I’m happy that discrimination against a minority group by the tyranny of the majority is overturned. To the Supreme Court we go, to end the stay against marriage equality!
Let’s wait to see what our wonderful Supereme Court does before we rejoice.
Occam/Emerson
Wordpad
Didn’t you mean to write ‘Wonderful’ Supreme Court? I can predict most of the votes, hopefully there is a swing vote i there somewhere, or that they decline to take it (doubtful).
Didn’t ‘cha just LOVE that one… A corporation, a FICTIONAL entity, merely a legal entity for tax purposes, not a person, not a citizen, not a physical thing, just an idea on paper, owned by a person, the company has an owner, that thing has freedom of speech, that thing that doesn’t even have a mouth or ears! Bizzaro World, here we come!
It would not surprise me one bit if this Supreme Court denied some people full civil rights after declaring corporations are people under the law.
Hi DarronS
Assuming I’m an idiot, which your a free to do btw. Why is this a problem?
It seem to just it saying that under the law, a corporation can be dealt with as an individual for the purposes of legal proceedings.
I suppose it might be that there is no actual individual to hold accountable for any mis-doings?
I suspect it’d be almost impossible to find a individual to hold entirely accountable for the actions of a large corporation. Except in cases where an individual steps forward to accept such responsibility, perhaps unjustifiably so, regardless of where any accountability lies.
People like to do that with the President of the US. Hold them accountable for the actions of the US. However the President is only 1/3 of the Government.
It may not be perfect, perhaps unfair, I just don’t see how you’re going to get any better accountability.
A corporation act as an entity which consists of many minds. The whole shares responsibility for it’s action or inaction. You punish an individual for a corporations action then the rest of the responsible individuals get off scott-free.
You can do so to satisfy a personal sense of justice just as a person can blame the actions of the US on one person. However it’s actually no fairer then holding everyone involved accountable.
The problem is the recent Supreme Court decision gives corporations the freedom to buy all the political ads they want, which is the antithesis of “government by the people, of the people, and for the people.” This gives corporations, with their billions of dollars, an unfair advantage to mold public opinion and help elect representatives who will do corporate bidding rather than represent the people. I’ll get back with you later with more. Right now I have to take a shower and get off to my government class.
Well, if the Supreme Court does uphold proposition 8, at least we’ll be assured that same sex corporations won’t be able to marry.
The whole idea of corporate personhood wasn’t even envisioned by the authors of the constitution. It didn’t occur until the late 1800s when a Supreme Court clerk wrote it as a note on opinion he wrote for a justice. Although it’s become accepted, it has no historical basis in fact.
If they weren’t controlled by them, it would be nice if congress could write a law clarifying that corporations are not afforded the capabilities of human U.S. citizens,
The problem is the recent Supreme Court decision gives corporations the freedom to buy all the political ads they want, which is the antithesis of “government by the people, of the people, and for the people.” This gives corporations, with their billions of dollars, an unfair advantage to mold public opinion and help elect representatives who will do corporate bidding rather than represent the people. I’ll get back with you later with more. Right now I have to take a shower and get off to my government class.
Ah… Ok thanks for taking the time to explain.
Actually I wish there was a way to educate people into being skeptical of all advertising.
The far more rational solution would be to eliminate the term ‘marriage’ from all laws and replace it with ‘civil union’ giving all joined couple the same legal rights. That way, the government is out of the marriage business, and any pair can apply for a civil union license and go before anyone licensed to join them. On the other side, churches and any other organization can be licensed to perform marriages, but they would be purely ceremonial. A pair could get married in a christian or other church, by a humanist celebrant, by an atheist who obtained the license, etc.
The far more rational solution would be to eliminate the term ‘marriage’ from all laws and replace it with ‘civil union’ giving all joined couple the same legal rights. That way, the government is out of the marriage business, and any pair can apply for a civil union license and go before anyone licensed to join them. On the other side, churches and any other organization can be licensed to perform marriages, but they would be purely ceremonial. A pair could get married in a christian or other church, by a humanist celebrant, by an atheist who obtained the license, etc.
Occam
Wordpad
You must described France, but left out the pageantry leading from the ceremony to the mayor’s office.
To the Supreme Court we go, to end the stay against marriage equality!
