News How Are Liberals Attacking the Conservatives at SCOTUS?

[Al68]

Nor can corporations be held legally accountable as can a real person. They are in effect supercitizens. I'll take the deal that I can break any law, but the worst thing that happens is that I get sued or fined. I want the same rights that a corporation has!

Can a corporation be recruited against its will and forced, essentially, to commit suicide in defense of the country, or is that special honor reserved for us lesser real people?

We have a right to life. Is a corporation a life form? Are corporations entitled to the pursuit of happiness?

Why not at least read the ACLU's position linked to earlier? Even if you disagree with it, at least you will know that nobody is claiming that a corporation, as a mere tool used by people, has any rights. It's the people using the tool (corporation) that have rights.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why not at least read the ACLU's position linked to earlier? Even if you disagree with it, at least you will know that nobody is claiming that a corporation, as a mere tool used by people, has any rights. It's the people using the tool (corporation) that have rights.

Yet only a handful of people steer a corporation in its political leanings, and being a stockholder or employee isn't a great position to move it from.

To your post at Proton... a corporation isn't a good political tool for anything, but forwarding itself and its own interests. Something like the ACLU is a specific set of lobbying initiatives and lawsuits that you can buy into, or not, with your donation being material support to a political tool.

A corporation in the sense we've been talking about them here is a financial tool, not always or even often sharing the interests of the current host company. (See WWII for examples if needed).

 

[Jack21222]

But it is a person; that's the spirit of corporation laws. The relevant question to the courts is to what extent personhood is granted to corporations by existing law.

No, a corporation IS NOT a person, regardless of how the law defines things. If the law defined house cats to be a species of fish, would you be arguing "but a cat IS a fish?"

"Person" has had a meaning LONG before these particular laws were in place.

 

[nismaratwork]

No, a corporation IS NOT a person, regardless of how the law defines things. If the law defined house cats to be a species of fish, would you be arguing "but a cat IS a fish?"

"Person" has had a meaning LONG before these particular laws were in place.

Hey now, didn't the Catholic Church in medieval times define some bird to be a fish so that it could be eaten on fridays? Damn... I forget which...

Still, it was never a fish, as you say.

 

[Gokul43201]

If the law defined house cats to be a species of fish, would you be arguing "but a cat IS a fish?"

If we were discussing matters of law, and we are, then yes, I would be perfectly justified in arguing that.

 

[nismaratwork]

If we were discussing matters of law, and we are, then yes, I would be perfectly justified in arguing that.

I disagree, it would be the law, but it would also be the basis for a (probably successful) legal challenge.

 

[Jack21222]

If we were discussing matters of law, and we are, then yes, I would be perfectly justified in arguing that.

You wouldn't be arguing that the law is incorrect? Rather, you'd argue "the law is the law?"

If the law claims that a corporation is a person, than the law is clearly absurd. It's even more absurd than the example I gave, because at least cats and fish are both animals.

 

[Gokul43201]

You wouldn't be arguing that the law is incorrect? Rather, you'd argue "the law is the law?"

In this case (Citizens United), the "law" I'm talking about is the US Constitution and its legal interpretations. And the Supreme Court does not have the authority to argue that the Constitution is incorrect.

 

[BWV]

corporate personhood is a legal fiction that allows organizations to enter into contracts, own property, be sued in court, etc.

A governmental entity is another legal person that has similar rights even though it is not a person - i.e. the city of Los Angeles can be sued, own property etc

 

[Al68]

In this case (Citizens United), the "law" I'm talking about is the US Constitution and its legal interpretations. And the Supreme Court does not have the authority to argue that the Constitution is incorrect.

This is the relevant issue here. Government may not restrict political speech. Period. The nature of the speaker, or the tool used by the speaker, is irrelevant. Claiming that the tool, not its human user, is the "real" speaker but not a "real" person is nothing more than fraudspeak used to try to justify violating the constitution.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is the relevant issue here. Government may not restrict political speech. Period. The nature of the speaker, or the tool used by the speaker, is irrelevant. Claiming that the tool, not its human user, is the "real" speaker but not a "real" person is nothing more than fraudspeak used to try to justify violating the constitution.

The constitution is a living document, and a basis for law and jurisprudence. In the strictest sense, which you should preface your statement with by the way, you are SORT of right. In terms of established and (formerly) settled law, you're wrong... this isn't as black and white as you'd like.

I'm sure if you give it a moment's thought, you'll think of examples where ANY speach is restricted, and must be if for no better reason than there is limited time in the day, a lot of people, and only so many media outlets. I'd add, how do you figure that a corporation not made for the purpose is a tool for political speech? As has been mentioned, buying stock is an investment in MONEY, not ideals, or politics. Unions are unions, PACs are pacs, but conflating all of this is laughable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was a wee bit surprised at the 5-4 split in the Kyllo v United States decision. Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Not very surprising there.Not sure exactly what you are looking for Mugaliens. I think that the Supreme Court ought to be scrutinized, it is already, though I do not think that there ought to be an official body which does so.

 

[turbo]

Meanwhile, there have been calls for both Thomas and Kagen to recuse themselves on certain issues due to prior or outside involvement. I can see it in Kagen's case because she acted in an official capacity on a related issue. I cannot see it in Thomas' case, as everyone is entitled to participate in events of their own choosing when off the clock.

Have you been following the news on Thomas? For years, he has been claiming that his wife has had NO non-investment income despite the fact that she has gathered hundreds of thousands of dollars from a lobby that is intent on killing health-care reform and health-insurance reform. That is a huge lapse in ethics, IMO - serious enough to warrant his removal from the court. Since he won't be removed, in my estimation, he should at least have the honor to recuse himself from any decision involving health-care and health-insurance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story

 

[nismaratwork]

Have you been following the news on Thomas? For years, he has been claiming that his wife has had NO non-investment income despite the fact that she has gathered hundreds of thousands of dollars from a lobby that is intent on killing health-care reform and health-insurance reform. That is a huge lapse in ethics, IMO - serious enough to warrant his removal from the court. Since he won't be removed, in my estimation, he should at least have the honor to recuse himself from any decision involving health-care and health-insurance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story

Oh, and he should probably keep his pubic hair to himself, much as I'd hope he'd keep his opinions actually... if he has any that Scalia didn't stuff in that empty head of is.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Have you been following the news on Thomas? For years, he has been claiming that his wife has had NO non-investment income despite the fact that she has gathered hundreds of thousands of dollars from a lobby that is intent on killing health-care reform and health-insurance reform. That is a huge lapse in ethics, IMO - serious enough to warrant his removal from the court. Since he won't be removed, in my estimation, he should at least have the honor to recuse himself from any decision involving health-care and health-insurance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story

Thomas' opinion on the subject of the commerce clause is rather well known and established. These issues don't really cast any doubt on his intentions.

 

[turbo]

Thomas' opinion on the subject of the commerce clause is rather well known and established. These issues don't really cast any doubt on his intentions.

So making false financial disclosure statements is OK? Even when his wife is in bed with the Heritage Foundation? I think we have some problems with conflict of interest in the latter, and honesty in the former. Eric Cantor should start impeachment proceedings against Thomas, IMO. Ain't going to happen, but that's the way it is. If a left-leaning judge had lied on financial-disclosure statements year after year while their spouse collected about $700K from a lobbyist, I think there would at least be some hearings.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So making false financial disclosure statements is OK? Even when his wife is in bed with the Heritage Foundation? I think we have some problems with conflict of interest in the latter, and honesty in the former. Eric Cantor should start impeachment proceedings against Thomas, IMO. Ain't going to happen, but that's the way it is. If a left-leaning judge had lied on financial-disclosure statements year after year while their spouse collected about $700K from a lobbyist, I think there would at least be some hearings.

I believe that Justices must be guilty of a felony to be impeached. Not putting correct information on a form is really not that big a deal. And I still don't see the conflict of interest. As I noted Thomas' opinion of the commerce clause is well known, that his opinion will be swayed by his wife's affiliations is hardly likely since his opinion already coincides with theirs.

 

[turbo]

I believe that Justices must be guilty of a felony to be impeached. Not putting correct information on a form is really not that big a deal. And I still don't see the conflict of interest. As I noted Thomas' opinion of the commerce clause is well known, that his opinion will be swayed by his wife's affiliations is hardly likely since his opinion already coincides with theirs.

We cannot assume that any challenges to ACA will be so narrowly construed as to only hinge on the commerce clause. Law can be pretty messy.

Yes, we know which way he would vote, but there is a very blatant conflict of interest problem should he not recuse himself from such deliberations, IMO.

As for lying on financial disclosure statements being no big deal:

The list of alleged abuses ends by attacking the accuracy of financial disclosure statements he filed, as required, from 1994 to 2000. The order says the reports omit gifts and other valuables given to him by attorneys and significant amounts of debt.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/move_to_impeach_federal_judge.html

I'm pretty sure that $700K of income from a conservative lobbying group is significant, and is worth pursuing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well... worth pursuing, but I thin TSA is right that impeachment could only come after a conviction.

 

[turbo]

Well... worth pursuing, but I thin TSA is right that impeachment could only come after a conviction.

That's backward. Impeachment proceedings come first, followed by conviction, if the charges are proved, and removal. Thomas' wife may be an incredibly effective lobbyist and worth every penny of the $700K to the Heritage Foundation. Still, he lied about her non-investment income year after year. This is a crime, IMO, and needs to be addressed. It's not like he got some oral sex from an intern.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's backward. Impeachment proceedings come first, followed by conviction, if the charges are proved, and removal. Thomas' wife may be an incredibly effective lobbyist and worth every penny of the $700K to the Heritage Foundation. Still, he lied about her non-investment income year after year. This is a crime, IMO, and needs to be addressed. It's not like he got some oral sex from an intern.

Yeah, he just tried to go that route and was rebuffed... ahhh priceless.

I realize impeachment has to preceed charges, but if the charges themselves are a felony his wife committed, you may need to prosecute her first to get the evidence to impeach him.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, he just tried to go that route and was rebuffed... ahhh priceless.

I realize impeachment has to preceed charges, but if the charges themselves are a felony his wife committed, you may need to prosecute her first to get the evidence to impeach him.

It's not a felony for his wife to accept money from a lobbyist group. His crime was the willful refusal to disclose her income from that group year after year. I have found no evidence that a judge needs to commit a felony in order to trigger impeachment proceedings. Clinton certainly wasn't charged with a felony for having consensual extra-marital sex, and he was impeached (unsuccessfully) by the House.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's not a felony for his wife to accept money from a lobbyist group. His crime was the willful refusal to disclose her income from that group year after year. I have found no evidence that a judge needs to commit a felony in order to trigger impeachment proceedings. Clinton certainly wasn't charged with a felony for having consensual extra-marital sex, and he was impeached (unsuccessfully) by the House.

He was charged with a felony for perjury... still a load of horse manure, but that was the charge.

I'm not sure what Thomas' responsiblities are regarding his wife's activities according to the law. You need some cause to impeach... it requires gross misconduct, negligence, or criminal behaviour, AFAIK.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's not a felony for his wife to accept money from a lobbyist group. His crime was the willful refusal to disclose her income from that group year after year. I have found no evidence that a judge needs to commit a felony in order to trigger impeachment proceedings. Clinton certainly wasn't charged with a felony for having consensual extra-marital sex, and he was impeached (unsuccessfully) by the House.

Its not a crime though. It is an "ethics violation" which may or may not carry a penalty in the form of a fine or some such.

As far as impeachment goes it seems that what I have read before was an over simplification. The term used in the constitution is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" what I was lead to believe is more or less equivalent to the modern charge of a felony. This is untrue though as it seems to particularly refer to general "abuses of office" which may or may not be crimes and of course a crime may not be an abuse of office necessarily.

edit: almost forgot, here is an interesting article on impeachment
http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/SPECIALREPORTS/impeachment.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Good article TSA, thanks!