The Supreme Court Is Wrong!

[Palehorse]

Corporations don't have human rights.

Otherwise, Ford would have been convicted of  premeditated murder for the Pinto scandal.

And I could have sued that company for infringement of my constitutional rights, and retired. . .

[Y]

So you just stopped with the title?...........and BANG! it's propaganda?

Did you actually read it or just assumed it to be another Big Business propaganda story?...

THIS is what cracks me up....there is NO amount of ANYTHING, that I could provide that will EVER convince any of you to think any differently....your minds are made up.

but, when someone on the RIGHT is strong opinionated...they are mere victims of propaganda..

Get real, Hank.  The title is the premise - you do know what that means, don't you? - and the article goes on to support that premise.  The premise is obviously flawed from the start, and yet you act as if you read and understood anything in that article.  So why don't you tell me, Hank, how that premise is sound - because I can certainly tell you how it's fatally flawed.

[dan foster]

So you just stopped with the title?...........and BANG! it's propaganda?

Did you actually read it or just assumed it to be another Big Business propaganda story?...

THIS is what cracks me up....there is NO amount of ANYTHING, that I could provide that will EVER convince any of you to think any differently....your minds are made up.

but, when someone on the RIGHT is strong opinionated...they are mere victims of propaganda..

Just try reading the title again, hank; "When Individuals Form Corporations, They Don't Lose Their Rights".  No one ever said individuals lose their rights when they form corporations, but the goddamn corporation is no longer just the individuals, it is a thing that has no goddamn individual rights; it isn't an individual.  Hope that helps.  I can use single words, and links to their meanings at yourdictionary.com,  until you get it, if needed.   

[Henry Hawk]

And I could have sued that company for infringement of my constitutional rights, and retired. . .

Nothing against you PH, but it has become THIS kind of mind set, that has put our healthcare in the mess it is in today......because we have the ability to sue any the medical industry for millions and millions of $$$ anytime one makes a mistake.....

I know YOU situations is different, but your comment made me think about how so many folks are looking to get "rich" at the expense of others...."greed" is NOT just a "corporate" problem.

[Palehorse]

Nothing against you PH, but it has become THIS kind of mind set, that has put our healthcare in the mess it is in today......because we have the ability to sue any the medical industry for millions and millions of $$$ anytime one makes a mistake.....

I know YOU situations is different, but your comment made me think about how so many folks are looking to get "rich" at the expense of others...."greed" is NOT just a "corporate" problem.

Wow. So now you are endorsing corporate rights above and beyond individual constitutional rights? Wow. . . that is disappointing. . .

If you aren't how can you even make such a stretch? (And it is a huge one at minimum).

So tell me, just what recourse would you say is justifiable when a corporation trounces, (blatantly I might add), an individual's constitutional rights, and said action imposes material loss?

Jail time? Who goes, who pays for the incarceration, and just how does it impose corrective action upon the corporation?  (Answers- Some corporate fall guy, the taxpayers, and it doesn't).

Maybe a multi million dollar fine imposed by the courts, received by the courts, and passed along to the government? (Leaving the victimized no redress).

As for the health care situation, lets hope you or no one you love is ever subjected to a physically maiming or life changing/ending case of medical malpractice if things go your way. The government will impose multi million dollar fines upon the entity found guilty of the action and again, leave the victim to "deal with it" for the rest of their life, or family to suck it up and get over it.

[Henry Hawk]

Palehorse you completely missed my point, or I did a poor job of explaining my point...(probably the later.. )

An example that came to my mind was a former neighbor of mine, sued an insurance company because his father was killed by a teenager who fell asleep at the wheel of his car because he was doing the prom thing all night.....he won hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this....then they sued a local hospital because his mother died because an overdose of painkiller that a nurse accidental gave...his mother was already near death at this time with sever diabetes, and the doctors had already stated she had less than a month to live...but these folks SUED and WON, again several MORE thousand dollars...

He retired at thirty because OUR legal system is out of control....common sense and decency no longer exists for many, many folks....and I'm not giving a pass to corporate scum or the corruption on their end....but, people as individuals are also very corrupt and greedy, and don't care WHO else their actions affect as long as they are getting THEIR piece of the pie...

I am not endorsing coporate rights above and beyond individual rigths.....but they should not be underneath them either...they should be on equal playing fields....

[Palehorse]

Palehorse you completely missed my point, or I did a poor job of explaining my point...(probably the later.. )

An example that came to my mind was a former neighbor of mine, sued an insurance company because his father was killed by a teenager who fell asleep at the wheel of his car because he was doing the prom thing all night.....he won hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this....then they sued a local hospital because his mother died because an overdose of painkiller that a nurse accidental gave...his mother was already near death at this time with sever diabetes, and the doctors had already stated she had less than a month to live...but these folks SUED and WON, again several MORE thousand dollars...

He retired at thirty because OUR legal system is out of control....common sense and decency no longer exists for many, many folks....and I'm not giving a pass to corporate scum or the corruption on their end....but, people as individuals are also very corrupt and greedy, and don't care WHO else their actions affect as long as they are getting THEIR piece of the pie...

I am not endorsing coporate rights above and beyond individual rigths.....but they should not be underneath them either...they should be on equal playing fields....

While I do not know the specifics surrounding either case you present here, I do know that if the legal system granted monetary award as a means of recourse, then it must have found an egregious level of liability in each situation.

Sitting on the outside of these situations allows one the ability to make assumptions without being privy to full disclosure surrounding the facts of the case(s) in question.  I dare say that the individuals that served on the jury of these cases know/knew far more surrounding what transpired and who was responsible for it, and I have faith that they performed their duty to the best of their ability, and made their decisions to award damages only after full disclosure was accomplished, and based upon the knowledge said disclosure afforded them. Moreover, the presiding judge has the ability to over-rule judgments that are excessive or exceed the limitations of the law in most states, and we must trust that they perform their duties strictly within the ascribed laws and policies applicable to the situation, faithfully.

In either case, the appeals process is in place to remedy those instances of potential abuse of the system, laws, and policies.

As it stands today, corporations now have the ability to reduce individual voting to the level of toilet paper, via the use of their corporate profit to finance the campaigns of individuals who see things from their perspectives and not the voters will or intention. Additionally, your individual, constitutionally granted rights can be trampled upon with extreme prejudice by these same corporations, with no recourse left to you what so ever.

Now, does it seem fair to anyone with a rational mind that corporations are provided a powerful voice (via their money) within our legislative branch, with which they can impose law and policy upon the individuals of this country, based upon a constitutional right that grants this right to individuals, yet these same corporations are not legally bound to comply and extend these same constitutional rights to the individuals? That's exactly what the SCOTUS decision has put into place. And you can rant and rave about how so many corporations are "trustworthy" entities, but let me tell you something; there isn't a single corporation within the borders of this country that will not abuse that trust, and wear it out in the process, if it means fattening up the bottom line of their annual financial performance. Not one.

And if you happen to work for them within the State of Indiana, they can fire you for anything, deny you your unemployment insurance, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it. Zip. Nothing, Nadda. You are SOL PERIOD! They don't even have to provide any reason what so ever for firing you either. You cannot sue them, you cannot take any legal action what so ever against them in this state. So you are a screwed pooch at both the state and federal levels now.

[Henry Hawk]

First of all...... .......DANG!...I wish you could find a job, where you could utilize your skills at "WRITTING"..because you are amazing at it. 

Secondly, I think it is JUST as appalling to think that our government can tell corporations (any business big or small) that they do not have the right to spend their profits as they see fit.

A corporation is merely an association of individuals....

Now, I'm not saying that I LIKE what many of them do with their monies and profits....and I know for a fact that many of them are greedy and corrupt.  We need more judges, who interpret the law, according to our Constitution, and not allow, corrupt lawyers to spin and twist the law, to favor the outcome they want, in order to gain favor politically and/or monetarily.

Thirdly, and I know I am out of my league here, so I shouldn't even try to argue, but just to play devils advocate....why shouldn't an owner be able to fire or hire who ever he/she wants? based upon whatever reason he/she wants...? I know there a lot's of reason's why based upon common decency but, LEGALLY, what rights in our Constitution tells us that we cannot be fired for whatever reason?...

We all have a free choice to make, IF we choose to work for someone....nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and tells them they HAVE to work for a particular company.....

agian, I'm just throwing that concept out there for arguements sake...

[Palehorse]

. . .
Secondly, I think it is JUST as appalling to think that our government can tell corporations (any business big or small) that they do not have the right to spend their profits as they see fit.

I think that position is subjective, so you are going to have to clarify it a bit for me to respond in detail; but the short answer is:

If that "corporation" today exists because of a government taking action(s) to assure its longevity, especially in the form of financial support, and a case can be made for fiscal irresponsibility being the root cause behind the need for said governmental action, then yes they should have the ability to intercede. Subjective of course, but when that "corporation" is handing out 7 figure bonus checks to the individuals responsible for the situation that drove the collapse, I do expect that the government would undertake actions necessary to impose corrective action toward remediation of the abuse and irresponsible spending of taxpayer money.

A corporation is merely an association of individuals....

And said "association" removes the status of the individual as it pertains to the corporation, legally shielding said individual from specific liabilities that may come about because of actions/in actions undertaken by said corporation, that could otherwise potentially/legally threaten the individual rights of those who comprise the corporation.

That's the crux of corporate law, to shield the individuals that comprise the corporation from individual responsibility and protect their individual rights. NOT to assume another "individual" identity but rather create a legally recognized entity that is comprised of individuals, who do not risk their individual rights for the purposes of the corporation; except as specifically noted within the corporation structure and premises.

It's why civil actions undertaken against corporations do not automatically expose the individuals who comprise the corporation to jeopardy, other than within those specified aspects contained within the corporate structuring documentation, and those personal actions that can be adjudicated as abusive or irresponsible as they pertain to the corporate responsibilities of a specific position with the structure. 

(Others within this forum are better educated within this specific venue of corporate law, but I have had my share of formal education surrounding it. So please jump in if I overstate or overlook any aspect of it).

Now, I'm not saying that I LIKE what many of them do with their monies and profits....and I know for a fact that many of them are greedy and corrupt.  We need more judges, who interpret the law, according to our Constitution, and not allow, corrupt lawyers to spin and twist the law, to favor the outcome they want, in order to gain favor politically and/or monetarily.

At the corporate level that is exactly what happened surrounding the recent SCOTUS decision, and it will be abused, and it will illegally reduce the will of the voting majority to the same level of impact as a fart in a hurricane. Game over. You will see.

Thirdly, and I know I am out of my league here, so I shouldn't even try to argue, but just to play devils advocate....why shouldn't an owner be able to fire or hire who ever he/she wants? based upon whatever reason he/she wants...? I know there a lot's of reason's why based upon common decency but, LEGALLY, what rights in our Constitution tells us that we cannot be fired for whatever reason?...

We all have a free choice to make, IF we choose to work for someone....nobody is holding a gun to anyones head and tells them they HAVE to work for a particular company.....

agian, I'm just throwing that concept out there for arguements sake...

That environment is exactly why unions continue to prosper, and in my mind validates the need for them. Those within this state who do not enjoy the protection of working under a legally binding contract are in that very situation, and enjoy no protection or assurance that just because they have a job today have they any reasonable expectation that they will have a job tomorrow.

Yes, unions are abusive and money sucking entities in most situations, but when it comes to "at will status" states, they are the last line of protection for the average hard working individuals in the workplace. Their negotiated terms and legally binding agreements are the only protections enjoyed by the working class in this state, and what stands between them and the proliferation of abusive, unfair, and discriminating labor practices. If you are not working under a contract you have zero rights as a worker.

The sad part of it is that I never felt very supportive of unions and unionization within the work force until I came to the state of Indiana; and it has been a very bitter pill for me to swallow to come to the realization that everything I thought I learned and knew about labor, labor law, and fairness amounts to nothing more than a pile of excrement in this state, and those with "at will status" surrounding labor relations.

It stacks the deck in strong favor of those companies/employers who pursue non-union working environments, and leaves the average worker subject to the whims and amusement of his employer. Nothing more than chattel. 

[Henry Hawk]

the bottom line is if you or myslef, or Joe the plumber, or Ford Motors wants to spend money on a commercial to promote a candidate, one year or one day before an election....we should have that right.....the rammifications pro or con, are all the same....some may choose NOT to purchase a Ford, or use Joe as his/her plumber.....based upon the honesty or the integrity of the commercial....but, for the Government to make laws .... violating our first admendment, which it did/does...forcing individuals or an association of individuals, to be silenced.....is wrong.

[followsthewolf]

We agree about individuals; we totally disagree about corporations.

Government is the only equalizer when there is a problem between individuals and corporations ("associations of individuals"). Law is the result of government action.

With me so far?

Imagine then, if you can, what will happen when corporations can buy those who make the laws. Further, when corporations can buy the Presidency (who nominates the members of the highest court in the land, the arbiters of differences between individuals and corporations), and the law making branch (Congress).

Still with me?

Now imagine that those corporations are owned by Chinese interests. A stretch? Well, since there are now Chinese investments in Coca-Cola.

Starting to feel a bit uneasy?

So am I. And if you want to really feel jumpy, go back and read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair for starters to  get a feel for corporate labor conditions before the rise of labor unions. Then try looking up the dispute in Matewan, West Virginia between miners and mine owners.

The ONLY reason you have a job with ANY protections at all is because of labor unions, the banding together of the workers who had absolutely no protection whatsoever, including protections to prevent dying at work because of incredibly dangerous and preventable conditions.

Want to go back to that?

Think it would never happen?

If you believe it couldn't, then ask yourself this:  why did it happen in the first place?

Profit motive.

And that, my friend, has not changed since then.

Why WOULDN'T it happen again?

[Palehorse]

the bottom line is if you or myslef, or Joe the plumber, or Ford Motors wants to spend money on a commercial to promote a candidate, one year or one day before an election....we should have that right.....the rammifications pro or con, are all the same....some may choose NOT to purchase a Ford, or use Joe as his/her plumber.....based upon the honesty or the integrity of the commercial....but, for the Government to make laws .... violating our first admendment, which it did/does...forcing individuals or an association of individuals, to be silenced.....is wrong.

How many times have you purchased commercial airtime, or even ad space in a newspaper for that matter, (as a private citizen), to endorse or oppose a candidate for public office? Zero is the answer for the overwhelming majority of us. You know why? We cannot afford it!  (But guess who can?)

Now, when corporations begin airing these commercials for candidates that you as a strictly private citizen are not going to vote for due to reasons of your own, how are you going to feel when the candidate you do support gets nothing near the visibility and exposure, if any? That's another reality. 

The fact is even before this ruling any one of us could have produced an endorsement for any candidate for public office, as private citizens. None of us do because it is too costly and 1 minute of network airtime will exceed what we make in a years time. Corporations don't have any such problem.

Whose voice do you think is going to be heard; yours, your neighbors, your towns, or the corporations?

They most certainly did violate our rights, just not in the way you are implying. Unfortunately it is going to take the manifestation of these ramifications before you will realize and understand just what it is that is so blatantly wrong about the SCOTUS decision, and you had better pray to that man upstairs that when you finally understand that this is wrong, that it can be reversed in short order. I am telling you that once the reins of power are handed over to the major corporations, as has been done with this decision, this country and its citizens will play hell in wresting them back from them.

Denying what is absolutely crystal clear and in front of your face is a dangerous gamble, and one this country has already lost. They put your focus upon another area (health care) and emptied your power center while you were busy worshiping their propaganda. The horse is out of the barn, no sense closing the door now.

Next will come the gun grab. Watch. . . Then rendered defenseless and unable to put up anything more than a facade of defense against it, the country will be brought to its knees by corporate greed. And it will not be a long drop either; we're already on one knee as it is.

[Palehorse]

We agree about individuals; we totally disagree about corporations.

Government is the only equalizer when there is a problem between individuals and corporations ("associations of individuals"). Law is the result of government action.

With me so far?

Imagine then, if you can, what will happen when corporations can buy those who make the laws. Further, when corporations can buy the Presidency (who nominates the members of the highest court in the land, the arbiters of differences between individuals and corporations), and the law making branch (Congress).

Still with me?

Now imagine that those corporations are owned by Chinese interests. A stretch? Well, since there are now Chinese investments in Coca-Cola.

Starting to feel a bit uneasy?

So am I. And if you want to really feel jumpy, go back and read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair for starters to  get a feel for corporate labor conditions before the rise of labor unions. Then try looking up the dispute in Matewan, West Virginia between miners and mine owners.

The ONLY reason you have a job with ANY protections at all is because of labor unions, the banding together of the workers who had absolutely no protection whatsoever, including protections to prevent dying at work because of incredibly dangerous and preventable conditions.

Want to go back to that?

Think it would never happen?

If you believe it couldn't, then ask yourself this:  why did it happen in the first place?

Profit motive.

And that, my friend, has not changed since then.

Why WOULDN'T it happen again?

[LOsborne]

An example that came to my mind was a former neighbor of mine, sued an insurance company because his father was killed by a teenager who fell asleep at the wheel of his car because he was doing the prom thing all night.....he won hundreds of thousands of dollars because of this....

Henry, that former neighbor of yours sued for damages. The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he was awarded is indemnity for the wages his father would have earned had he lived. I don't know what salary you make, but if somebody wiped me out in a car crash, I assure you my children could sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars, figuring my current earning rate multiplied by the number of years I could be expected to continue earning if I hadn't been killed. That is what "indemnify" means.

PH, if you were denied unemployment compensation you can fight it. And you can win. Email me.

[Henry Hawk]

Henry, that former neighbor of yours sued for damages. The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" he was awarded is indemnity for the wages his father would have earned had he lived. I don't know what salary you make, but if somebody wiped me out in a car crash, I assure you my children could sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars, figuring my current earning rate multiplied by the number of years I could be expected to continue earning if I hadn't been killed. That is what "indemnify" means.

PH, if you were denied unemployment compensation you can fight it. And you can win. Email me.

what ever happened to accidents?  I know there are cases of negligence that justify things, but there ARE some outrageous cases of people being over compensated, way too many cases in my opinion....like the lady who got burned by coffee at McDonalds....this is the type of cases that are being abused and costing "citizens" billions of $ per year....it is fraudulent.