Skip to content
 
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.

(Twitter)   "Can a former child slave sue ten slaveholders as individuals?" "Yes." "Can a former child slave sue those ten slaveholders if they form a corporation?" "No." "How does that make any sense?"   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, shot  
•       •       •

4011 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Dec 2020 at 11:09 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-12-01 7:01:48 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-12-01 7:07:11 PM  
Because Corporations have always been more important than people. Ask India how the British East India corporation treated them.
 
2020-12-01 7:21:39 PM  
Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.
 
2020-12-01 7:29:26 PM  

lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.


Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.
 
2020-12-01 7:31:01 PM  
If a corporation that paid people to abduct and hold people in slavery hires a lawyer to try to protect their enterprise that uses and continues to use slavery, could that lawyer be tried to aiding and abetting slavery?
 
2020-12-01 7:34:15 PM  
The entire issue in the case as it stands before the Supreme Court appears to revolve around whether our courts should be hearing matters that do not involve ANY United States player or action.

In other words, should our courts be open to foreigners who simply want to sue a foreign company for things that happen in a foreign country.

Because that's a deeply controversial thing legally.  Particularly when you have a federal court system that is, at its heart, designed to be a limited jurisdiction court.

Making our courts the venue for litigating matters that have no contact with our country invites other countries to do the same and, eventually, in a world where China dominates the world scene, puts Americans fighting with American companies into court in China where one side might see an advantage...which perhaps may not be as desirable as folks might think at the moment.
 
2020-12-01 7:37:19 PM  

wademh: If a corporation that paid people to abduct and hold people in slavery hires a lawyer to try to protect their enterprise that uses and continues to use slavery, could that lawyer be tried to aiding and abetting slavery?


Can a lawyer who defends you when you're accused of beating your girlfriend be charged with aiding and abetting domestic violence?

Can a lawyer who defends a persistent pedophile be charged with aiding and abetting pedophilia?

Can you have no lawyers any more and just be at the mercy of your own wits versus a prosecutor?
 
2020-12-01 7:40:51 PM  

wejash: The entire issue in the case as it stands before the Supreme Court appears to revolve around whether our courts should be hearing matters that do not involve ANY United States player or action.

In other words, should our courts be open to foreigners who simply want to sue a foreign company for things that happen in a foreign country.

Because that's a deeply controversial thing legally.  Particularly when you have a federal court system that is, at its heart, designed to be a limited jurisdiction court.

Making our courts the venue for litigating matters that have no contact with our country invites other countries to do the same and, eventually, in a world where China dominates the world scene, puts Americans fighting with American companies into court in China where one side might see an advantage...which perhaps may not be as desirable as folks might think at the moment.


Being able to outsource to slave labor so you can realize the cost savings from slave labor is a bit much.  The supplier is just a middleman because Nestle etc can't get away with using slave labor directly.
 
2020-12-01 7:43:16 PM  
Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.
 
2020-12-01 7:47:19 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.


That was my take.
 
2020-12-01 7:56:06 PM  

wejash: wademh: If a corporation that paid people to abduct and hold people in slavery hires a lawyer to try to protect their enterprise that uses and continues to use slavery, could that lawyer be tried to aiding and abetting slavery?

Can a lawyer who defends you when you're accused of beating your girlfriend be charged with aiding and abetting domestic violence?

Can a lawyer who defends a persistent pedophile be charged with aiding and abetting pedophilia?

Can you have no lawyers any more and just be at the mercy of your own wits versus a prosecutor?


If the lawyer is aware that their defendant is a pedophile that is continuing to abuse the children they are charged with abusing, that lawyer is defending continuing criminal conduct. The key to the question is that it isn't about defense of past behavior but continuing criminal behavior.
 
2020-12-01 8:06:23 PM  
Headline ten years from now: "The CEO of Jingo, a multinational corporation, is the 48th Business Executive to be murdered in cold blood this year."
 
2020-12-01 8:10:20 PM  

nyseattitude: Headline ten years from now: "The CEO of Jingo, a multinational corporation, is the 48th Business Executive to be murdered in cold blood this year."


If only.

/it wont happen
 
2020-12-01 8:21:05 PM  

wejash: lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.

Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.


We need to have a corporate death penalty AND we need to be able to hold their boards or executives responsible for criminal actions of the corporation.

If they wanna be people, the cops need to be able to shoot them in their own house. Otherwise, we need to severely restrict their rights as a trade off.
 
2020-12-01 8:34:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.


Great guy, right? Lol.
 
2020-12-01 8:40:58 PM  
Just remember: Nestle uses slave labor. Literal slaves.
 
2020-12-01 8:48:11 PM  
I will not believe that a corporation is a person until a corporation gets executed.
 
2020-12-01 8:55:28 PM  

wademh: If a corporation that paid people to abduct and hold people in slavery hires a lawyer to try to protect their enterprise that uses and continues to use slavery, could that lawyer be tried to aiding and abetting slavery?


But you can't sue the gorillas once they freeze in winter.
 
2020-12-01 9:18:06 PM  

wejash: In other words, should our courts be open to foreigners who simply want to sue a foreign company for things that happen in a foreign country.


Except that these are not foreign corporations.

These are the domestic, US-based parts of multinational corporations.
 
2020-12-01 9:44:38 PM  

wejash: wademh: If a corporation that paid people to abduct and hold people in slavery hires a lawyer to try to protect their enterprise that uses and continues to use slavery, could that lawyer be tried to aiding and abetting slavery?

Can a lawyer who defends you when you're accused of beating your girlfriend be charged with aiding and abetting domestic violence?

Can a lawyer who defends a persistent pedophile be charged with aiding and abetting pedophilia?

Can you have no lawyers any more and just be at the mercy of your own wits versus a prosecutor?


That's the reality of poor respondents in civil suits.

And  I'd like to see some form of corporate responsibility enacted.

Because I'm of the school of thought that a corporation becomes a person when Texas executes one.
 
2020-12-01 11:12:03 PM  

wejash: lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.

Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.


The biggest problem I have is a person can go to prison but a corporation can't go to prison. That's a far different level of punishment.
 
2020-12-01 11:12:08 PM  
Corporations have limited liability? The corporation is an entity unto itself? However, if the corporation commits a crime, I think those who have managerial control of the corporation should be held criminally liable.
 
2020-12-01 11:14:52 PM  

dr_blasto: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

Great guy, right? Lol.


Attorneys are hired by clients to do the bidding of the client, not to pass judgement on whether the client was in the right or not. Sometimes, attorneys are hired to do some pretty stinking thing. And they're not allowed to go all Al Pacino on them.
 
2020-12-01 11:15:53 PM  

king of vegas: wejash: lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.

Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.

The biggest problem I have is a person can go to prison but a corporation can't go to prison. That's a far different level of punishment.


Don't shareholders own corporations? Don't we have an amendment that says you can't own people?
 
2020-12-01 11:16:45 PM  
The Corporation - Feature Film
Youtube zpQYsk-8dWg
 
2020-12-01 11:18:47 PM  
Execute the board members and corporations would do better.
 
2020-12-01 11:19:11 PM  

dericwater: dr_blasto: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

Great guy, right? Lol.

Attorneys are hired by clients to do the bidding of the client, not to pass judgement on whether the client was in the right or not. Sometimes, attorneys are hired to do some pretty stinking thing. And they're not allowed to go all Al Pacino on them.


Did you know attorneys are not indentured servants or slaves, and can refuse to take on a potential client? Especially if they want to argue that slavery is OK and the fact that we didn't prosecute the corporations that made Zyklon B. Cause if I was an attorney I'd have to say no thanks.
 
2020-12-01 11:19:34 PM  

dericwater: dr_blasto: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

Great guy, right? Lol.

Attorneys are hired by clients to do the bidding of the client, not to pass judgement on whether the client was in the right or not. Sometimes, attorneys are hired to do some pretty stinking thing. And they're not allowed to go all Al Pacino on them.


The attorney does not have to take the case, unless they are greedy slime.
 
2020-12-01 11:19:37 PM  

HedlessChickn: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

That was my take.


I'll take the Solicitor General who is best at arguing over the Solicitor General who has integrity. It's a hired gun position.
 
2020-12-01 11:20:12 PM  

wejash: The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.


Yup. It's right there in the root word of corporation.
 
2020-12-01 11:20:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.


That can happen when you join a prestigious multinational law firm.
 
2020-12-01 11:20:42 PM  
Jack White - Corporation (Official Video)
Youtube 8vKTaoxvZMY
 
2020-12-01 11:21:24 PM  

Dafatone: HedlessChickn: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

That was my take.

I'll take the Solicitor General who is best at arguing over the Solicitor General who has integrity. It's a hired gun position.


That's pretty much the excuse for Trump supporters, too.
 
2020-12-01 11:21:47 PM  
Corporations are people, except when they aren't.
 
2020-12-01 11:21:50 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.


That's not true.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-01 11:22:07 PM  

dr_blasto: wejash: lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.

Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.

We need to have a corporate death penalty AND we need to be able to hold their boards or executives responsible for criminal actions of the corporation.

If they wanna be people, the cops need to be able to shoot them in their own house. Otherwise, we need to severely restrict their rights as a trade off.


Don't worry. Like every other conservative legal invention, it will come back to bite them in the ass. Look at separation of church and state. Idea that mostly came into practice in order not to contribute public funds to them "filthy public schools"
 
2020-12-01 11:22:48 PM  
This is why I argue that after you;re born you should be incorporated, so you have rights.

I've begun to wonder, am I better off setting up a corporation that bears my name, then selling myself in to slavery to that entity, so that way I'm technically "property" and that way I have legal claim in case I get damaged for any reason. I'm likely better protected as property than as simple personhood.

That way, when the cops come to beat me senseless, I'm more likely to receive compensation as property damage instead of just trying to get medical coverage.

You think it's crazy, keep in mind the cops that shot Brenna Taylor suffered no legal consequences for the murder, but did see repercussions for damaging the neighbor's walls.
 
2020-12-01 11:22:53 PM  

astelmaszek: dr_blasto: wejash: lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.

Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.

We need to have a corporate death penalty AND we need to be able to hold their boards or executives responsible for criminal actions of the corporation.

If they wanna be people, the cops need to be able to shoot them in their own house. Otherwise, we need to severely restrict their rights as a trade off.

Don't worry. Like every other conservative legal invention, it will come back to bite them in the ass. Look at separation of church and state. Idea that mostly came into practice in order not to contribute public funds to them "filthy public schools"


Catholic schools
 
2020-12-01 11:23:45 PM  

dericwater: Corporations have limited liability? The corporation is an entity unto itself? However, if the corporation commits a crime, I think those who have managerial control of the corporation should be held criminally liable.


Corporations don't make decisions.  People do.
 
2020-12-01 11:32:19 PM  

andrewagill: wejash: In other words, should our courts be open to foreigners who simply want to sue a foreign company for things that happen in a foreign country.

Except that these are not foreign corporations.

These are the domestic, US-based parts of multinational corporations.


US-based companies are foreign companies to foreigners.

What wejash was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), why should an African person be able to sue an American company in an American court if the American company was not the one who was the direct slave-owner?

The slaves were owned by the farmers. Nestle, etc apparently knowingly bought food from these farmers.

So the question is: Can a former African slave sue an American company in an American court because that company bought something in Africa from an African slave-owning farmer. The slave, the farmer, and the purchase all occurred in Africa. The company is headquartered in the US.

What is being decided is if this could be settled in an American court.

The lawyer here is arguing a case to stop what could be a very big precedent. This would dramatically expand the sphere of liability for American businesses.

Personally, I would like to see the court decide against Nestle, etc, as this would dramatically extend the liability for their actions for all American businesses operating overseas.

But would *this* SCOTUS allow this to happen? No.
 
2020-12-01 11:32:47 PM  
Cant wait for all the Mexican Jokers that are being created right now to start puttin in that work.
 
2020-12-01 11:33:04 PM  

dericwater: dr_blasto: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

Great guy, right? Lol.

Attorneys are hired by clients to do the bidding of the client, not to pass judgement on whether the client was in the right or not. Sometimes, attorneys are hired to do some pretty stinking thing. And they're not allowed to go all Al Pacino on them.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-12-01 11:52:31 PM  

HerptheDerp: This is why I argue that after you;re born you should be incorporated, so you have rights.

I've begun to wonder, am I better off setting up a corporation that bears my name, then selling myself in to slavery to that entity, so that way I'm technically "property" and that way I have legal claim in case I get damaged for any reason. I'm likely better protected as property than as simple personhood.

That way, when the cops come to beat me senseless, I'm more likely to receive compensation as property damage instead of just trying to get medical coverage.

You think it's crazy, keep in mind the cops that shot Brenna Taylor suffered no legal consequences for the murder, but did see repercussions for damaging the neighbor's walls.


I hate that this makes any kind of farking sense at all.
 
2020-12-01 11:55:05 PM  

Dafatone: HedlessChickn: Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama's former Solicitor General arguing on behalf of slavery. Neato.

That was my take.

I'll take the Solicitor General who is best at arguing over the Solicitor General who has integrity. It's a hired gun position.


Cool, let's have another administration devoid of integrity, because it worked so well this time!
 
2020-12-01 11:56:11 PM  
It's the age old story of limited liability corporations. If Joe Schmo pours toxic chemicals on your property causing ten million dollars of damages, how much can you sue him for? Ten million dollars. If Joe Schmo is the CEO of Exxon and Exxon pours toxic chemicals on your property causing ten million dollars worth of damages how much can you sue Joe Schmo for personally? Only as much as he had invested in the LLC.
 
2020-12-01 11:57:22 PM  

scanman61: dericwater: Corporations have limited liability? The corporation is an entity unto itself? However, if the corporation commits a crime, I think those who have managerial control of the corporation should be held criminally liable.

Corporations don't make decisions.  People do.


whoa whoa hey some people who paid some legislators a long time ago decided on some cover your ass rules like businesses can own businesses and take the money out of other businesses so you can't sue the little business when the big business wants some international child slavery laws broken so take it up with the Delaware Secretary of State who is definitely not in on the take
 
2020-12-02 12:03:24 AM  
Wasn
 
2020-12-02 12:09:33 AM  

astelmaszek: dr_blasto: wejash: lolmao500: Citizen united needs to die. Corporations being people is one sick idea and it needs to be overturned. Whoever argued and ruled it was a good idea should be fed to hungry dogs game of thrones style.

Citizens United would seem to have absolutely zero to do with the case or the principle at play in the case.

The idea that corporations are considered persons under the law goes back to the very foundation of the concept of a corporation.  It's inherent in that idea that they can exist, own property, sue and be sued.  It's not even particularly controversial.  Indeed, it's crucial to a lot of how the economy can function.

Citizens United ONLY stands for the idea that a corporation can not only have economic constitutional rights but can have the rights of an individual under the Bill of Rights, specifically to free political speech.  As it doesn't typically serve the economic needs of a corporation to have political speech rights, it has never been seen as necessary to existence of the corporate entity.

And you can eliminate Citizens United without doing away with the corporations as people legal fiction.

We need to have a corporate death penalty AND we need to be able to hold their boards or executives responsible for criminal actions of the corporation.

If they wanna be people, the cops need to be able to shoot them in their own house. Otherwise, we need to severely restrict their rights as a trade off.

Don't worry. Like every other conservative legal invention, it will come back to bite them in the ass. Look at separation of church and state. Idea that mostly came into practice in order not to contribute public funds to them "filthy public schools"


Except conservatives legal inventions screw the entire society. If they would just off themselves with their stupidity why not but its not the case.

Maybe we should do like India where every religion has their own little legal system.
 
2020-12-02 12:10:41 AM  
ansius:

What wejash was saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), why should an African person be able to sue an American company in an American court if the American company was not the one who was the direct slave-owner?

Foreign nationals sue Americans in an American court for their conduct all the time.  Hell there are legal provisions that allow you to sue non-Americans in an American court because their domestic courts aren't interested in entertaining the case, including an Israeli successfully suing Syria and Iran because someone in their family got robbed.
 
2020-12-02 12:12:02 AM  
Kaytal is utterly wrong when he says that the owners of a corporation cannot be sued for slavery under international law. he is plain wrong. However, the whole line of questioning is bizarre because slavery is an international crime. That is not a "norm" but black letter law.

The USA is not party to any of that criminal legislation though, because it would invalidate the US Constitution regarding convicted prisoners.

The entire line of questining is false, though. Just so you know, Americans.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.