SCOTUS Chief John Roberts Makes a Joke

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
I guess this passes for humor:

We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/Sound Effect - Rimshot.wav


The case is actually pretty interesting and I am glad that the Roberts court reached the correct result in a unanimous decision. Basically, ATT argued that because corporations are "persons," corporations are protected from FOIA disclosures that would constitute "an unwarranted violation of personal privacy." Thankfully, the Court disagreed.

Here's the opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1279.ZO.html
 
I guess this passes for humor:



http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/Sound Effect - Rimshot.wav


The case is actually pretty interesting and I am glad that the Roberts court reached the correct result in a unanimous decision. Basically, ATT argued that because corporations are "persons," corporations are protected from FOIA disclosures that would constitute "an unwarranted violation of personal privacy." Thankfully, the Court disagreed.

Here's the opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1279.ZO.html

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
 
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


And?

As former Solicitor General to the United States of America, which office represented the Federal Communications Commission before the Supreme Court, she was required to recuse herself from the case.
 
conservative judges knows whats up, they don't try to make shit up and inject their bullshit into the constitution. feels good.
 
Back
Top