The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Only if you believe that corporations are people.

How do you contract with or sue something that is *not* a person?

 

[Priceless]

How do you contract with or sue something that is *not* a person?

They are a legal entity. They do not walk, talk, breathe oxygen, eat food, drink water, bleed, or do almost everything else a human being does. If you are a religious person, they do not have a soul like a person does. They do not die. They also do not go to prison when they commit crimes.

 

[unofan]

How do you contract with or sue something that is *not* a person?

Corporate personhood is what law professors call a legal fiction. It may not be feasible in the modern political climate, but corporate rights could be constricted simply by passing legislation since they are a creation of legislation.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

They are a legal entity. They do not walk, talk, breathe oxygen, eat food, drink water, bleed, or do almost everything else a human being does. If you are a religious person, they do not have a soul like a person does. They do not die. They also do not go to prison when they commit crimes.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. It's a stream of thoughts.

Maple trees breathe/consume food (CO2), drink water, and bleed (maple syrup). They die. Some believe trees have souls.

But they don't go to jail when they commit a crime (dripping sap onto my ride --> vandalism). I can't contract with or sue a maple tree either.

So is a maple tree more like a human or a corporation?

Why was personhood assigned to a corporation? I'd say so it could contract and be sued.

Would we ever grant personhood to a maple tree? (That's a thread all its own for another time.)

I guess I'd rather see personhood assigned to corporations so they can be sued. If not, they'd be like a maple tree (can't contract or sue or be sued).

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why was personhood assigned to a corporation?

AFAIK, "personhood" was never assigned to a corporation. That's merely a hyperventilating exaggeration of people who eschew discernment.

The Citizens United ruling merely said that, in certain situations, corporations have the same free speech rights that people do.

In the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS "looked through" the closely-held corporate form to the individual owners, who actually were people.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I guess I'd rather see personhood assigned to corporations so they can be sued.

I'd rather sue their management. Why hurt the workers for something their boss did? Don't make a company pay a fine, the company has no will. When GM intentionally markets cars that kill people, sue the management into penury (those you aren't prosecuting as criminals). The next management won't do that. If ownership tells them to do it, bring the ownership to trial for conspiracy to commit murder (or whatever it is when you try to hire a hit man and the hit man rats you out to the feds).

A corporation is, legitimately, just a way for owners to pool their assets and liability. Everything else assigned to it is just a way to give owners power without responsibility.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

AFAIK, "personhood" was never assigned to a corporation. That's merely a hyperventilating exaggeration of people who eschew discernment.

The Citizens United ruling merely said that, in certain situations, corporations have the same free speech rights that people do.

In the Hobby Lobby case, SCOTUS "looked through" the closely-held corporate form to the individual owners, who actually were people.

You're hilarious. Any more Hannity talking points today, or is this all for now?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'd rather sue their management. Why hurt the workers for something their boss did? Don't make a company pay a fine, the company has no will. When GM intentionally markets cars that kill people, sue the management into penury (those you aren't prosecuting as criminals). The next management won't do that. If ownership tells them to do it, bring the ownership to trial for conspiracy to commit murder (or whatever it is when you try to hire a hit man and the hit man rats you out to the feds).

A corporation is, legitimately, just a way for owners to pool their assets and liability. Everything else assigned to it is just a way to give owners power without responsibility.

Read a fiction story a while back that, after an economic collapse, corporations were outlawed as the CEO's never lost a penny when the corporation went belly up. Everything converted to entities where management had a financial stake in the company and shared in its profits and losses.

However, these days we have corporations that shield them from financial punishment and maybe we need legislation to pierce the corporate veil to hold management financially accountable (and rewarded) for their decisions.

In other words, (hold the presses) I agree with you.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I'd rather sue their management. Why hurt the workers for something their boss did? Don't make a company pay a fine, the company has no will. When GM intentionally markets cars that kill people, sue the management into penury (those you aren't prosecuting as criminals). The next management won't do that. If ownership tells them to do it, bring the ownership to trial for conspiracy to commit murder (or whatever it is when you try to hire a hit man and the hit man rats you out to the feds).

A corporation is, legitimately, just a way for owners to pool their assets and liability. Everything else assigned to it is just a way to give owners power without responsibility.

Do you own any stock (directly or via mutual funds)?
Does your retirement plan own stock?

If so, *you* are an owner, pooling assets, ... and liability, ... and could be sued into penury under your plan. Why? Ownership is part of the management team (as evidenced by your statement that ownership can direct management to do something, i.e. manage the management).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Do you own any stock (directly or via mutual funds)?
Does your retirement plan own stock?

If so, *you* are an owner, pooling assets, ... and liability, ... and could be sued into penury under your plan. Why? Ownership is part of the management team (as evidenced by your statement that ownership can direct management to do something, i.e. manage the management).

Reason number 2,756,426 that Corporations are not people and should NOT be afforded free speech and religious rights. They already have many rights that individuals do not have.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Reason number 2,756,426 that Corporations are not people and should NOT be afforded free speech and religious rights. They already have many rights that individuals do not have.

If a corporation does not have free speech rights, who gets to decide what <strike>they</strike> it may and may not say?

 

[Priceless]

If a corporation does not have free speech rights, who gets to decide what <strike>they</strike> it may and may not say?

Which corporation has a mouth and tongue? The power of speech? The ability to write? Oh, none? Then how can a corporation "say" anything? People (real, walking, talking, breathing people) speak on its behalf. They, the people, have free speech rights - the corporation does not.

 

[walrus]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

If a corporation does not have free speech rights, who gets to decide what <strike>they</strike> it may and may not say?

Racheal Maddow or Sean Hannity, depends on the day

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Racheal Maddow or Sean Hannity, depends on the day

Actually it's their customers who decide. But, when they get to hide their "free speech" money contributions from the public then they receive special rights that individuals are not afforded. Thus the problem.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

when they get to hide their "free speech" money contributions from the public then they receive special rights that individuals are not afforded. Thus the problem.

um, when and where did this problem arise? The issue in Citizens United had nothing do do with "hiding" money, it was merely about removing limits to how much speech was allowable.


Frankly, I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about censorship. I suppose you think censoring people you disagree with is just fine and dandy because of course you personally will never be censored??

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

how can a corporation "say" anything?

um, ask The New York Times or CBS....or any other newspaper or television network you choose.


Oh, wait, you want to censor the press because it exists in corporate form, is that it? All television shows now must be pre-approved by the US government before they can be aired?

Lovely world you have in store for us.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You're hilarious.

Thanks, you are quite amusing yourself!

So, you think I used too much understatement when I wrote "hyperventilating exaggeration of people who eschew discernment," is that it?

 

[Priceless]

um, ask The New York Times or CBS....or any other newspaper or television network you choose.


Oh, wait, you want to censor the press because it exists in corporate form, is that it? All television shows now must be pre-approved by the US government before they can be aired?

Lovely world you have in store for us.

Lovely Strawman you've concocted.

I appreciate your concern for the New York Times, but it does not speak or write. The reporters (again, flesh and blood people) do. I have no idea where you came up with censorship, except your overactive imagination. Each and every person at the Times has Constitutional rights, the Times does not.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

um, when and where did this problem arise? The issue in Citizens United had nothing do do with "hiding" money, it was merely about removing limits to how much speech was allowable.


Frankly, I don't understand why people are so gung-ho about censorship. I suppose you think censoring people you disagree with is just fine and dandy because of course you personally will never be censored??

If we (the country) are going to silence corporations, then we would have to silence labor union speech, as well. After all, they're not people either.

 

[Jimjamesak]

If we (the country) are going to silence corporations, then we would have to silence labor union speech, as well. After all, they're not people either.

As a union member, if that's what it takes, I agree.