The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Have to agree with FreshFish on this one. Ruling that a corporation has the right to enter contracts (the same as a person) or is entitled equal protection of federal and state laws (same as a person) is not tantamount to saying that a corporation is a person, nor even to suggesting that a corporation has ALL the same rights as a person.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You know, when they do history in high school, they really should include A) The actual wording of the Constitution and 2) The Supreme Court rulings and cases that influence what those words mean. And I mean at least half a year on the subject.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You know, when they do history in high school, they really should include A) The actual wording of the Constitution and 2) The Supreme Court rulings and cases that influence what those words mean. And I mean at least half a year on the subject.

Concur. I also think that a requirement to graduate would be to pass the same citizenship test that people take in order to become naturalized citizens.

It might be fun to post that test and see how well some people here do.....

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I love this line of reasoning. Sure, corporations have the same rights as people, but they aren't actually people. Right.

Really? When did the courts grant corporations the right to vote? Marry? Hold public office? I'm looking forward to casting my ballot for Lockheed-Martin to be President.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KlPQkd_AA6c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Context, context, context. He was saying that corporations are people in the same way that an anthill is ants - they aren't literally people; they are (made up of) people. So when money goes to a corporation, it's really just going to a particular collection of people.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Really? When did the courts grant corporations the right to vote? Marry? Hold public office? I'm looking forward to casting my ballot for Lockheed-Martin to be President.


Context, context, context. He was saying that corporations are people in the same way that an anthill is ants - they aren't literally people; they are (made up of) people. So when money goes to a corporation, it's really just going to a particular collection of people.

And when a corporation kills people who goes to jail?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

And when a corporation kills people who goes to jail?

The officers of the corporation (should), assuming that the killing was illegal.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Really?

The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court recognized corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

So, although you disagree with the court's logic, you at least admit that the general holding has been around for a long, long, long while before Citizens United? Good.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

And when a corporation kills people who goes to jail?

By the way, are you as outraged over labor union thuggery?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The officers of the corporation (should), assuming that the killing was illegal.

LOL. Yeah, that'll happen. Man have I got my chuckles today.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The officers of the corporation (should), assuming that the killing was illegal.

Can you explain how a corporation could legally kill someone? That seems like a neat trick.

So when Ford makes a car that has an exploding gas tank that kills someone, the officers of the corporation should go to jail? Odd that it didn't happen that way.

So, although you disagree with the court's logic, you at least admit that the general holding has been around for a long, long, long while before Citizens United? Good.

I haven't even mentioned Citizens United, so I wonder why you do...

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I haven't even mentioned Citizens United, so I wonder why you do...

Just pointing out that you disagree with Obama, who you'll recall said,

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections.

Who's right?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Who's right?

I think Obama was referring specifically to election law?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I think Obama was referring specifically to election law?

I don't think so. If he was, he could have referred to Austin, but that case was decided in 1990.

So, I'll ask again, is Citizens United really this dramatic departure, or is it a confirmation of more than 180 years of Supreme Court rulings? Priceless has been kind enough to make a case for the latter...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Can you explain how a corporation could legally kill someone? That seems like a neat trick.

So when Ford makes a car that has an exploding gas tank that kills someone, the officers of the corporation should go to jail? Odd that it didn't happen that way.

You just answered your own question, and you don't even realize it. If I work on an airplane which is FAA certified as safe for flight, and one crashes and kills people anyway, is that illegal? What law was broken? Companies legally kill people all the time, just as individual citizens do. Someone intentionally stepped in front of my cousin's car at 65 mph and my cousin killed her. Should my cousin be in jail? Is there no such thing as an accident - must someone always be punished?

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I think Obama was referring specifically to election law?

No, of course not. I'm sure they don't teach something as arcane as election law at Harvard.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

I don't think so. If he was, he could have referred to Austin, but that case was decided in 1990.

So, I'll ask again, is Citizens United really this dramatic departure, or is it a confirmation of more than 180 years of Supreme Court rulings? Priceless has been kind enough to make a case for the latter...

Yes, it is a dramatic departure which allows a corporation or a union to spend unlimited amounts of money. You haven't seen Colbert and Stewart making a mockery of this for the past few months, I take it.

And I've said this before and I'll keep saying it. Just because something has been case law for a long time doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal for a long time. Segregation was legal for a long time. Women's suffrage was illegal for a long time. Should those laws still be on the books just because 9 people 200 years ago made a bad decision?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Yes, it is a dramatic departure which allows a corporation or a union to spend unlimited amounts of money. You haven't seen Colbert and Stewart making a mockery of this for the past few months, I take it.

They've certainly had some good moments, particularly when not "coordinating". In terms of mocking corporate money though, not so much...

Although Colbert has often used the phrase “unlimited corporate money” in reference to his Super PAC, last Tuesday’s disclosures paint a very different picture. Colbert’s PAC, which raised more than $825,000 through the end of the year, has raised almost no corporate money. Indeed, the only two corporate donations he reported to the Federal Election Commission amount to $714, total. In addition to barely raising any corporate money, Colbert’s Super PAC accepted only one contribution from an individual (of $9,600) in excess of the $5,000 limit that applies to regular PACs.
In other words, more than 99% of the money Colbert has raised to mock Citizens United and Super PACs is money that has been legal under the campaign finance laws for decades.

He showed them!

And I've said this before and I'll keep saying it. Just because something has been case law for a long time doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal for a long time. Segregation was legal for a long time. Women's suffrage was illegal for a long time. Should those laws still be on the books just because 9 people 200 years ago made a bad decision?

No of course not. That's not my argument. I was only pointing out that you're making a different argument than Obama, Feingold, etc. They say the court ignored precedent. You say they followed, just that the precedent was wrongly decided in the first place.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You just answered your own question, and you don't even realize it. If I work on an airplane which is FAA certified as safe for flight, and one crashes and kills people anyway, is that illegal? What law was broken? Companies legally kill people all the time, just as individual citizens do. Someone intentionally stepped in front of my cousin's car at 65 mph and my cousin killed her. Should my cousin be in jail? Is there no such thing as an accident - must someone always be punished?

There are such things as accidents. That's not always the case. In my example, Ford could have fixed the gas tank for $10. However, it was determined to be "cost effective" to let 180 people die each year rather than fix the problem. That's not an accident.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

And I've said this before and I'll keep saying it. Just because something has been case law for a long time doesn't make it right. Slavery was legal for a long time. Segregation was legal for a long time. Women's suffrage was illegal for a long time. Should those laws still be on the books just because 9 people 200 years ago made a bad decision?

Those laws are no longer on the books and for slavery and women's suffrage, and it has nothing to do with the SCOTUS: See US Constitution, Amendments XIII and XIX. Regarding segregation, see Amendment XIV as interpreted in Brown vs Board of Education.

You've sort of backed yourself into a corner here, perhaps? We are not disputing you by saying that corporate / union influence in electoral politics is a good thing, after all. No one here has defended those practices.

Several have said that if you don't like the Citizens' United ruling, you'll need to amend the Constitution. You bring up slavery and lack of vote for women as counter-examples, yet those conditions were addressed by amending the Constitution.


No one doubts your passion. You may well be right. We are neither agreeing nor disagreeing about whether you are "right" or not, it is the presciption over what to do about it.

Many of us value the "checks and balances" because it protects us from well-meaning zealots who might be wrong. Zealots can never doubt the rightness of their cause and that is what makes them so dangerous; they will do anything to promote their cause because they believe their cause is more important than any mere "law." This applies equally to the bizarro world of someone who claims to be pro-"life" yet murders an abortion doctor, or to someone who vacuums the brains from an 8-1/2 month fetus. No matter how committed either feels to the "rightness" of the cause, they are both morally repugnant to the vast majority of people.

One of my all-time favorite Law and Order episodes was from the first or second season, in which an anti-abortion activist bombed an abortion clinic and a young pregnant woman died in the explosion. She [the activist] was on the stand ranting about how evil it was to kill babies in the womb and how she "had to" stop it, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. The judge was about to toss her from the courtroom, and Ben Stone says "Your Honor, I have only one question for this witness." Everyone stops. He asks the activist, "Since you say abortion is murder, aren't you guilty of the murder of that young woman's unborn child?" The activist's face just crumbles....it is [ahem] a priceless L&O moment.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You've sort of backed yourself into a corner here, perhaps? We are not disputing you by saying that corporate / union influence in electoral politics is a good thing, after all. No one has defended those practices.

Mitt Romney has. Is Mitt Romney a no one?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

There are such things as accidents. That's not always the case. In my example, Ford could have fixed the gas tank for $10. However, it was determined to be "cost effective" to let 180 people die each year rather than fix the problem. That's not an accident.

Those ARE accidents. Did every fuel tank explode? No. A tiny, random, minority did. That is practically the definition of an accident. Could Ford have spent more money to reduce the accident rate? Of course. But that is ALWAYS the case. Even Volvo (or any other manufacturer with "safe" reputation) knows how to reduce the frequency or severity of accidents much further than they actually do in the cars they sell. In other words, they know how to make the cars safer but choose not to. Why? To save weight (fuel economy) or to reduce the cost of the vehicles - in other words, economic decisions. Should corporations have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they've incorporated into their products every idea related to safety that they've ever had regardless of cost to avoid running afoul of the law?

No. There are lines drawn by laws and by regulations. When those lines are crossed, corporations (and their officers) should be held accountable. If the lines are not crossed but people die anyway, the corporations/officers should not be held legally accountable. The court of public opinion, of course, rightly has different standards - but you were specifically addressing legal (i.e. criminal) accountability.