Page 10 of 199
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri July 04, 2014 5:42 pm
by McParadigm
It seems to me that decisions like those are more about eroding the ability of government to dictate or limit corporate behaviors. Setting precedences that will open up the possibility of even more complicated future cases.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sat July 05, 2014 12:01 pm
by simple schoolboy
I don't think the court could have plausibly decided otherwise without finding the RFRA unconstitutional. I suppose they could have, but I'm not sure on what grounds, other than the RFRA neglecting to include deeply held beliefs of a non-religious nature. The RFRA seems to just underline the limited powers given to the federal government.
This whole "corporate personhood" business is a bit perplexing to me. Do corporations not have fourth amendment rights? What about third? Should Walmart quarter troops without compensation as Walmart is not an individual?
There is a separate argument to be made about the value of limited liability corporations, but it is the de facto organization structure for many groups of people. I might even be sympathetic to some components of arguments against said corporate structure. Perhaps there is a better way to organize business and other enterprises, but as it stands, this is pretty much the only template.
The talk about corporate personhood as an abomination started about the time of Citizens United, and it seemed largely indifferent to the facts of the case. Citizens United involved multiple individuals pooling their funds for a campaign film within a certain deadline of the election. Regardless of how unsympathetic the Republican operatives involved are, the idea that one cannot release campaign related material within a certain timeline of the election seems to violate every possible interpretation of the first amendment.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sat July 05, 2014 1:46 pm
by McParadigm
I think it really stems from the fact that corporations receive protection in ways that citizens do not. Krafft-Murphy knowingly uses dangerous asbestos related products around its workers long after the danger has been identified and other companies have adjusted their policies accordingly, then later dissolves in order to avoid the huge round of lawsuits stemming from those workers now dying of mesothelioma, and is declared unsue-able because it is dissolved, even though it still has substantial insurance resources (more than sufficient to address the lawsuits) and the primary owners are still incorporated together, just under a different name now. Etc.
corporations have abilities, freedoms, and resources that individuals do not. To then say that they are privy to the rights of citizens as well, but not necessarily bound by the same expectations or restrictions those citizens receive, is just helping to create a dangerous imbalance, in my opinion.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sat July 05, 2014 3:55 pm
by hlniv
simple schoolboy wrote:Do corporations not have fourth amendment rights? What about third? Should Walmart quarter troops without compensation as Walmart is not an individual?
The talk about corporate personhood as an abomination started about the time of Citizens United, and it seemed largely indifferent to the facts of the case. Citizens United involved multiple individuals pooling their funds for a campaign film within a certain deadline of the election. Regardless of how unsympathetic the Republican operatives involved are, the idea that one cannot release campaign related material within a certain timeline of the election seems to violate every possible interpretation of the first amendment.
I can't make this any more simple-
The Bill of Rights amendments and other human rights were never meant to and should not apply to corporate entities. I'm not saying corporate entities shouldn't have some rights, but they should not be the same as the rights of living, breathing human beings.
As far as Walmart having third amendment rights not to be forced to quarter soldiers, I think that just further supports my point. Forgetting the total irrelevancy of the third amendment in todays society, its just not reasonable to mix and match the application of human rights to the roghts and protections for corporate entities. They really are fundamentally different, individuals and corporations. Why do we now have precedent that they're not fundamentally different?
The ideas of (and judgments related to) corporate personhood have been blurring these lines since the late 1800s, hardly just since citizens united.
Please read this if you want an education on corporate personhood, it's history, and the dangers that can come from it-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/157954955 ... ot_redir=1
This was published in 2004 btw
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 06, 2014 1:49 am
by Green Habit
OK, now that I'm back in town I can get back to this thread with more effort:
hlniv wrote:And yes, the corporation as an entity is a concept made from and existing solely in the mind of human beings. They are recorded on paper, advertised, imaged, buildings built with their words on the sign, etc... etc...
To me, this sentence shows how the phrase "corporations aren't people" is too simplistic. All of the attributes that make up a corporation come from living, breathing human beings that have real desires and goals. Human endeavor coming from collective effort can be just as, well, human, as individual effort.
hlniv wrote:So we give them inherently human rights? Like political expression and religious freedom?
Sure, and with rights comes responsibilities. They can be sued, their behavior can be regulated, and so on. You can make a fair argument (as chud and McParadigm did) that they need to be held more responsible, but corporate personhood in this sense can be very useful in holding collective efforts accountable in addition to giving such efforts more liberty.
simple schoolboy wrote:I don't think the court could have plausibly decided otherwise without finding the RFRA unconstitutional. I suppose they could have, but I'm not sure on what grounds, other than the RFRA neglecting to include deeply held beliefs of a non-religious nature.
I think it could have easily been done by simply noting that opposition to contraception doesn't qualify as a sincere religious belief. That said, if I was on SCOTUS I would have instead flatly said that RFRA violates the Establishment Clause and laughed Hobby Lobby's arguments out the door. Stevens was dead on with this brief opinion:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-2074.ZC.html
John Paul Stevens wrote:In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment.
hlniv wrote:The Bill of Rights amendments and other human rights were never meant to and should not apply to corporate entities.
The "never meant to" doesn't mean a lot to me because there were tons of things about the 21st century that the Founders could have never been able to envision. It's why I find Scalia's beloved originalism to be rather weak. And the "should" doesn't mean a lot either, due to the rather absolute nature of much of the Bill of Rights. Whether you think extension of the Bill of Rights to a collective of people instead of one person is a bad thing doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court more often than not has interpreted otherwise. And once again, corporate entities are more than just people that group together for profit. For example, had Citizens United (a non-profit corporation, by the way) had gone the other way, that could have greenlighted censoring the likes of the New York Times writing an op-ed beyond a deadline of the election. Like SS said, that's a pretty frank violation of the First Amendment's very absolute nature.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 06, 2014 3:26 am
by Rob
If corporations are people, then there needs to be a corporate prison. Charge GM with 13 counts of negligent homicide and prevent them from doing business for however long a person would spend in prison for that charge. Charge the big banks that have admitted to laundering dirty money and put them in prison for a while.
Personally, I think it makes no sense to consider a corporation a person. Putting a corporation in "jail" would destroy it, and that's not necessarily a good thing (same can be said for real people, but...). But if you're going to consider them a person, then it makes even less sense to give them the same privilege/rights as people, but not hold them to the same standards of behavior. Either treat them as people and hold them accountable in the same way, or don't.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 06, 2014 1:10 pm
by hlniv
Green Habit wrote:OK, now that I'm back in town I can get back to this thread with more effort:
hlniv wrote:And yes, the corporation as an entity is a concept made from and existing solely in the mind of human beings. They are recorded on paper, advertised, imaged, buildings built with their words on the sign, etc... etc...
To me, this sentence shows how the phrase "corporations aren't people" is too simplistic. All of the attributes that make up a corporation come from living, breathing human beings that have real desires and goals. Human endeavor coming from collective effort can be just as, well, human, as individual effort.
It should be simplistic. Why is there something wrong with simplicity on this issue? Organizations of people who aren't restricted to the lifespans of the individuals are fundamentally different than the individuals themselves. I don't find the expressions of my mind, or the actions of my life to be singular entities that have basic rights. The giant turd in my toilet shouldn't have freedom of political expression. Nor should the words that I use to express my political expression. Neither words nor turds have freedom, they are the results of our individual efforts as humans. Our freedoms grant us the right to make turds and use words, just like our freedoms grant the right to incorprate our econokic endeavors. Human endeavor (whether coming from collective effort or individual effort) is most certainly not human, it is something that is the result of the freedoms humans have the right to depend upon.
hlniv wrote:So we give them inherently human rights? Like political expression and religious freedom?
Sure, and with rights comes responsibilities. They can be sued, their behavior can be regulated, and so on. You can make a fair argument (as chud and McParadigm did) that they need to be held more responsible, but corporate personhood in this sense can be very useful in holding collective efforts accountable in addition to giving such efforts more liberty.
So, what happens when a corporation is held accountable? It gets fined, maybe? It gets forced into bankruptcy? It becomes insolvent? Regardless of the action taken to hold it accountable, is there a real punishment that is possible? You can't make a corporation serve a prison sentence. You can't kill it. It's just not possible for the consequences to corporations for abusing their "rights" and "freedoms" to hold the same weight as the consequences to individuals. The people that created the corporations are free to just create another one, or when the founders die, their successors can continue it. We reward the corporate entity with freedoms, but do so without requiring the same risks we hold as individuals. Corporate risk is just fundamentally different than individual responsibility. The consequences can never be the same, because corporate entities aren't physically connected to the human heart and brain, and therefore, aren't actually humans themselves.
hlniv wrote:The Bill of Rights amendments and other human rights were never meant to and should not apply to corporate entities.
The "never meant to" doesn't mean a lot to me because there were tons of things about the 21st century that the Founders could have never been able to envision. It's why I find Scalia's beloved originalism to be rather weak. And the "should" doesn't mean a lot either, due to the rather absolute nature of much of the Bill of Rights. Whether you think extension of the Bill of Rights to a collective of people instead of one person is a bad thing doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court more often than not has interpreted otherwise. And once again, corporate entities are more than just people that group together for profit. For example, had Citizens United (a non-profit corporation, by the way) had gone the other way, that could have greenlighted censoring the likes of the New York Times writing an op-ed beyond a deadline of the election. Like SS said, that's a pretty frank violation of the First Amendment's very absolute nature.
Again, corporate entities exist to protect the economic interests of the people that created them. Yes, Citizens United has economic interests to protect, even as a non-profit. They need money to voice their collective political opinion. They are not an instrument of the press like the NY Times, their stated goals are to pursue a specific set of values. That is quite different than the NYT or the Post or Fox News or MSNBC, no matter how these institutions of the press tend to lean. Equating the two types of opinion-expressing institutions seems quite unlikely and a bit of reach to justify the point.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 06, 2014 1:33 pm
by broken iris
Rob wrote:If corporations are people, then there needs to be a corporate prison. Charge GM with 13 counts of negligent homicide and prevent them from doing business for however long a person would spend in prison for that charge. Charge the big banks that have admitted to laundering dirty money and put them in prison for a while.
But what would that accomplish? You are essentially suggesting that all of the 219,000 people directly employed by GM are legally responsible for those deaths and should be punished by having their jobs disappear for twenty plus years.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 06, 2014 2:51 pm
by Green Habit
hlniv wrote:Again, corporate entities exist to protect the economic interests of the people that created them. Yes, Citizens United has economic interests to protect, even as a non-profit. They need money to voice their collective political opinion.
So you see the means of collecting money as an economic interest, as opposed or in addition to the end goals? I can't say I've heard that before. So, when the ACLU asks for a donation, do you feel the reason why is more for the economic interests of the ACLU, instead of spending that money to further their cause?
hlniv wrote:They are not an instrument of the press like the NY Times, their stated goals are to pursue a specific set of values. That is quite different than the NYT or the Post or Fox News or MSNBC, no matter how these institutions of the press tend to lean. Equating the two types of opinion-expressing institutions seems quite unlikely and a bit of reach to justify the point.
Why do the stated goals matter? How is, say, a talking head on Fox News opposing gun control radically different than a blog post on the NRA's website arguing the same? The op-ed sections of the media certainly pursue a specific set of values--why else would those sections exist?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Sun July 06, 2014 7:05 pm
by hlniv
Green Habit wrote:hlniv wrote:Again, corporate entities exist to protect the economic interests of the people that created them. Yes, Citizens United has economic interests to protect, even as a non-profit. They need money to voice their collective political opinion.
So you see the means of collecting money as an economic interest, as opposed or in addition to the end goals? I can't say I've heard that before. So, when the ACLU asks for a donation, do you feel the reason why is more for the economic interests of the ACLU, instead of spending that money to further their cause?
hlniv wrote:They are not an instrument of the press like the NY Times, their stated goals are to pursue a specific set of values. That is quite different than the NYT or the Post or Fox News or MSNBC, no matter how these institutions of the press tend to lean. Equating the two types of opinion-expressing institutions seems quite unlikely and a bit of reach to justify the point.
Why do the stated goals matter? How is, say, a talking head on Fox News opposing gun control radically different than a blog post on the NRA's website arguing the same? The op-ed sections of the media certainly pursue a specific set of values--why else would those sections exist?
Yes, Citizens United has economic interests to protect. My simple statement was collecting money, but they spend it, manage it, there's a board of directors, etc... So, yeah, they are economic entity not unlike an incorporated business. I never said that their economic interest is to make a profit, and yes when I give money to the ACLU, I understand they have expenses to cover and an economic plan to manage. The people running these organizations have organized precisely to raise more money, spend it in the best way possible, and not to lose the money that they raise. They are both managed economic ventures, albeit not for profit with very specific stated goals.
And the difference between talking heads on Fox and the ACLU is that the opinion being voiced remains the opinion of the individual for the Fox talking head. Even the editorial section of the NYT does not define the purpose statement for the NYT, it is an isolated viewpoint on one of thousands of issues they cover. But the opinion of the ACLU, or the NRA, or Citizens United is the opinion of the collective organization of people, which explicitly states and upholds the opinion as the purpose of the organization. Very different indeed.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 07, 2014 5:44 pm
by Green Habit
I feel like we've come around to a circle, so I'm going to link to this article that I think sums up much of my concerns.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/2/5860732/six ... personhood
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 07, 2014 6:00 pm
by Norah
I think I'm with you on this one. This doesn't have to be an all or none issue.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Mon July 07, 2014 8:39 pm
by broken iris
cutuphalfdead wrote:Green Habit wrote:cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm not very well versed in the Aereo case but I've been reading the opinion and it seems to make sense to rule the way they did. How is this different than CATV systems of the past, which copyright law was amended to cover?
I'm trying to untangle that as well, and it appears to hinge on what is defined as a "public" "performance". Both the majority and the dissent seem to feel very strongly about their definitions.
Yeah I continued reading and got to that part of the question.
There was an article in USA Today (cannot find link for some reason) that suggests that what Aereo
does did is not fundamentally different than what Google's search engine does, which is profit by facilitating access to other business' copy-written content, Aereo's problem was that they only went up against a far more powerful foe than Google did when it was a younger business. Opinions?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 08, 2014 2:18 am
by hlniv
cutuphalfdead wrote:
I think I'm with you on this one. This doesn't have to be an all or none issue.
Damnit. I just mistakenly reported this post instead of quoting it. Maybe somebody can retrieve my narrative which apparently was submitted as my reason for reporting this particular post.
Short summary-
Good points in the article. I can subscribe to the idea of some artificial personhood as being good for a democratic society. But artificial persons being granted the rights of political expression thru unlimited contributions and the right to have their moral/religious beliefs protected seem like two too many steps over the line.
EDIT BY GH: Here's what you posted in the report section:
Ok. Good points there. It is hard to deny some element of the concept of artificial personhood as being beneficial to a free democratic society. I hereby renounce my all or nothing corporate-personhood-is-bad viewpoint.
However, defining the rights of these artificial persons as extending to unlimited corporate political support and the moral/religious freedoms of "closely held" corporations seem to me to be way past the line where artificial personhood is beneficial.
Protecting the freedom of the press is a very specific application of the 1st amendment, which inherently is meant apply to all instruments of the press, whether they are individually produced, or published/transmitted by a media conglomerate. The concept of artificial personhood allows those lines to be blurred for the good of the intent of the law.
What happens if a "closely held" corporation has divergent religious beliefs, meaning some ownership is Atheist or Buddhist and doesn't object to contraception on a moral/religious ground, but another does object, because that owner is catholic? Do the group of individuals have to vote on their religious beliefs to choose which moral standard is protected? Same thing with political support. Then whose freedoms are being protected? The majority of an organization? All opinions of anyone in the ownership group? Eh?
These latest interpretations seem to bely the idea behind artificial personhood as a method to protect society at large.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 08, 2014 3:37 am
by Green Habit
I more or less concur on religious beliefs, but perhaps on a different reasoning. I think any government-sanctioned advantage given to religious beliefs should be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. RFRA is a horrible law and Hobby Lobby should have gone nowhere on that basis. I do think it's very important for individuals to be able to pool their resources together to make their united cause more effective, however.
It looks like I accomplished my primary goal, though. When many people hear the word "corporation" they think of some sprawling conglomerate like Walmart or ExxonMobil, when in fact it's much more broad than that.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 08, 2014 9:24 am
by simple schoolboy
Green Habit wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:I don't think the court could have plausibly decided otherwise without finding the RFRA unconstitutional. I suppose they could have, but I'm not sure on what grounds, other than the RFRA neglecting to include deeply held beliefs of a non-religious nature.
I think it could have easily been done by simply noting that opposition to contraception doesn't qualify as a sincere religious belief.
I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but in general I'm uncomfortable with the government determining what qualifies as a sincere or insincere religious (or otherwise) belief, especially when it comes down to such nitpicky decisions as this. Undoubtedly there are niche sects that are offended by absurd things, but government policy should be written broadly enough to avoid such issues (this might be an indication that the ACA was overstep or just bad policy).
As already referenced, the RFRA was an overstep in that it neglected secular deeply held beliefs, but there's no way that our prodigious legislators would allow such an exception.
For those upset with this decision, it is unfortunate that they can't credibly claim judicial activism as this appears to be straight deference to the legislature. Its really just a matter of which law to give greater deference to. Perhaps 'judicial activism' or proper deference are all in the eye of the beholder.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 08, 2014 1:37 pm
by Green Habit
simple schoolboy wrote:I'm not really sure where you're going with this, but in general I'm uncomfortable with the government determining what qualifies as a sincere or insincere religious (or otherwise) belief, especially when it comes down to such nitpicky decisions as this.
I agree with this, and I think the rest of your post. I'd just add for sure that the way I understand RFRA, identifying which beliefs are sincere is a prong of the law, hence a government determination.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue July 08, 2014 11:06 pm
by hlniv
Green Habit wrote:I more or less concur on religious beliefs, but perhaps on a different reasoning. I think any government-sanctioned advantage given to religious beliefs should be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. RFRA is a horrible law and Hobby Lobby should have gone nowhere on that basis. I do think it's very important for individuals to be able to pool their resources together to make their united cause more effective, however.
It looks like I accomplished my primary goal, though. When many people hear the word "corporation" they think of some sprawling conglomerate like Walmart or ExxonMobil, when in fact it's much more broad than that.
Yes. You accomplished your goal. There certainly are many shades of grey when it comes to that term.
The issue for me is that we are now teetering on the edge of it getting out of control through the opinions of the 5 men on the highest bench, all appointed by repub prez's
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri November 07, 2014 6:43 pm
by Green Habit
SCOTUS just granted cert in King v. Halbig, another ACA challenge. Here's an article explaining why this could be a big deal.
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/7/7148215/ob ... idies-king
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Fri November 07, 2014 8:32 pm
by Norah
So basically it's all Scott Brown's fault.