Supreme Court Poll

[UNI88]

FYP

Corporate personhood to the left is like gay marriage to the right.

Like many topics, if you drill it down, it’s so not a matter of right versus left. But hey…you do you.

It's a matter of semantics. You're stuck on a corporation being considered a person or are you really arguing that a corporation doesn't have rights as a legal person (i.e. legal entity)?

[CID1990]

Like many topics, if you drill it down, it’s so not a matter of right versus left. But hey…you do you.

It's a matter of semantics. You're stuck on a corporation being considered a person or are you really arguing that a corporation doesn't have rights as a legal person (i.e. legal entity)?

My 11 year old understands the concept


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Kalm's all caught up in the use of person. An entity such as a corporation being considered a legal person with rights is too nuanced for him.

Don’t blame me. Blame the clerk in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, or the framers. Or the importance of words.

(Fighting a battle I won years ago )



(

Just keep telling yourself that, John StKlam.

[kalm]

Like many topics, if you drill it down, it’s so not a matter of right versus left. But hey…you do you.

It's a matter of semantics. You're stuck on a corporation being considered a person or are you really arguing that a corporation doesn't have rights as a legal person (i.e. legal entity)?

Oh good! We’re back (again) to whether or not or to what extent corporations should have the same rights as people.

(Looks around the world…re-confirms his position)

[UNI88]

It's a matter of semantics. You're stuck on a corporation being considered a person or are you really arguing that a corporation doesn't have rights as a legal person (i.e. legal entity)?

Oh good! We’re back (again) to whether or not or to what extent corporations should have the same rights as people.

(Looks around the world…re-confirms his position)

You seem to be arguing that corporations shouldn't have rights.

[kalm]

Oh good! We’re back (again) to whether or not or to what extent corporations should have the same rights as people.

(Looks around the world…re-confirms his position)

You seem to be arguing that corporations shouldn't have rights.

Nope

[kalm]

It's a matter of semantics. You're stuck on a corporation being considered a person or are you really arguing that a corporation doesn't have rights as a legal person (i.e. legal entity)?

My 11 year old understands the concept


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

You seem to be arguing that corporations shouldn't have rights.

Nope

So tell me, what rights should legal entities have and not have?

[CID1990]

It's a matter of semantics. You're stuck on a corporation being considered a person or are you really arguing that a corporation doesn't have rights as a legal person (i.e. legal entity)?

Oh good! We’re back (again) to whether or not or to what extent corporations should have the same rights as people.

(Looks around the world…re-confirms his position)

You’re just hunky dory with unions being people

Pray tell… why are you against corporations being people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Nope

So tell me, what rights should legal entities have and not have?

Excellent! So we’ve finally agreed that corporations (as a singular entity) are in fact not people and therefore are not granted the same rights as an actual person.

It’s a good question and heavily loaded.

They have a right to exist under a legal framework. But I’ll side with Brandeis and Douglas that we should probably go back a ways and re-establish their limitations and scope. Maybe consider them more as property that entities with god-given rights?

Corporations have evolved radically since America became a nation at the end of the eighteenth century. Justice Louis Brandeis, in his famous dissent in Liggett, 288 U.S. at 554–56, Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (1933), explained the historical path of the expansion of corporations from single-purpose entities with limited terms of existence into the multipurpose, immortal behemoths we have today. As Justice Brandeis wrote:

Limitations upon the scope of a business corporation’s powers and activity were also long universal. At first, corporations could be formed under the general laws only for a limited number of purposes—usually those which required a relatively large fixed capital, like transportation, banking, and insurance, and mechanical, mining, and manufacturing enterprises. Permission to incorporate for “any lawful purpose” was not common until 1875; . . . All, or a majority, of the incorporators or directors, or both, were required to be residents of the incorporating state. The powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed.

As Justice Brandeis noted, the purposes of corporations were once narrow and are now incredibly broad.

“We, the people”—not we, the white people—not we, the citizens, or the legal voters—not we, the privileged class, and excluding all other classes but we, the people; not we, the horses and cattle, but we the people—the men and women, the human inhabitants of the United States. . . .

Thus, Douglass reasoned “we the people” included African Americans as well.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... porations/

What say you?

[kalm]

Oh good! We’re back (again) to whether or not or to what extent corporations should have the same rights as people.

(Looks around the world…re-confirms his position)

You’re just hunky dory with unions being people

Pray tell… why are you against corporations being people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unions are not people either. I’ve held that position on here from the start. You’re excused for not keeping up. You’re not excused however from ignoring my kickass Private Hudson gif reply. Loser…

[UNI88]

You’re just hunky dory with unions being people

Pray tell… why are you against corporations being people?

Unions are not people either. I’ve held that position on here from the start. You’re excused for not keeping up. You’re not excused however from ignoring my kickass Private Hudson gif reply. Loser…

And unions are able to coerce their members (people) to march, canvas, etc. for their causes in ways that corporations can't. Why do you want an unlevel playing field?

Speaking of fails, was that the gif where "makeagif.com" obscured the message?

[CID1990]

You’re just hunky dory with unions being people

Pray tell… why are you against corporations being people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unions are not people either. I’ve held that position on here from the start. You’re excused for not keeping up. You’re not excused however from ignoring my kickass Private Hudson gif reply. Loser…

How many corporations require their investors to make political donations they don’t want to? As a condition of employment?

And public service unions do it with taxpayer dollars too.

Unions are a MUCH more egregious example of bad political money and yet I wonder how many hits we’ll find on CS when searching “kalm + unions” versus “kalm + corporations”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

So tell me, what rights should legal entities have and not have?

Excellent! So we’ve finally agreed that corporations (as a singular entity) are in fact not people and therefore are not granted the same rights as an actual person.

It’s a good question and heavily loaded.

They have a right to exist under a legal framework. But I’ll side with Brandeis and Douglas that we should probably go back a ways and re-establish their limitations and scope. Maybe consider them more as property that entities with god-given rights?

Corporations have evolved radically since America became a nation at the end of the eighteenth century. Justice Louis Brandeis, in his famous dissent in Liggett, 288 U.S. at 554–56, Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (1933), explained the historical path of the expansion of corporations from single-purpose entities with limited terms of existence into the multipurpose, immortal behemoths we have today. As Justice Brandeis wrote:

Limitations upon the scope of a business corporation’s powers and activity were also long universal. At first, corporations could be formed under the general laws only for a limited number of purposes—usually those which required a relatively large fixed capital, like transportation, banking, and insurance, and mechanical, mining, and manufacturing enterprises. Permission to incorporate for “any lawful purpose” was not common until 1875; . . . All, or a majority, of the incorporators or directors, or both, were required to be residents of the incorporating state. The powers which the corporation might exercise in carrying out its purposes were sparingly conferred and strictly construed.

As Justice Brandeis noted, the purposes of corporations were once narrow and are now incredibly broad.

“We, the people”—not we, the white people—not we, the citizens, or the legal voters—not we, the privileged class, and excluding all other classes but we, the people; not we, the horses and cattle, but we the people—the men and women, the human inhabitants of the United States. . . .

Thus, Douglass reasoned “we the people” included African Americans as well.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... porations/

What say you?

I say that you overlooked parts of the ABA article that would have helped your argument more, but not getting it over the hump. The problem is that, to support her broad anti-corporate thesis, the author chooses litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a venerable statute from 1789 that gives aliens the right to bring tort claims in federal court for actions that violate treaties or recognized international norms. The SCOTUS has now held in Kiobel that the ATS doesn’t apply to extraterritorial acts, and in Jesner that foreign (I.e., non-United States) corporations are not subject to liability under jurisdictional standards specifically applicable to the ATS, which has always had a narrow scope. SCOTUS has not yet ruled on liability for US corporations under that statute. If folks don’t like these results, Congress is free to revise the ATS to broaden entity liability.

More broadly, your argument that corporations have legal rights without attendant responsibilities is flatly wrong. Corporations can be held criminally liable for acts by their agents who act within the scope of their employment, or acts that violate other legal duties, such the duty to pay taxes, or acts that violate criminal statutes. Although you can’t jail a corporation, you can jail their agents, and you can fine the corporations or cancel their business licenses.

I win. Again.

[CID1990]

Excellent! So we’ve finally agreed that corporations (as a singular entity) are in fact not people and therefore are not granted the same rights as an actual person.

It’s a good question and heavily loaded.

They have a right to exist under a legal framework. But I’ll side with Brandeis and Douglas that we should probably go back a ways and re-establish their limitations and scope. Maybe consider them more as property that entities with god-given rights?

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... porations/

What say you?

I say that you overlooked parts of the ABA article that would have helped your argument more, but not getting it over the hump. The problem is that, to support her broad anti-corporate thesis, the author chooses litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a venerable statute from 1789 that gives aliens the right to bring tort claims in federal court for actions that violate treaties or recognized international norms. The SCOTUS has now held in Kiobel that the ATS doesn’t apply to extraterritorial acts, and in Jesner that foreign (I.e., non-United States) corporations are not subject to liability under jurisdictional standards specifically applicable to the ATS, which has always had a narrow scope. SCOTUS has not yet ruled on liability for US corporations under that statute. If folks don’t like these results, Congress is free to revise the ATS to broaden entity liability.

More broadly, your argument that corporations have legal rights without attendant responsibilities is flatly wrong. Corporations can be held criminally liable for acts by their agents who act within the scope of their employment, or acts that violate other legal duties, such the duty to pay taxes, or acts that violate criminal statutes. Although you can’t jail a corporation, you can jail their agents, and you can fine the corporations or cancel their business licenses.

I win. Again.

Populism loses in the face of the law!

Again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Unions are not people either. I’ve held that position on here from the start. You’re excused for not keeping up. You’re not excused however from ignoring my kickass Private Hudson gif reply. Loser…

How many corporations require their investors to make political donations they don’t want to? As a condition of employment?

And public service unions do it with taxpayer dollars too.

Unions are a MUCH more egregious example of bad political money and yet I wonder how many hits we’ll find on CS when searching “kalm + unions” versus “kalm + corporations”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I realize you’re new here but

1). An honest search would reveal that I have criticized unions and I’ve been quite neutral regarding their role in the past. Just stories regarding my Under Sheriff BiL dealing with the police guild alone give reason to pause.

2) Stick around a bit and you’ll find that another anti union voice isn’t exactly needed on CS. But just in case…

’Unions bad, corporations and freedom!!!’

‘Strength in numbers!’ No wait, that sounds collectivist and union adjacent.

‘Boot straps!’

3). Different legal entities, governed by different rules. Varying degrees of democratic decision making.

False equivalency fallacy!

[kalm]

Excellent! So we’ve finally agreed that corporations (as a singular entity) are in fact not people and therefore are not granted the same rights as an actual person.

It’s a good question and heavily loaded.

They have a right to exist under a legal framework. But I’ll side with Brandeis and Douglas that we should probably go back a ways and re-establish their limitations and scope. Maybe consider them more as property that entities with god-given rights?







https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... porations/

What say you?

I say that you overlooked parts of the ABA article that would have helped your argument more, but not getting it over the hump. The problem is that, to support her broad anti-corporate thesis, the author chooses litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a venerable statute from 1789 that gives aliens the right to bring tort claims in federal court for actions that violate treaties or recognized international norms. The SCOTUS has now held in Kiobel that the ATS doesn’t apply to extraterritorial acts, and in Jesner that foreign (I.e., non-United States) corporations are not subject to liability under jurisdictional standards specifically applicable to the ATS, which has always had a narrow scope. SCOTUS has not yet ruled on liability for US corporations under that statute. If folks don’t like these results, Congress is free to revise the ATS to broaden entity liability.

More broadly, your argument that corporations have legal rights without attendant responsibilities is flatly wrong. Corporations can be held criminally liable for acts by their agents who act within the scope of their employment, or acts that violate other legal duties, such the duty to pay taxes, or acts that violate criminal statutes. Although you can’t jail a corporation, you can jail their agents, and you can fine the corporations or cancel their business licenses.

I win. Again.

I would have posted the entire article, but it would have been TL;DR for CID.

Interesting reply Ivy, thanks. I still hold that in practice corporations lack consequences for their actions. Fines or punishment for agents notwithstanding. The entity itself continues on. Fines become simply a cost of doing business. Humans fear imprisonments. Corporations do not. Because they ain’t fucking human. Also, case law can be misapplied and judges can be wrong, as you know.

[Ibanez]

Excellent! So we’ve finally agreed that corporations (as a singular entity) are in fact not people and therefore are not granted the same rights as an actual person.

It’s a good question and heavily loaded.

They have a right to exist under a legal framework. But I’ll side with Brandeis and Douglas that we should probably go back a ways and re-establish their limitations and scope. Maybe consider them more as property that entities with god-given rights?







https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj ... porations/

What say you?

I say that you overlooked parts of the ABA article that would have helped your argument more, but not getting it over the hump. The problem is that, to support her broad anti-corporate thesis, the author chooses litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a venerable statute from 1789 that gives aliens the right to bring tort claims in federal court for actions that violate treaties or recognized international norms. The SCOTUS has now held in Kiobel that the ATS doesn’t apply to extraterritorial acts, and in Jesner that foreign (I.e., non-United States) corporations are not subject to liability under jurisdictional standards specifically applicable to the ATS, which has always had a narrow scope. SCOTUS has not yet ruled on liability for US corporations under that statute. If folks don’t like these results, Congress is free to revise the ATS to broaden entity liability.

More broadly, your argument that corporations have legal rights without attendant responsibilities is flatly wrong. Corporations can be held criminally liable for acts by their agents who act within the scope of their employment, or acts that violate other legal duties, such the duty to pay taxes, or acts that violate criminal statutes. Although you can’t jail a corporation, you can jail their agents, and you can fine the corporations or cancel their business licenses.

I win. Again.

STOP IT! YOU'RE KILLING HIM! YOU'RE KILLING HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ivytalk]

I say that you overlooked parts of the ABA article that would have helped your argument more, but not getting it over the hump. The problem is that, to support her broad anti-corporate thesis, the author chooses litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a venerable statute from 1789 that gives aliens the right to bring tort claims in federal court for actions that violate treaties or recognized international norms. The SCOTUS has now held in Kiobel that the ATS doesn’t apply to extraterritorial acts, and in Jesner that foreign (I.e., non-United States) corporations are not subject to liability under jurisdictional standards specifically applicable to the ATS, which has always had a narrow scope. SCOTUS has not yet ruled on liability for US corporations under that statute. If folks don’t like these results, Congress is free to revise the ATS to broaden entity liability.

More broadly, your argument that corporations have legal rights without attendant responsibilities is flatly wrong. Corporations can be held criminally liable for acts by their agents who act within the scope of their employment, or acts that violate other legal duties, such the duty to pay taxes, or acts that violate criminal statutes. Although you can’t jail a corporation, you can jail their agents, and you can fine the corporations or cancel their business licenses.

I win. Again.

I would have posted the entire article, but it would have been TL;DR for CID.

Interesting reply Ivy, thanks. I still hold that in practice corporations lack consequences for their actions. Fines or punishment for agents notwithstanding. The entity itself continues on. Fines become simply a cost of doing business. Humans fear imprisonments. Corporations do not. Because they ain’t fucking human. Also, case law can be misapplied and judges can be wrong, as you know.

The interesting legal issue now is whether business corporations are answerable to constituencies other than
stockholders: communities, employees, environmental groups. Many states now allow “benefit corporations” to serve as entities with a more public purpose. The trend is in that direction. So the debate we’ve been having for over ten years may just go away.

[kalm]

I would have posted the entire article, but it would have been TL;DR for CID.

Interesting reply Ivy, thanks. I still hold that in practice corporations lack consequences for their actions. Fines or punishment for agents notwithstanding. The entity itself continues on. Fines become simply a cost of doing business. Humans fear imprisonments. Corporations do not. Because they ain’t fucking human. Also, case law can be misapplied and judges can be wrong, as you know.

The interesting legal issue now is whether business corporations are answerable to constituencies other than
stockholders: communities, employees, environmental groups. Many states now allow “benefit corporations” to serve as entities with a more public purpose. The trend is in that direction. So the debate we’ve been having for over ten years may just go away.

I honestly hope so. At least from what I’ve read, corporations used to be that way.

[houndawg]

Angela Davis. Yeah.

[houndawg]

Unions are not people either. I’ve held that position on here from the start. You’re excused for not keeping up. You’re not excused however from ignoring my kickass Private Hudson gif reply. Loser…

How many corporations require their investors to make political donations they don’t want to? As a condition of employment?

And public service unions do it with taxpayer dollars too.

Unions are a MUCH more egregious example of bad political money and yet I wonder how many hits we’ll find on CS when searching “kalm + unions” versus “kalm + corporations”?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to get out more. Take your boat out and feel the salt air in your face. Shit in your bucket.

[Ivytalk]

Angela Davis. Yeah.

You still rub one out to her 1969 UCLA file photo.

[Winterborn]

Angela Davis. Yeah.

You still hump one out to her 1969 UCLA file photo.

FYP

[houndawg]

Angela Davis. Yeah.

You still rub one out to her 1969 UCLA file photo.

So?

The choice will be made by brother Clyburn from SC who kept Joey B in the game while Bernie was selling out arenas and JB was speaking to tens of people.