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.
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...

If a corporation is treated by the law as an individual regarding their political contributions and such, then by all rights, that treatment should extend to all areas of the law, does it not?
 
mookie1995 said:
Haven’t corps been held as people when it comes to spending on contributions for election campaigns?
Click to expand...

I don't know that they are actually considered "people" but maybe there is a case somewhere that says that. I know they are definitely considered legal entities that have such rights as free speech and the like.

The status of entities like corporations have always caused problems in certain areas of the law, especially criminal law. Can a corporation actually murder someone? I don't think so. Can a corporation kidnap someone? I don't think so.

Now, the case before the SCOTUS isn't a criminal law case, but again, as I understand it, the civil claims available under the statute in question are founded upon violation of international laws, which are more akin to criminal laws.
 
Last edited:
rufus said:
If a corporation is treated by the law as an individual regarding their political contributions and such, then by all rights, that treatment should extend to all areas of the law, does it not?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a convenient explanation for this and why are you being so dramatic?
 
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...

Pretty sure we learned in my MBA classes that this is at least in part incorrect. I would have to go back and look, and honestly I am too lazy to do it at the moment. I know we studied it though and I know the prevailing opinion for a while was that that such a ruling would be wrong.

Either way the whole argument is illogical.
 
Slap Shot said:
I'm sure there's a convenient explanation for this and why are you being so dramatic?
Click to expand...

Not dramatic. The word is hysterical.

All that talk for four years about how Donnie wasn't going to leave office after his term was up was just the Left's usual hysterics. Nothing to worry about. Wasn't gonna happen.
 
Realistically the problem is this. American corporations have done, and continue to do business all over the world in terms of their supply chain. I assume that pretty much every corporation that has sold cheap electronics, cheap clothing, or other cheap products/labor has benefited in one way or the other over working conditions that run the gamut from pretty lax to absolutely atrocious. I also assume there have been varying levels of US corporate knowledge of such conditions ranging from complete knowledge, to looking the other way, to no knowledge at all.

The problem the Supreme Court has, that I'm sure they are aware of, is that once they give the go ahead (and they may very well do so), that's pretty much the end of Apple, of Cargill, of every clothing designer or manufacturer, etc...
 
SJHovey said:
Realistically the problem is this. American corporations have done, and continue to do business all over the world in terms of their supply chain. I assume that pretty much every corporation that has sold cheap electronics, cheap clothing, or other cheap products/labor has benefited in one way or the other over working conditions that run the gamut from pretty lax to absolutely atrocious. I also assume there have been varying levels of US corporate knowledge of such conditions ranging from complete knowledge, to looking the other way, to no knowledge at all.

The problem the Supreme Court has, that I'm sure they are aware of, is that once they give the go ahead (and they may very well do so), that's pretty much the end of Apple, of Cargill, of every clothing designer or manufacturer, etc...
Click to expand...

As it should be for those companies who exploit people around the world in the name of making a buck.
 
SJHovey said:
Realistically the problem is this. American corporations have done, and continue to do business all over the world in terms of their supply chain. I assume that pretty much every corporation that has sold cheap electronics, cheap clothing, or other cheap products/labor has benefited in one way or the other over working conditions that run the gamut from pretty lax to absolutely atrocious. I also assume there have been varying levels of US corporate knowledge of such conditions ranging from complete knowledge, to looking the other way, to no knowledge at all.

The problem the Supreme Court has, that I'm sure they are aware of, is that once they give the go ahead (and they may very well do so), that's pretty much the end of Apple, of Cargill, of every clothing designer or manufacturer, etc...
Click to expand...

"Slavery is bad, but think of the logistics."

No. Shut them down. I hear the market economy is adaptive and an efficient transmitter of information. Figure it out.
 
The Nazi coup comes down to this.

On Wednesday, the campaign, as well 17 red states, formally indicated their support of the lawsuit, which seeks to reverse President Trump’s defeat in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. Texas claims that because those states adjusted their election practices for the pandemic without explicit approval from their legislatures, the legislatures — all Republican — should be allowed to appoint their own electors to the Electoral College.

...

The lead attorney on the filing, Chapman University School of Law professor John Eastman, is a far-right lawyer who earlier this year argued that Kamala Harris, as the daughter of immigrants, may not be eligible to be vice president.

The 17 red states, meanwhile, filed a so-called “friend of the court” (or “amicus”) brief that floated several previously debunked claims about mail-in voting. Ironically, election officials in many of the amici states made similar adjustments to voting that the GOP attorneys general now say warrant the tossing of the results in the four states that Texas is targeting.

The state attorneys general supporting Texas are from Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

In a season of post-election lawsuits of escalating silliness in their claims, Texas’ complaint stands out. It includes conspiracy theories of election officials supposedly using suitcases to smuggle in extra ballots, while making bizarre claims of voting machine tampering that have already been dismissed by Department of Homeland Security’s cyber arm and other security experts throughout the election community.

The Supreme Court has the authority to adjudicate certain legal disputes between states, but Texas will need to get the court’s permission to actually file the lawsuit, and it has also requested that if the court does review the complaint, it do so in expedited manner.

...

The court has asked the four battleground states to respond by 3 p.m. Thursday to Texas’ various request.
Click to expand...
 
Kepler said:
The Nazi coup comes down to this.
Click to expand...

If it helps, the Michigan Legislature, in fact, did not pass the election law change. The one part of the state that is more powerful than even they are did- the people. That was part of a 2018 vote, proposal 3, that won 66.8 to 32.2 percent. The people took charge.

So it would be interesting to have someone retroactively overturn THAT election, too.
 
And the Pennsylvania Legislature made the rules and never challenged any so called adjustment. The Leg is Republican and supported the changes when they first went into place in 2019.

Even if Texas had standing to make the case (which I dont see how they do as each State has the right to run their elections without interference from other States) their whole argument is ridiculous and was not only shot down in every case that was brought in those state courts and appellate courts but was also shot down when they tried this crap with Harris County in Texas. If they felt there was a problem you bring it up BEFORE the vote not after. The rules were fine until Trump lost...hell the outcome they are so shocked by now was talked about ad nauseum for 2-3 months before the election.

That is why the Supremes won't even truly humor this crap. Everyone knew the score for months. Every network including the fake ones conservatives love were talking about the number of early/absentee votes that were requested. There was running totals of it literally everywhere. The State Leg's knew, the State SOS knew, the Federal Government knew...it was common knowledge. They brought no lawsuits, made no claims, not even a presumptive challenge. They sat back and told their people to vote in person while Biden and the Dems told them to vote absentee. Now that they lost they want to change things after the fact...which is not how the Judiciary works. (or the Executive which is why even corrupt clowns like Kemp won't force the issue)

My guess is the Supremes will do another brief denial of this one as well. There is no grounds for any of this. At least the Pennsylvania case was brought by Pennsylvanians...this is brought by 3rd parties. The precedent alone by giving it air would be bad...especially for Red States. The amount of lawsuits Blue States would bring the next time Kemp suppresses the vote or Flo(R)ida purges the roles will make running an election impossible. Even clowns like Rapey McBeerface won't go out on a limb for a case like this one. There hasn't even been a proven case of Democrats screwing with the vote, no proven fraud (except by GOPers) and every state has run audits when required to and recounts (sometimes multiple) and they all back up that there is no there there. The Supreme Court isn't going to screw over their Plutocratic Overlords for this. Maybe if it was one state and it was close...but this is multiple states and Trump lost by a ton.

The votes were made within the rules in good faith. That is the point even Trumper judges won't and havent crossed.
 
Last edited:
Why are the Red States so hellbent on proving they are Un-American? This gambit is likelier to lead to a friggin Civil War than it is to allow Trump to be President. Yet every GOPer is standing up to be counted because they are afraid of the psychopaths that worship at the alter of Trump.

Though this is becoming the ultimate example of how selfish Republicans truly are. Just like "Freedom" only matters when it is their freedom "States Rights" only matter when it is their states.

Anyone who defends any Republican or any state for any reason that supports this horsecrap is now Anti-American.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top