Breaking News :Unanimous SCOTUS Decision

[leftysergeant]

Just heard on the Norman Goldman show that the Supreme Court ruled against AT&T on a case involving corporate personhood. Seems that a lower court had ruled that certain documents in government posession regarding a case involving a settlement against AT&T were subject to FOIA requewsts and that they did not violate a right to personal privacy.

Did the right wingers get buyer's remorse over their Citizens United ruling?

I haven't heard any further details yet, but this is great if entrely accurate.

 

[mortimer]

You don't have any details, but this is great?

Let me guess. You heard "blah blah SCOTUS blah blah ruled against AT&T blah blah" and this is why you consider it great.

 

[mortimer]

After a 2 second google search, here are a bunch of details:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-corporations-20110302,0,2806698.story

I agree, it was the correct decision.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It's nothing personal, It's just business.

 

[WildCat]

So does this mean corporations can't marry and vote?

 

[Upchurch]

It's nothing personal, It's just business.

End of thread. Goodnight, Everybody!

 

[theprestige]

Chief Justice Roberts does an excellent job of explaining the difference between "person" and "personal" in this context.

And this right winger has no remorse at all over Citizen's United, having had pretty much the same view of the thing as the Supreme Court all along.

It seems to me that the Court's decision serves also to demonstrate just how intellectually bankrupt the "argument from semantic quibble" actually is.

 

[leftysergeant]

So does this mean corporations can't marry and vote?

They can have civil unions, for all I care, but no, they are not entitled to vote. The shareholders already have that as individuals if they aere US citizens. If not citizens, I don't even want them contributing money to election campaigns here.

 

[BenBurch]

So does this mean corporations can't marry and vote?

Damn. And here I was going to propose to Apple. I am heartbroken.

 

[leftysergeant]

It seems to me that the Court's decision serves also to demonstrate just how intellectually bankrupt the "argument from semantic quibble" actually is.

Even Rehnquist thought that the one case that created the silly myth of corporate personhood was wrongly decided.

From reading the decision, I agree. Some clerk diddled the heading and a bunch of corporate whgore lawyers picked it up and ran with it.

Maybe we'll get lucky and Obama or another Democratic POTUS will have a chance to get enough grown-ups on the court to trash that stupidity.

 

[mortimer]

They can have civil unions, for all I care, but no, they are not entitled to vote. The shareholders already have that as individuals if they aere US citizens. If not citizens, I don't even want them contributing money to election campaigns here.

Do you think unions ought to be able to contribute money to campaigns?

 

[leftysergeant]

You don't have any details, but this is great?

Anything that eroded the myth of corporate personhood is good for all of humanity.

 

[theprestige]

Anything that eroded the myth of corporate personhood is good for all of humanity.

Except that the court's opinion clearly indicates that corporate personhood is not a myth, and that this decision erodes it not one whit.

Maybe you should have waited until you had some details, before declaring this was a great decision.

 

[Dunstan]

Just heard on the Norman Goldman show that the Supreme Court ruled against AT&T on a case involving corporate personhood. Seems that a lower court had ruled that certain documents in government posession regarding a case involving a settlement against AT&T were subject to FOIA requewsts and that they did not violate a right to personal privacy.

Did the right wingers get buyer's remorse over their Citizens United ruling?

I haven't heard any further details yet, but this is great if entrely accurate.

You apparently haven't heard any "details" of Citizens United, either, because you obviously misunderstood it.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Corporate Personhood is a concept that has been taken to whole extremes by the political left, who think that All corporations (be they limited liability, non-profit or otherwise) are evil. but Corporate Personahood was meant to make it easier for corporations to enter contracts and have legal representation. Besides the old system of debtor's prisons didn't really work either did it?

 

[leftysergeant]

Corporate Personhood is a concept that has been taken to whole extremes by the political left, who think that All corporations (be they limited liability, non-profit or otherwise) are evil. but Corporate Personahood was meant to make it easier for corporations to enter contracts and have legal representation.

But that concept has been abused to mean that they have full freedomm of speech and political action, that they have a right even to lie to the detriment of public safety.

Left unchecked, corporate political activity leads to greater political power in the hands of corporations. In the end, corporations end up regulating government, much to the hurt of civilization. As artificial entities, a legal fiction of the state, they have no inherent right to a say in the conduct of the state. They are not democratic institutions, but oligarchic, and thus have no place in our government.

Besides the old system of debtor's prisons didn't really work either did it?

Nihil apropo.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

by your logic, the Civil Service has no place in government as it is undemocratic. As well as a huge amount of government departments etc.

And besides, corporations aren't some kind of dr evilesque cabal. They also include unions, churches, universities, societies etc.

and that "right to lie" crap was from Fox News, NOT for any other corporation.

And Citizens United only covered election advertisements.

 

[leftysergeant]

by your logic, the Civil Service has no place in government as it is undemocratic. As well as a huge amount of government departments etc.

Irrational.

And besides, corporations aren't some kind of dr evilesque cabal. They also include unions, churches, universities, societies etc.

This is almst too wierd to comprehend.

And Citizens United only covered election advertisements.

And it went too far, thanks to the corporate whores on the Supreme Court.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Irrational..

how so?

This is almst too wierd to comprehend.

i was referring to the misconception that corporations have to be for profit.

And it went too far, thanks to the corporate whores on the Supreme Court

[citation needed]

 

[gnome]

One need not believe that corporations are inherently evil to desire that their power be held in check. For the same reason we have the Constitution to hold government power in check--it's not inherently evil either.

The premise that something needs to be evil to deserve restraint is to suppose that we can forego checks and balances in favor of simply not electing evil people.