Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Alito's stirring defense of corporations, of course, builds on that applied by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Citizens United, which was itself amplified by a paean to corporations delivered in a separate opinion and partial dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia—in which he asserted, remarkably, how much the Founding Fathers (other than Thomas Jefferson) loved corporations. In both cases, a corporate charter—the idea that these are separate, artificial entities created for narrow and specific purposes—is ignored, dismissed, or downplayed in the desire to equate corporations with individuals in granting rights. To Alito, corporations are collections of individuals, and deserve all the protections the individuals in the collective have. Of course, missing from his collective are the employees of the corporation.

Here is the textbook legal definition of a corporation: an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Why are for-profit corporations set up? The characterization tells us: to make profits. And the corporate charter has multiple benefits that go way beyond those of individuals. There are major tax benefits unavailable to individuals. There are stringent legal protections from liability unavailable to individuals.

A few weeks ago, in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on campaign finance, I said that I keep reading and rereading the First Amendment, and I am still looking for the word "money." Well, I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can't find the word "corporation." This Supreme Court, with its new form of crony capitalism, seems to see the words everywhere.

kalm wrote:Activist judges...

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:Activist judges...

They are only activist when they rule against you.

JohnStOnge wrote:Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

JohnStOnge wrote:Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

kalm wrote:
The other question is who comprises the corporation? The shareholders, the managers, the workers? What

JohnStOnge wrote:Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Corporations are obviously composed of people. If you tell a Corporation it has to violate the religious beliefs of the people composing it you are telling those people they have to do that. Same with the Citizens United case by the way. If you're restricting the speech of a Corporation you're restricting the speech of people. I don't even know why the semantics matter. Ultimately, Corporations are people. That's the physical reality.

If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If corporations are people how come nobody goes to jail for murder when they deliberately ignore safety rules and their members get killed on an exploding oil rig?

because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
The other question is who comprises the corporation? The shareholders, the managers, the workers? What

Yes.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
because murder implies intent, hyperbole boy

corporations DO suffer consequences for negligence that causes harm

even for coffee that is too hot

How often do they get charged with manslaughter? Can bring the entire group...shareholders, officers, and workers to trial? How many of these corporations are doing time?

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
How often do they get charged with manslaughter? Can bring the entire group...shareholders, officers, and workers to trial? How many of these corporations are doing time?

keep trying taibbi

A few weeks ago, in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on campaign finance, I said that I keep reading and rereading the First Amendment, and I am still looking for the word "money." Well, I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can't find the word "corporation." This Supreme Court, with its new form of crony capitalism, seems to see the words everywhere.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... le/373889/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JoltinJoe wrote:

A few weeks ago, in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee on campaign finance, I said that I keep reading and rereading the First Amendment, and I am still looking for the word "money." Well, I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can't find the word "corporation." This Supreme Court, with its new form of crony capitalism, seems to see the words everywhere.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... le/373889/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's because specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. It is within those penumbras, formed by emanations from those specific guarantees, that you can find the protections extended to money and corporations.

kalm wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
That's because specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. It is within those penumbras, formed by emanations from those specific guarantees, that you can find the protections extended to money and corporations.

For example?

kalm wrote:corporations are not in fact people and that money is not in fact speech.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:corporations are not in fact people and that money is not in fact speech.

well arent we full of ourselves today

people spend money on advertising- thats speech

closely held corporations are under control of their owners and those owners do not have to be compelled to abandon their religious faith in order to do business

but please continue to whine about it maybe reality will change for you

BlueHen86 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
well arent we full of ourselves today

people spend money on advertising- thats speech

closely held corporations are under control of their owners and those owners do not have to be compelled to abandon their religious faith in order to do business

but please continue to whine about it maybe reality will change for you

I agree with that. If you have a job that offers benefits, you should be able to afford birth control if you really need it.

I'm not convinced that corporations are people, but in this specific case, I do agree with the part in bold.

kalm wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I agree with that. If you have a job that offers benefits, you should be able to afford birth control if you really need it.

I'm not convinced that corporations are people, but in this specific case, I do agree with the part in bold.

As do I, and stated as much in the other thread. Still...corporations are not people. It's dopey to argue otherwise.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
As do I, and stated as much in the other thread. Still...corporations are not people. It's dopey to argue otherwise.

Corporations are NOT people.. but are endowed with more rights and less accountability
(Imagine that) Why would it be that way you might ask yourself...?

First you must find motive... who would be motivated to endow corporations with MORE rights and LESS accountability - who could possibly gain advantage from that...?


gee I can't even guess...?

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Corporations are NOT people.. but are endowed with more rights and less accountability
(Imagine that) Why would it be that way you might ask yourself...?

First you must find motive... who would be motivated to endow corporations with MORE rights and LESS accountability - who could possibly gain advantage from that...?


gee I can't even guess...?

The founding fathers sure as fuck didn't.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
The founding fathers sure as fuck didn't.

Agreed,
The founders were looking to empower the individual