stay in the air, if it does either Newton was wrong or the ball has something that can make it float.
“Bdaman 1, April 9, 2010 at 10:03 am
Wootsy it’s a fact of life that we all make decisions to do things everyday. Thats why I brought up the Mickey D’s. Here in my local paper they tell us the health violations of our local restaurants.
Some of the reports include rat infestations. Do you think that I would make a decision to take my family to eat at that restaurant after learning that they have rats and if I did and my family got sick who is to blame? Me or my stupidity.”
*********************
As for your partner here Byron, the one you were defending earlier claiming “oh no, he wasn’t blaming the miners”, is a real piece of work.
We have 25 dead miners, 4 buried alive they’re trying to rescue and we’ve got this right winger in here not only blaming them, but calling them stupid.
Oh well, maybe his partner Byron can defend him some more.
“Byron 1, April 9, 2010 at 8:15 am
Goneville:
I personally fail to see how I am laying blame on the miners by saying mining is a risky business.”
************************
Well Byron you’d see a little clearer if you’d take a peek once in a while at the words you actually wrote, rather than rephrasing them to suit your needs.
If you had just said “mining is a risky business” that would have been one thing. A stupid one thing to say (minings risky business? gee thanks for tellings us, we didn’t know) the day after 25 miners died and 4 more are buried alive but nonetheless it would have been different.
But that’s not what you said now is it?
Here’s what you actually said.
**********************************
“Byron 1, April 8, 2010 at 7:48 am
Mining is a very dangerous business and those miners knew the risks and did so of their own volition to provide for their families. ”
***********************************
So we see you didn’t just say its a “risky business” as you are now dishonestly claiming. Instead you laid blame squarely on the heads of the miners.
*********************
“those miners knew the risks” and “did so of their own volition”.
*********************
That’s what you said so stop lying about it. They say you’re a credible commenter. Start acting like one.
“Bdaman 1, April 9, 2010 at 7:19 am
Look goonville, doc shabit gerty 30%er who ever your nom de plume is gonna be next week. Go back and read what you wrote about the man who had a heart attack during the snowstorm”
****************************
Bdaman, Byron, whatever your non de plume is gonna be in the next 10 seconds, pretending I’m someone else to smear me with their words is an admit of defeat.
Nice Blouise17, I, being the person I am, would try to take charge and ring the alarm.
At the very first sign of a rat, not like I am scared of them, would be the first to scream we gotta problem here. If anyone stands in the way of making sure the problem gets corrected and it doesn’t, then I quit. I might add that I would probably be very upset and would most likely turn into a rat.
Blouise,
Nice icon. Very relaxing.
Disagree with logic all you like Byron.
“The mine owner was a POS and he apparently did not have proper safe guards in place.” i.e. He wasn’t mitigating risk which is the exact real world analog of the above faulty argument. That his motive was profit and not purposeful illogic for illogic’s sake is beside the point.
“It further appears that he had bought off a large portion of the state agents of West Virginia that had anything to do with mine safety and he had friends in high places at MSHA.” i.e. corruption from corporate actors that any other time you’d be blaming on a pols willingness to take a bribe instead of placing at the proper place – the doorstep of the briber. How about a little consistency? Or is that your platform I hear cracking beneath your feet?
“This guy Blankenshit appears to have ignored risk mitigation.” i.e. he didn’t perform the mitigation as he was required to by law and regulation and on notice for being in violation of.
“He therfore increased the risk the miners were taking for no other reason than he wanted more coal mined as quickly as possible.” And thus he’s another lassiez-faire capitalist serves his bottom line instead of obeying the law.
Bdaman
Wootsy it’s a fact of life that we all make decisions to do things everyday. Thats why I brought up the Mickey D’s. Here in my local paper they tell us the health violations of our local restaurants.
Some of the reports include rat infestations. Do you think that I would make a decision to take my family to eat at that restaurant after learning that they have rats and if I did and my family got sick who is to blame? Me or my stupidity.
==============================================================
I’m truly not trying to be a smartass here but your last sentence confused me a bit … wouldn’t you and your stupidity be one? Or am I missing your point?
Perhaps the better scenario would be not you taking your family to the rat infested restaurant, but you, after being out of work for a few months, finally getting a job at the rat infested place and then finding out about the rats. Do you stay or do you quit?
Woosty:
When I worked offshore there were one or 2 times when I refused to do something because I thought it was unsafe and dangerous. I told my boss you can fire me if you want but I refuse to do this. The other parts of the job were risky but the risk was reduced by safety gear so the probability of injury or death was reduced enough to make the money I was making worth the risk I was taking.
Unfortunately, in this coal mine, some of that personal calculus was taken away by management.
Buddha:
I dont agree with your post, you have to make something as safe as humanly possible when there are risks. You will never be able to mitigate all risks but you can clearly reduce the risk in dangerous situations.
My brother was a Marine aviator and they did pre-flight checks to reduce risk, they trained, they drilled, etc.
When I worked offshore we had safety training and we had life boat drills on a regular basis to reduce risk. The fact that there have been very few fatal accidents in the space program is another example of succesful risk mitigation.
The mine owner was a POS and he apparently did not have proper safe guards in place. It further appears that he had bought off a large portion of the state agents of West Virginia that had anything to do with mine safety and he had friends in high places at MSHA. This guy Blankenshit appears to have ignored risk mitigation. He therfore increased the risk the miners were taking for no other reason than he wanted more coal mined as quickly as possible.
He is a POS and I honestly hope he goes to jail along with the judges and MSHA agents that he apparently bought off.
Mike, that is to funny. I just got back from an errand and on the way I was thinking what else would Mike Appleton have to say about this.
I am not aware of any legal doctrine holding that showing up for work constitutes contributory negligence.
I’m sure there’s not any legal doctrine but that’s all I was trying to say. We all have a personal responsibility.
Wootsy, look, the way I feel is this. If I lived in one of those West Virginia towns and if I chose to stay in that town, mining wouldn’t be my first choice of employment knowing what I know about the dangers of it.
I don’t live there, but am smart enough to see don’t do it from here. That is of course, if it would pay me lots and lots of money for the risk I would have to take, but this isn’t the case because the miners our poor and relies on the government for assistance when it’s the very government who’s to blame for not doing any further action in regards to those violations, some 600 in an 18 month period. How anybody would choose to get caught in that trap is beyond me. Maybe Hank had it right, maybe they do it cause it’s a Family Tradition.
Bdaman, I appreciate your views on taking personal responsibility for one’s life. No one disputes that principle. However, I am not aware of any legal doctrine holding that showing up for work constitutes contributory negligence.
“Wootsy it’s a fact of life that we all make decisions to do things everyday. Thats why I brought up the Mickey D’s. Here in my local paper they tell us the health violations of our local restaurants.”
I try to make decisions based on information I have, not what I think should be true….but much information comes from others…be it a single person, an advertisement, the government, a statistical poll, so on…if I make a mistake, my bad….but if I make a decision and it is sourced on information that turns out to be false or misleading, what do you say then Bdaman, about responsibility and blame?