Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Good Riddance! (Score 1) 461

The notion that "corporations" have any rights whatsoever is silly.

No it is not. Corporations are associations of people. It's that simple. Associations of people have rights especially when they are engaged in political speech. The entire legal fiction surrounding a corporation does nothing but enable the association of people.

The supreme court saying that congress was 'wrong' in having the regulations in place is now saying that these government-granted charters have inalienable rights beyond the control of the government. That is just as crazy. Let's say that the local DMV has unalienable rights, too, since that makes equal sense. Any attempt to regulate how they spend money allotted to them is an affront to our democracy.

This is what is silly. The court said that the association of people commonly known as corporations do not lose the rights afforded to other groups of people.

But the local DMV is a department of government. What you say is just silly as government has an inherent right to control itself even when it contracts out to a private company. Government has an inherent right to dictate how the funding allotted to it's subdivisions is spend. Government does not allot funding to a corporation except as payment for good and services (with very few exception) and government agencies do not operate to make a profit that the agency can just spend nilly willy.. They are not ever comparable in this sense.

Comment Re: What should happen but won't (Score 1) 461

The real question i see nobody addressing is this. Why are all liberals so insistent on appointing a new justice before obama is gone?

Obama has almost a full year until the end of his term. If he were to agree to the argument in delaying his appointment, he'd be agreeing in deferring all major decisions until next year and would set himself up as an early "lame duck" president for a full year.

The argument might make sense if the vacancy had opened up after the election, but to agree to the Republican's demand now he'd be agreeing that he's lost the authority to make major presidential appointments and decisions for the whole year.

I'm pretty sure that's the political reason. Judicially, though, it's unheard of for the Supreme Court to go so long understaffed. It'd be setting all the wrong historical precedents. Fully two thirds of the US government would be weakened.

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 1) 461

It would be no more disjointed than before the supreme court heard the case. All that you say is true even with 9 people on the supreme court until the supreme court hears a case and sets precedent. It is entirely possible that the court could refuse to hear a case or even kick the case back to lower courts for more strict hearings just like it did in Fisher v. Texas. So in essence, nothing has changed. Except in the Fisher V. Texas case, a 4-4 tie is almost impossible now because Kagan recused herself so there is a seven member court if the actual decision isn't already made.

Either way, the only hardship would be waiting until another case made it up the ladder which is the same hardship that exists before it makes it to the supreme court in any case.

Comment Re:Good Riddance! (Score 1) 461

Corporations or the people running them are sued all the time for violating their fiduciary duty. Could is the word used because it is not as simple as will or shall.

Anyways, you cannot just appropriate funds from an account of a corporation to support the political interests of you or someone you know unless you are the sole owner of the corporation (which defeats the purpose of the argument). There has to be an interest of the company involved else is it no different than embezzlement.

That is the point.

Comment Re:Good Riddance! (Score 1) 461

Your ignorance on this is just staggering.

Perhaps you didn't understand what I said or requested. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?

A law from 1907 does not address the US constitution and because the law had no enforcement mechanism, I'm pretty sure no one ever had any standing to challenge it on its constitutional grounds.

However, activist conservative judges have (dishonestly) interpreted notes from a clerk in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific as a decision by the Court recognizing corporate personhood, which the decision did not.

How can you claim dishonestly? Did the notes not exist or say something different? IF anyone is being dishonest is it the premise that you claim the court is discussing corporate person hood when the fact of the matter is only if the 14th amendment applies to corporations as well. But that is essentially the same thing and a matter of semantics, it isn't a point of contention. BTW, the actual ruling in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific specifically states "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Or are you trying to say that it doesn't say that?

For nearly the first 200 years of this country's existence, money was seen as property and not speech, until Buckley v. Valeo. So much for conservatives and stare decisis!

Your reporting on this seems misleading too. The law in question was just passed by congress the year before it was challenged. Fortunately in this law, there was an enforcement mechanism which gave standing to sue.

Corporations existed at the time the Constitution was written, and if the Framers had so desired, they could have made corporations persons. I wonder if this was discussed at the Constitutional Convention..

The only thing I know of discussing corporations at the constitutional convention was a comparison of states and municipalities to corporations and a shot discussion of funding being so small that if wouldn't cover discharge of debt in corporate bankruptcies.

Corporations were a lot more powerful when the constitution was written. Many of the colonies which became countries under the articles of confederation and then states under the US constitution, were created and ran by corporations. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution just didn't see a reason to be redundant.

Comment Re:Good Riddance! (Score 1) 461

But they're not. Corporations aren't democracies, nor do they give equal voice to all the people.

That's what you say but you failed to point to where the court erred in law or constitution. There is this premise called stare decisis in which is states that courts will honor previous decisions. That is all that happened here. Long before you found fault with it, the courts granted corporations a personhood like status. You seem to disagree with that and want it changed but claiming the courts are wrong for over a century will not make that change.

If you can't see an issue with this, then how about we stop pussyfooting around and just allow vote selling and buying and get it over with.

I do see a problem with it. I also see a problem with not allowing political speech. As for vote selling and or buying, I'm not sure why you would go there. Candidates can spend large sums of money as well as individuals supporting them. The fact that corporations can also doesn't really mean squat.

Comment Re:Designer Babies? (Score 1) 87

Maybe they just let the real definitions do the work..

Designer: a person who plans the form, look, or workings of something before its being made or built, typically by drawing it in detail.

Baby: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

Yeah, I know, the designer handbags and shoes use another definition : made by or having the expensive sophistication of a famous and prestigious fashion designer.

One seems a more proper use of the term but not the most popular in connection to this way it is being used.

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 1) 461

Well, yes he can do recess appointments to the Supreme Court.

The president can make recess appointments to " all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." They vacancies specifically mentioned by the constitution in the preceding paragraph of the same section includes the supreme court.

Comment Re:Good Riddance! (Score 1) 461

Every corporation has a fiduciary duty. Any expenditures must meet that fiduciary duty in some way else is it no different than giving money to your brother because he is your brother. So if there isn't a compelling interest in the corporation to expend the political speech (nothing would benefit the company from the desired outcome), the corporation would be in breach of it's fiduciary obligations and could face criminal charges as well as stock holder lawsuits. When people assemble, they often form corporations in which they isolate their liability for the actions of others assembled with them to what is invested in the association of people. In other words, you should not be held financially liable for something I do just because we both share a view and were at the same event that I did something completely wrong at or because I violated the law in some ways.

Anyways, that is neither here not there. There is nothing in law or the constitution that limits corporations to anything other than an assembly or association of people. Anything else you can imagine is little more than what you think you see wrong with this concept. Whether it is or not wrong is not a constitutional question at this point. It has been settled all the way back to the 1800s. If you think it is wrong, then changing the constitution is the proper path not ignoring it or the court decisions that have been made long ago before you and your opinions on the matter were even alive.

What you seem to be saying is that in your view, an individual can have political speech but groups of people cannot peacefully assemble and pool their speech to become more effective. I do not think that is in line with the US constitution.

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 1) 461

Why would it deadlock the Supreme Court?

It has functioned with 8 members before and even with less (as few as 5 members that I know of). It originally had only 6 members and it was raised to 7, then to 9 and then to 10 and then back to 9. They will just go on about their business and any case that one vote would have changed, they will hold off until someone else is appointed provided that congress does not permanently remove a seat.

Comment Re:Good Riddance! (Score 1) 461

The court ruled that corporations are associations of people. Nothing you mentioned discounts that. The segregation you mention is only insofar as the people in the association does not act in their own. So if you have a corporation and work for the corporation and something happened, you are not separated from liability outside the corporation if you participated in the action. If you did not participate in the action, then you liability ends with the corporation which the segregation is apt.

You make a decent argument but you failed to address the constitutional or legal aspects of my request. It would appear that for reasons outside of constitutional or legalities, you think the ruling was wrong. However, the ruling is limited by the constitutional limits on congress and government and therefore cannot ignore the constitution because you think it is a good idea and can make a convincing argument. I suggest you amend the constitution to allow associations of people to be limited in their speech.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.