What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimjamesak said:
Reporting on the ACA arguments are indicating that Roberts and Kavanuts (of all people) want to keep the ACA...
Click to expand...

Roberts and Gorsuch I can see.

Drunky McRapist?

0twYd33WK4FVT1uNBxDk8cMdEbluS8eJdjNZZ-5XYuY.jpg
 
You know, I don't trust Alito. he goes into the bathroom, he's going to sexually assault someone. Also, he's straight and cis; he should be fired and he should lose his housing.
 
I don't understand how Alito or any other soulless, heartless piece of 5h!t like him can say some of the things they do with a straight face.

He claimed that the meager restrictions placed on a fraction of the population in futile efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 were "severe, extensive and prolonged." He's 0 for 3. Had they been TWICE as "severe, extensive and prolonged" as they were they STILL wouldn't rise to a level where of any of those adjectives were truly accurate.

How do these people not spontaneously combust with all the hellfire that should rightfully be licking at their behinds? If the world was just, RBG would have lived another decade at least, healthy and pain free, and Alito would be suffering from COVID-19 right now, with a tube shoved down his throat while his family watches in horror as he gasps for life.
 
u r not getting it back, dude
A donor has sued a pro-Trump group for $2.5 million over “empty promises” after he says it failed to prove voter fraud in the presidential election.

Fred Eshelman sued Houston-based True the Vote Inc., which promised to “investigate, litigate and expose suspected illegal balloting ad fraud in the 2020 general election,” Bloomberg reported.

Eshelman, founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, claimed that he “regularly and repeatedly” asked for updates on the initiative but was met with “vague responses, platitudes, and empty promises.”

True the Vote said its efforts included filing lawsuits in several swing states, collecting whistleblower complaints, increasing GOP legislative support in key states and conducting “sophisticated data modeling and statistical analysis to identify potential illegal or fraudulent balloting,” according to the suit in Houston federal court.

Eshelman decided to wire True the Vote $2 million on Nov. 5 and another $500,000 a week later after the group’s president said more money would be needed to achieve their goals, according to the suit. He asked for his money to be returned after the group failed to provide reports on its progress, saying it became obvious the group would not be able to execute its plan.

Eshelman said in the complaint that True the Vote offered him $1 million if he wouldn’t sue them, Bloomberg notes.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...trump-group-over-failure-to-prove-voter-fraud
Click to expand...
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...trump-group-over-failure-to-prove-voter-fraud
 
Jesus these exchanges:

from tweet thread said:
Second, Kagan asks Katyal: Can a former child slave can sue ten slaveholders as individuals? Katyal says yes.
Kagan asks: Can a former child slave sue those ten slaveholders if they form a corporation? Katyal says no.
Kagan asks: How does that make any sense?!
Click to expand...

from tweet thread said:
Third, Alito (!) asks Katyal: If a U.S. corporation hired foreign agents to kidnap children and hold them in bondage on a plantation in Africa, could those children sue the corporation in U.S. courts under this law?
Katyal says: Nope.
Click to expand...

So apparently incorporating gives you immunity from being sued for child slavery...that is the argument?

If the SC goes along with that impeach anyone who agrees.
 
If Alito is questioning your theory saying corporations should be protected from X, yikes...

If this is some play at Citizen's United, he's doing it oh so very wrong.
 
Handyman said:
Jesus these exchanges:





So apparently incorporating gives you immunity from being sued for child slavery...that is the argument?

If the SC goes along with that impeach anyone who agrees.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's technically the argument, but I'll admit I don't know a ton about these cases.

Here is what I understand the argument entails.

The plaintiffs are suing under something called the Alien Tort Statute. The Alien Tort Statute, of which I know almost nothing, is apparently founded upon a breach of international law, or "international norms" in terms of providing relief.

Supposedly there is a theory in the law that only individuals can violate international laws or norms, not abstract entities like corporations. That is the reason, for instance, that companies that may have participated in or profited by a war, like WWII, are not prosecuted for war crimes.

But of course the problem with that argument is a question like, "so an individual who takes a child into slavery can be sued, but a corporation that does so cannot" gets asked, and there isn't a great answer for it. You have to make the argument that it's impossible for a corporation to actually take a child into slavery. A corporation is just an abstract entity and can't physically do anything. So, if a "corporation" were to actually "take" a child into slavery, my argument would be that the corporation did no such thing. The human being employed by or in the services of the corporation is the one who committed the war crime, and accordingly is the only one who can be sued.
 
SJHovey said:
I don't think that's technically the argument, but I'll admit I don't know a ton about these cases.

Here is what I understand the argument entails.

The plaintiffs are suing under something called the Alien Tort Statute. The Alien Tort Statute, of which I know almost nothing, is apparently founded upon a breach of international law, or "international norms" in terms of providing relief.

Supposedly there is a theory in the law that only individuals can violate international laws or norms, not abstract entities like corporations. That is the reason, for instance, that companies that may have participated in or profited by a war, like WWII, are not prosecuted for war crimes.

But of course the problem with that argument is a question like, "so an individual who takes a child into slavery can be sued, but a corporation that does so cannot" gets asked, and there isn't a great answer for it. You have to make the argument that it's impossible for a corporation to actually take a child into slavery. A corporation is just an abstract entity and can't physically do anything. So, if a "corporation" were to actually "take" a child into slavery, my argument would be that the corporation did no such thing. The human being employed by or in the services of the corporation is the one who committed the war crime, and accordingly is the only one who can be sued.
Click to expand...

Haven’t corps been held as people when it comes to spending on contributions for election campaigns?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top