Chevron: rule of law for thee but not for me

You know, the phrase "rule of law" is not quite such an irrtant as "the ownership society," and it's not so expressly associated with conservatives, but, it's enough of both that I'm getting tired of it.

Especially when, like "ownership society," its use is hypocritical, class-based, or otherwise two-tiered.

Take Chevron in Ecuador. The original environmental verdict against it by an court-ap0ointed review expert has been upheld, albeit with the amount of judgment knocked down to $9.1B.

And the Chevron response?

In a statement, Chevron called the decision "illegitimate and unenforceable" and said it would appeal. It has long contended it could never get a fair trial in Ecuador and has removed all assets from this politically volatile Andean country, whose leftist president, Rafael Correa, had voiced support for the plaintiffs.

Chevron, which earned $19.1 billion last year, said it did not believe the judgment "enforceable in any court that observes the rule of law."

If you read the rest of the story, you'll read about Chevron using a convicted drug trafficker to try to suborn judicial misconduct from the first trial judge in the case, as one among many aspects of corporate sleaze.

Talking about "rule of law" is the rankest hypocrisy.

Especially since at least one American law school expert thinks the amount of fine was knocked down so much as a signal Ecuador wants to negotiate.

And, let's hope American Big Oil experts like Fadel Gheit are wrong and that Ecuador CAN collect — whether by negotiation or by hardball.

Ecuador can always pull a Venezuela and nationalize Chevron's assets.