If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   With a busy docket of corporate persons to protect, SCOTUS recommends fetuses form an LLC for legal recognition   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 53
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, legal person, limited liability companies, big red button, prostitution laws, abortions  
•       •       •

4433 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 9:24 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-13 09:23:03 AM
Abandoned Prom Babies Inc.
 
2013-11-13 09:26:28 AM
Liberal activist judges something, something, something
 
2013-11-13 09:27:06 AM
Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.
 
2013-11-13 09:29:35 AM

MFAWG: Liberal activistpassivist judges something, something, something

Not

hearing cases that republicans want them to is just as bad!
 
2013-11-13 09:29:53 AM

ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.


It's been the same loopback for 30 years, and it's good fundraising fodder for the 'OMG, DHIMMYCRAPS IS KILLING TEH BABBIES" candidates.

Why would this SCOTUS upset that apple cart.?
 
2013-11-13 09:38:45 AM

ikanreed: MFAWG: Liberal activistpassivist judges something, something, something

Not hearing cases that republicans want them to is just as bad!


I would think this would be a law that republicans do not want SCOTUS to hear.  It keeps it a regional hotbutton to work instead of having the SCOTUS hear it and make any attempts impossible in every juristiction.
 
2013-11-13 09:40:26 AM
So much for states rights, don't get the answer you want in the state, go crying to the feds.
 
2013-11-13 09:41:00 AM

ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.


Maybe the justices just don't like Oklahomans?
 
2013-11-13 09:42:39 AM

timswar: ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.

Maybe the justices just don't like Oklahomans?


Yeah, if they really cared about them, they'd support this attempt to take away rights from a minority due to the unfounded opinions of a scant majority.
 
2013-11-13 09:45:20 AM
I was actually more interested in the very end of the article.  SCOTUS upheld a 4th circuit ruling against the Duke lacrosse players by refusing to hear the appeal.
 
2013-11-13 09:59:09 AM
timswar:Maybe the justices just don't like Oklahomans?

Probably because there's too many white people there.
 
2013-11-13 10:15:45 AM

MFAWG: ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.

It's been the same loopback for 30 years, and it's good fundraising fodder for the 'OMG, DHIMMYCRAPS IS KILLING TEH BABBIES" candidates.

Why would this SCOTUS upset that apple cart.?


The SCOTUS cannot ever upset that apple cart.  The states can create laws much faster than they ever reach the SCOTUS.  If the SCOTUS struck down every single anti-abortion law, the states would just come up with new creative ones.  All MD's performing abortions must also have MBAs for uhh protecting the mother reasons or something.  Yay, I outlawed abortion again.
 
2013-11-13 10:18:22 AM
What a group of non-persons might look like:

Corporate Shareholder meeting

www.iwarrenbuffettquotes.com
 
2013-11-13 10:21:38 AM

hasty ambush: What a group of non-persons might look like:

Corporate Shareholder meeting

[www.iwarrenbuffettquotes.com image 850x637]


Can we put shareholders in jail for the crimes of the corporations they hold shares in? Because that would solve a whole bunch of problems.
 
2013-11-13 10:23:48 AM

hasty ambush: What a group of non-persons might look like:

Corporate Shareholder meeting

[www.iwarrenbuffettquotes.com image 850x637]


That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.
 
2013-11-13 10:27:57 AM

lennavan: MFAWG: ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.

It's been the same loopback for 30 years, and it's good fundraising fodder for the 'OMG, DHIMMYCRAPS IS KILLING TEH BABBIES" candidates.

Why would this SCOTUS upset that apple cart.?

The SCOTUS cannot ever upset that apple cart.  The states can create laws much faster than they ever reach the SCOTUS.  If the SCOTUS struck down every single anti-abortion law, the states would just come up with new creative ones.  All MD's performing abortions must also have MBAs for uhh protecting the mother reasons or something.  Yay, I outlawed abortion again.


It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court.  They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state.  The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations.  And guess what?  Nearly half the clinics closed the next day.  No way this survives an "undue burden" review.
 
2013-11-13 10:31:57 AM

Stile4aly: lennavan: MFAWG: ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.

It's been the same loopback for 30 years, and it's good fundraising fodder for the 'OMG, DHIMMYCRAPS IS KILLING TEH BABBIES" candidates.

Why would this SCOTUS upset that apple cart.?

The SCOTUS cannot ever upset that apple cart.  The states can create laws much faster than they ever reach the SCOTUS.  If the SCOTUS struck down every single anti-abortion law, the states would just come up with new creative ones.  All MD's performing abortions must also have MBAs for uhh protecting the mother reasons or something.  Yay, I outlawed abortion again.

It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court.  They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state.  The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations.  And guess what?  Nearly half the clinics closed the next day.  No way this survives an "undue burden" review.


Yeah, but the argument those clinics are going to have is that the Texas bill is functionally a bill of attainder.  That shiat's unconstitutional too.
 
2013-11-13 10:36:43 AM
Can we just let the abortion issue go?
 
2013-11-13 10:37:05 AM
fark you, Failmitter.  Fetus =/= person.

The Regressives will only let their puppets on the SCOTUS hear an abortion case after they get the court stacked with Scalia/Thomas clones.  And if *that* ever happens, stick a fork in the USA .. it's done.  I'll move to Estonia and watch things collapse from a safe distance...
 
2013-11-13 10:40:20 AM

ikanreed: That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.


Yeah. If your car kills a bunch of innocent people, it doesn't face prison time, you do.

And yet, when a corporation kills a bunch of innocent people...
 
2013-11-13 10:41:47 AM
Also, slowclap.gif for trollmitter. I'm surprised we're only up to 20 comments, not 200.
 
2013-11-13 10:46:51 AM

Stile4aly: It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court. They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state. The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations. And guess what? Nearly half the clinics closed the next day. No way this survives an "undue burden" review.


It's not the outcome of the court cases that matters.  It's the process, it's the constant cycle of passing restrictive laws, clinics having to close down or spend a fortune or wait until the law is overturned and then they can open back up.  That's what is going to drive the abortion clinics away.  They'll get sick of it.
 
2013-11-13 10:47:32 AM

ikanreed: Stile4aly: lennavan: MFAWG: ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.

It's been the same loopback for 30 years, and it's good fundraising fodder for the 'OMG, DHIMMYCRAPS IS KILLING TEH BABBIES" candidates.

Why would this SCOTUS upset that apple cart.?

The SCOTUS cannot ever upset that apple cart.  The states can create laws much faster than they ever reach the SCOTUS.  If the SCOTUS struck down every single anti-abortion law, the states would just come up with new creative ones.  All MD's performing abortions must also have MBAs for uhh protecting the mother reasons or something.  Yay, I outlawed abortion again.

It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court.  They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state.  The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations.  And guess what?  Nearly half the clinics closed the next day.  No way this survives an "undue burden" review.

Yeah, but the argument those clinics are going to have is that the Texas bill is functionally a bill of attainder.  That shiat's unconstitutional too.


It may also be Ex Post Facto to apply it to existing clinics (thus the existence of the very concept of "grandfather clauses"). They could impose such new requirements on new clinics. Ex Post Facto is twice explicitly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution, to the Federal Government (I §9 ¶3) and to the States (I §10 ¶1 ― so the Tenth Amendment doesn't help the anti-choicers here).
 
2013-11-13 10:53:27 AM

cherryl taggart: I was actually more interested in the very end of the article.  SCOTUS upheld a 4th circuit ruling against the Duke lacrosse players by refusing to hear the appeal.


that is not how the appeal process works.  Declining to hear a case does not equal upholding a ruling.
 
2013-11-13 10:56:02 AM
My nut sack is now a multi-national conglomerate.

/had sex with a hooker in tj once
 
JFC
2013-11-13 10:57:13 AM
GOP isn't taking it far enough.
Vote Foetus in 2016!!
 
2013-11-13 10:58:45 AM
Nova Health Systems, which provides reproductive health services - including abortion procedures - and physician Larry Burns filed suit in 2010, contending that the law, which they see as invasive, was unconstitutional under Oklahoma state law, according to Reuters.

I like that one of the doctors involved is named Larry Burns, a.k.a. the incompetent doctor from M*A*S*H
 
2013-11-13 11:02:57 AM

ikanreed: Headline doesn't make this clear, for those people who won't even think about reading an article: The supreme court isn't hearing abortion cases, and lower court precedence has been to overturn dumb state laws like Oklahoma's.


Those of you who   do decide to read the article will find this journalistic gem:  An Oklahoma district court issued an injunction blocking preventing enforcement of the law in March 2012, the wire service reported.
 
2013-11-13 11:03:51 AM

elwood1972: Nova Health Systems, which provides reproductive health services - including abortion procedures - and physician Larry Burns filed suit in 2010, contending that the law, which they see as invasive, was unconstitutional under Oklahoma state law, according to Reuters.

I like that one of the doctors involved is named Larry Burns, a.k.a. the incompetent doctor from M*A*S*H



I think you're portmanteauing Frank Burns and  Henry(Larry?)  Blake.
 
2013-11-13 11:08:22 AM

DarnoKonrad: elwood1972: Nova Health Systems, which provides reproductive health services - including abortion procedures - and physician Larry Burns filed suit in 2010, contending that the law, which they see as invasive, was unconstitutional under Oklahoma state law, according to Reuters.

I like that one of the doctors involved is named Larry Burns, a.k.a. the incompetent doctor from M*A*S*H


I think you're portmanteauing Frank Burns and  Henry(Larry?)  Blake.


Forget it, he is rolling.
 
2013-11-13 11:14:10 AM
My bad, got Larry Linville combined with Frank Burns.
 
2013-11-13 11:20:00 AM
Life, and death, begins at taxation.
 
2013-11-13 11:21:11 AM
Nonono, stop being passive. Don't wait for fetuses to form corporations. Pass a law that states fetuses are corporations until they are born. That bestows corporate personhood on them, and no one can say it's unconstitutional to do that.

Fetus=corporation=person. End of story. Debate over.
 
2013-11-13 11:35:20 AM

MFAWG: hasty ambush: What a group of non-persons might look like:

Corporate Shareholder meeting

[www.iwarrenbuffettquotes.com image 850x637]

Can we put shareholders in jail for the crimes of the corporations they hold shares in? Because that would solve a whole bunch of problems.


As opposed to say these persons:

Urban League


media2.s-nbcnews.com

Sierra Club

www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com

National Organization for Women

farm9.staticflickr.com

Organizing for change
www.nesri.org
 
2013-11-13 11:55:54 AM

COMALite J: It may also be Ex Post Facto to apply it to existing clinics (thus the existence of the very concept of "grandfather clauses"). They could impose such new requirements on new clinics. Ex Post Facto is twice explicitly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution, to the Federal Government (I §9 ¶3) and to the States (I §10 ¶1 ― so the Tenth Amendment doesn't help the anti-choicers here).


I don't follow. They're imposing new regulations, not prosecuting people (or corporations) for behavior that took place before the relevant law was passed.
 
2013-11-13 12:07:12 PM

hasty ambush: MFAWG: hasty ambush: What a group of non-persons might look like:

Corporate Shareholder meeting

[www.iwarrenbuffettquotes.com image 850x637]

Can we put shareholders in jail for the crimes of the corporations they hold shares in? Because that would solve a whole bunch of problems.

As opposed to say these persons:

Urban League


[media2.s-nbcnews.com image 800x533]

Sierra Club

[www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com image 594x396]

National Organization for Women

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x427]

Organizing for change
[www.nesri.org image 450x354]


We can post pics of a bunch of conservative group meetings, you know.
 
2013-11-13 12:17:44 PM

jfarkinB: ikanreed: That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.

Yeah. If your car kills a bunch of innocent people, it doesn't face prison time, you do.

And yet, when a corporation kills a bunch of innocent people...


If your car kills a bunch of people, the person in control at the time faces jail time, not the owner.

That would be the equivalent of management and/or directors. Not shareholders.
 
2013-11-13 12:20:43 PM
Corporate rights
Federal rights
State's rights
Civil rights

In that order.  Sad, isn't it?
 
2013-11-13 12:20:54 PM

dywed88: jfarkinB: ikanreed: That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.

Yeah. If your car kills a bunch of innocent people, it doesn't face prison time, you do.

And yet, when a corporation kills a bunch of innocent people...

If your car kills a bunch of people, the person in control at the time faces jail time, not the owner.

That would be the equivalent of management and/or directors. Not shareholders.


If your car falls on someone, you're liable, not your car.  Limited liability is a joke.  The shareholders are personally responsible for tacitly endorsing the behavior of a corporation.   If a corporation kills someone, every investor should be brought up on charges of hiring a killer(as long as those owners want to express their rights through their corporation).
 
2013-11-13 12:42:26 PM

jfarkinB: COMALite J: It may also be Ex Post Facto to apply it to existing clinics (thus the existence of the very concept of "grandfather clauses"). They could impose such new requirements on new clinics. Ex Post Facto is twice explicitly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution, to the Federal Government (I §9 ¶3) and to the States (I §10 ¶1 ― so the Tenth Amendment doesn't help the anti-choicers here).

I don't follow. They're imposing new regulations, not prosecuting people (or corporations) for behavior that took place before the relevant law was passed.


Just let it go... don't expect people to know the legal terms they toss around.
 
2013-11-13 01:11:30 PM

AngryDragon: Corporate rights
Federal rights
State's rights
Civil rights

In that order.  Sad, isn't it?


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-11-13 01:36:40 PM

lennavan: Stile4aly: It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court. They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state. The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations. And guess what? Nearly half the clinics closed the next day. No way this survives an "undue burden" review.

It's not the outcome of the court cases that matters.  It's the process, it's the constant cycle of passing restrictive laws, clinics having to close down or spend a fortune or wait until the law is overturned and then they can open back up.  That's what is going to drive the abortion clinics away.  They'll get sick of it.


Yes, and then back-alley, unregulated shops will open, just as they did when abortion was illegal. Women will try dangerous abortificants that have been around for thousands of years, and that, incidentally, all seem to have dangerous hemorrhaging as a side effect. Unlicensed monsters like Gosnell will step in, and women and babies will both die.

Culture of life my ass.
 
2013-11-13 02:03:06 PM

lennavan: Stile4aly: It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court. They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state. The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations. And guess what? Nearly half the clinics closed the next day. No way this survives an "undue burden" review.

It's not the outcome of the court cases that matters.  It's the process, it's the constant cycle of passing restrictive laws, clinics having to close down or spend a fortune or wait until the law is overturned and then they can open back up.  That's what is going to drive the abortion clinics away.  They'll get sick of it.


Good.

Also, so much for a conservative Supreme Court...
 
2013-11-13 02:06:36 PM

DeaH: lennavan: Stile4aly: It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court. They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state. The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations. And guess what? Nearly half the clinics closed the next day. No way this survives an "undue burden" review.

It's not the outcome of the court cases that matters.  It's the process, it's the constant cycle of passing restrictive laws, clinics having to close down or spend a fortune or wait until the law is overturned and then they can open back up.  That's what is going to drive the abortion clinics away.  They'll get sick of it.

Yes, and then back-alley, unregulated shops will open, just as they did when abortion was illegal. Women will try dangerous abortificants that have been around for thousands of years, and that, incidentally, all seem to have dangerous hemorrhaging as a side effect. Unlicensed monsters like Gosnell will step in, and women and babies will both die.

Culture of life my ass.


That;s an interesting argument since you actually called them babies.
Do you think the death rate of unborn children would go up or down if abortion became illegal?
 
2013-11-13 02:24:40 PM

vygramul: AngryDragon: Corporate rights
Federal rights
State's rights
Civil rights

In that order.  Sad, isn't it?

[www.bitlogic.com image 630x443]


Governments don't have rights.  You can tell that the idiot creator of that is an idiot libertarian idiot because they idiotically include "federal rights" and "states rights" in every box.  Those concepts don't enter the vernacular of people who actually care about the idea of rights.
 
2013-11-13 02:32:44 PM

genner: DeaH: lennavan: Stile4aly: It seems likely that Texas is bullheaded enough to take the latest fight all the way to the Supreme Court. They pushed through a bunch of TRAP laws which the abortion clinics said would close about half the clinics in the state. The clinics won at the circuit level, so Texas appealed to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court (the most conservative in the nation) and they ruled that the fact that clinics might close was an incidental effect and irrelevant to these perfectly sound and reasonable regulations. And guess what? Nearly half the clinics closed the next day. No way this survives an "undue burden" review.

It's not the outcome of the court cases that matters.  It's the process, it's the constant cycle of passing restrictive laws, clinics having to close down or spend a fortune or wait until the law is overturned and then they can open back up.  That's what is going to drive the abortion clinics away.  They'll get sick of it.

Yes, and then back-alley, unregulated shops will open, just as they did when abortion was illegal. Women will try dangerous abortificants that have been around for thousands of years, and that, incidentally, all seem to have dangerous hemorrhaging as a side effect. Unlicensed monsters like Gosnell will step in, and women and babies will both die.

Culture of life my ass.

That;s an interesting argument since you actually called them babies.
Do you think the death rate of unborn children would go up or down if abortion became illegal?


I think it would remain about the same, but more women would die. And, yes, I consider the fetus and embryo a life. I think of them as babies, as people. But no other person for any reason is ever expected to give his body over to another, even if the other's life depends on it. No parent is required ot give a kidney to a dying child, even if that parent is a perfect match for the child. No one can claim the need of another's body, except, some tell us, if that body belongs to a woman, and the other is a baby dependent on her for life.

Personally, I think every abortion is tragic. I support all kinds of programs to make abortion unnecessary (sex education, readily available birth control, assistance to families, better adoption laws), but, if a woman decides not to make her body available to another, for whatever reason, tragic though that is, it should be legal. The movement to prohibit abortion will not save lives, it will take more of them. Making safe abortions unavailable will only lead to unsafe abortion. This is particularly true in the parts of the country where other women's health care is not readily available to all.
 
2013-11-13 03:25:45 PM

ikanreed: dywed88: jfarkinB: ikanreed: That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.

Yeah. If your car kills a bunch of innocent people, it doesn't face prison time, you do.

And yet, when a corporation kills a bunch of innocent people...

If your car kills a bunch of people, the person in control at the time faces jail time, not the owner.

That would be the equivalent of management and/or directors. Not shareholders.

If your car falls on someone, you're liable, not your car.  Limited liability is a joke.  The shareholders are personally responsible for tacitly endorsing the behavior of a corporation.   If a corporation kills someone, every investor should be brought up on charges of hiring a killer(as long as those owners want to express their rights through their corporation).


If my friend drives my car and runs someone over I cannot go to jail because I owned the car.

Sure, there are some cases where I could be an accessory, but that has nothing to do with ownership but my acts around the incident.

Civilly it does get more complicated in both cases. The costs of civil litigation are directly passed on to shareholders in the form of share value proportional to share holdings.

There are also some regulatory penalties that are assessed based on ownership of automobiles, but they are fines that go back to the owners the same as they would in a corporation.
 
2013-11-13 03:36:25 PM

dywed88: ikanreed: dywed88: jfarkinB: ikanreed: That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.

Yeah. If your car kills a bunch of innocent people, it doesn't face prison time, you do.

And yet, when a corporation kills a bunch of innocent people...

If your car kills a bunch of people, the person in control at the time faces jail time, not the owner.

That would be the equivalent of management and/or directors. Not shareholders.

If your car falls on someone, you're liable, not your car.  Limited liability is a joke.  The shareholders are personally responsible for tacitly endorsing the behavior of a corporation.   If a corporation kills someone, every investor should be brought up on charges of hiring a killer(as long as those owners want to express their rights through their corporation).

If my friend drives my car and runs someone over I cannot go to jail because I owned the car.

Sure, there are some cases where I could be an accessory, but that has nothing to do with ownership but my acts around the incident.

Civilly it does get more complicated in both cases. The costs of civil litigation are directly passed on to shareholders in the form of share value proportional to share holdings.

There are also some regulatory penalties that are assessed based on ownership of automobiles, but they are fines that go back to the owners the same as they would in a corporation.


Nope.  No.  You don't know what LLC means.   Limited Liability means your maximum liability for a thing you own is how much you spent on it.  Investors are therefor separated from the negative consequences of their choices, and thus a huge chunk of risk.
 
2013-11-13 03:53:57 PM

ikanreed: dywed88: ikanreed: dywed88: jfarkinB: ikanreed: That's one non-person with a bunch of persons who own it.  You might as well call my car a person.  Moron.

Yeah. If your car kills a bunch of innocent people, it doesn't face prison time, you do.

And yet, when a corporation kills a bunch of innocent people...

If your car kills a bunch of people, the person in control at the time faces jail time, not the owner.

That would be the equivalent of management and/or directors. Not shareholders.

If your car falls on someone, you're liable, not your car.  Limited liability is a joke.  The shareholders are personally responsible for tacitly endorsing the behavior of a corporation.   If a corporation kills someone, every investor should be brought up on charges of hiring a killer(as long as those owners want to express their rights through their corporation).

If my friend drives my car and runs someone over I cannot go to jail because I owned the car.

Sure, there are some cases where I could be an accessory, but that has nothing to do with ownership but my acts around the incident.

Civilly it does get more complicated in both cases. The costs of civil litigation are directly passed on to shareholders in the form of share value proportional to share holdings.

There are also some regulatory penalties that are assessed based on ownership of automobiles, but they are fines that go back to the owners the same as they would in a corporation.

Nope.  No.  You don't know what LLC means.   Limited Liability means your maximum liability for a thing you own is how much you spent on it.  Investors are therefor separated from the negative consequences of their choices, and thus a huge chunk of risk.


First, when you bring up jail you are talking about criminal law. For which ownership is irrelevant.

Second, even in a limited liability situation you are still face liability. And for personal liability, it is still limited (via bankruptcy). Unless the fine/liability is so large as to exceed the value of the company you don't have any protection. The limited liability is primarily used in respect to debt.
 
2013-11-13 04:14:07 PM

ikanreed: vygramul: AngryDragon: Corporate rights
Federal rights
State's rights
Civil rights

In that order.  Sad, isn't it?

[www.bitlogic.com image 630x443]

Governments don't have rights.  You can tell that the idiot creator of that is an idiot libertarian idiot because they idiotically include "federal rights" and "states rights" in every box.  Those concepts don't enter the vernacular of people who actually care about the idea of rights.


Depends on interpretation, I suppose. The federal government has the right to tax you, for example.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report