|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
This sick fuck is on the Supreme Court ?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| This sick fuck is on the Supreme Court ?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Bronks Breasts |
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on how much money ExxonMobil should be forced to pay as damages for its Exxon Valdez oil spill 19 years ago. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that Chief Justice John Roberts appeared "bothered" that Exxon might have to pay for its destruction:
What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people." |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
:hitler:
And yet the right-wing sheep in here still don't understand what their craven ignorance has done to our country....
:shit: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Bronks Breasts
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on how much money ExxonMobil should be forced to pay as damages for its Exxon Valdez oil spill 19 years ago. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank notes that Chief Justice John Roberts appeared "bothered" that Exxon might have to pay for its destruction:
What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people." |
A Justice asking a question does not have to mean what we think the questions means. It could be a matter of law.
Sometimes it is a question designed to make a point with another Justice on the Court.
You can't really know for sure... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation
often are the ones who put the government leaders into power,
creating a mutually beneficial business/government
relationship and power elite. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
You can't really know for sure... |
....could say the same about the sun rising tomorrow....
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
....could say the same about the sun rising tomorrow....
:rolleyes: |
You got my point. A Justice asking a question could mean the opposite of what he himself believes and only meant to sway another Justice. That is quite ordinary.
They do try to not give hints on how they will actually decide the case. |
|
|
| Mr. Hole |
| He should really be impeached, along with that other sleazeball Alito. |
|
|
| Luther |
| I would like to see that in context. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Hole
He should really be impeached, along with that other sleazeball Alito. |
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
I would like to see that in context. |
It might be in context right now and the answer is the reason for the question. These Justices do not set themselves up. This was probably a question and answer aimed at another Justice.
I know it's not Scalia because he has no problem with large punitive damages and he has said there is nothing that prevents them and no law would he respect on a constitutional level aimed at limiting punitive damages. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
You got my point. A Justice asking a question could mean the opposite of what he himself believes and only meant to sway another Justice. |
We know exactly what he believes. He wouldn't have been nominated by Dumbya in the first place if his ideology were in question at all.
These people believe it right to give corporations "person-hood".
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
We know exactly what he believes. He wouldn't have been nominated by Dumbya in the first place if his ideology were in question at all.
These people believe it right to give corporations "person-hood".
:rolleyes: |
There isn't a mainstream politician, Democrat or Republican, that doesn't believe in the sanctity of corporate personhood. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
There isn't a mainstream politician, Democrat or Republican, that doesn't believe in the sanctity of corporate personhood. |
Thus Stumpy's "uncertainty" is more evidence of his ignorance/insanity.
Nader '08!
:ps: |
|
|
| tifdog1 |
| Why the fuck does Justice Roberts care about what a corporation can do to protect itself from punative damages? Isn't his job to interpret the law? GEEZ. I can't say I'm surprised though. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
We know exactly what he believes. He wouldn't have been nominated by Dumbya in the first place if his ideology were in question at all.
These people believe it right to give corporations "person-hood".
:rolleyes: |
A business enjoying due process, I have no problem with that. A business being protected from search and seizure, cool. I guess you believe that phone companies records can be raided by the government if they so choose, without a warrant. Being that they are outside of the protections a citizen enjoys. We don't have to worry about you screaming about those silly warrants anymore over phone records. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
There isn't a mainstream politician, Democrat or Republican, that doesn't believe in the sanctity of corporate personhood. |
There is some sense in this theory. However as usual a Left-wing Court takes things a bit too far and in this instance they did not let us down. The same Court that gave you abortion gave you the ruling, after 200 years, that a corporation could enjoy the rights under the first amendment.
The "originalist", or very close to an "originalist" Rehnquist, dissented.
If people wish to lay blame, blame the Left, as usual... the "living constitution" people. |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
There is some sense in this theory. However as usual a Left-wing Court takes things a bit too far and in this instance they did not let us down. The same Court that gave you abortion gave you the ruling, after 200 years, that a corporation could enjoy the rights under the first amendment.
The "originalist", or very close to an "originalist" Rehnquist, dissented.
If people wish to lay blame, blame the Left, as usual... the "living constitution" people. |
You're right, the grant of corporate personhood is perhaps the most atrocious incident of judicial activism in American history. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Luther
You're right, the grant of corporate personhood is perhaps the most atrocious incident of judicial activism in American history. |
I remember when Janice Rodgers Brown was up for nomination and she got grilled on her writings in regard to Lochner. They ended up stopping her from getting on the D.C. Circuit, if I remember correctly.
But, they made her out to be an extreme right wing radical...
:)
She would have been my pick for the Supreme Court. But the Left... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
A business enjoying due process, I have no problem with that. A business being protected from search and seizure, cool. I guess you believe that phone companies records can be raided by the government if they so choose, without a warrant. Being that they are outside of the protections a citizen enjoys. We don't have to worry about you screaming about those silly warrants anymore over phone records. |
:rolleyes:
Yeah, cuz that's the reason behind it. "A business"....
:rolleyes:
The problems of course lie in that the real interests of actual people/citizens are never favored over those of corporations.
In other-words, the GOP platform.
:hitler::ps: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
In America, "originally", corporations were not supposed to be allowed to exist longer than the life of a human. Corporations had to in effect "re-up" every 20, 40 or 60 yrs depending (on the state?)....or just be dissolved.
Not only that, but "conglomeration" was not allowed. A "corporation" could not be in more than one "business".
GE for instance, would be considered un-American by the Founders. I think the reasons are clear for their foresight.
I mean, hell, we fought the Revolution against the East India Co. as much as against the Crown....not that there was much difference, "shareholding" being what it is (see: Dick Cheney/Halliburton).
The status of "corporations" in America today would be reviled by the Founders. As would the GOP.
:hw: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
In America, "originally", corporations were not supposed to be allowed to exist longer than the life of a human. Corporations had to in effect "re-up" every 20, 40 or 60 yrs depending (on the state?)....or just be dissolved.
Not only that, but "conglomeration" was not allowed. A "corporation" could not be in more than one "business".
GE for instance, would be considered un-American by the Founders. I think the reasons are clear for their foresight.
I mean, hell, we fought the Revolution against the East India Co. as much as against the Crown....not that there was much difference, "shareholding" being what it is (see: Dick Cheney/Halliburton).
The status of "corporations" in America today would be reviled by the Founders. As would the GOP.
:hw: |
As long as you believe that the GOP is responsible, well I guess that is the best a slave of the Left can be asked to do.
I once more, as I always do, congratulate you for not allowing "reason" to overcome your "idiocy", you remain the champion of ignorance, In fact I might start calling you "Champ".
:) |
|
|
| mb33139 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
A business enjoying due process, I have no problem with that. A business being protected from search and seizure, cool. I guess you believe that phone companies records can be raided by the government if they so choose, without a warrant. Being that they are outside of the protections a citizen enjoys. We don't have to worry about you screaming about those silly warrants anymore over phone records. |
A business who surrenders phone records without a warrant aids in the violation of privacy of the citizen. The rights of said corporation in this example are irrelevant. It is the rights of the citizen that are the point. Your argument is invalid.
See Telecommunications Act 1996 Sec. 702. I refer to CPNI specifically. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
As long as you believe that the GOP is responsible |
Typical scumbag Stumpy maneuver. I never said the GOP was responsible, its just what their entire "reason d'etre" has become. :hitler:
:hw: |
|
|
| guayuque |
| While I am not fan of Roberts' nomination, if you really want to be scared read some of Scalia's rants, along with those of the deaf mute - Thomas. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by guayuque
While I am not fan of Roberts' nomination, if you really want to be scared read some of Scalia's rants, along with those of the deaf mute - Thomas. |
What do you find scary about Scalia's rants?
What is scary is a Justice who believes the Constitution is his or her personal playground. |
|
|
|
|
|
