When we speak of the duty assigned a tribunal to adjudicate a dispute the correct term is jurisdiction.
GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS
When we speak of the duty assigned a tribunal to adjudicate a dispute the correct term is jurisdiction.
You are stupid, which has little to do with intellect but more with being unable to learn new things that clash with your world view.
Since the SCOTUS has recognized corporations as having rights, only a matter of time before such recognition will be given to unions and governments. You really emote instead of think.
Pmp=" .....once upon a time a super majority thought killing your unborn children was a bad thing......."
My recollection from reading Roe, which in some part contain a survey of history of abortion, this statement is untrue.
The criminalization of abortion was recent and for vast swaths of history it was, generally speaking allowed. That was
some of the rationale supporting the decision to the extent it prohibits states from burdening the right to privacy prior to viability.
It's been years since I read it, however.
People are stupid because they refuse to think outside of their narrowly conceived little world of thoughts, which is fine.
People overwhelmingly are like that.
Last edited by jimmymccready; 09-13-2018 at 08:39 AM.
I think it's bizarre to imbue a corporation with rights which in my estimation depend for their existence of biology. cf the right of a corporation to sue and be sued,
that right is not biological in origin. It's origin is to be able to protect the individual investor from liability exceeding his/her investment and is a creature of statute.
You can't have people organizing as a corporation and also insist the corporation has no exposure in addition to the investors. So that is the reason the statutes
of every stat'es corporation code state that a corporation is a natural person by construction of its laws. But in the case of say, free speech, that is a right organic
to a natural person and can be distinguished. Therefore I think it is borderline absurd to claim the corporation qua corporation has that particular right, and therefore
the right to contribute unlimited sums to campaigns secretively or otherwise. The individuals that compose the corporation already have that right to speech,
and its at least dbl dipping to confer it again if they line up in a group or create 1000 LLCs and each one can free their respective speech as a corp form by
providing money to campaigns.
Its basically an absurdity and I expect that it will be overruled once sensible apolitical minds are seated on scotus.
jimmymccready (09-13-2018)
So I was flapping my gums when you incorrectly believed I wasn't showing SCOTUS the proper respect as arbiter and now I'm stupid for not thinking outside the box and corrupting the most fundamental terminology, imbuing SCOTUS with the absurd notion that they have "rights".
And you want me to believe you understand anything about the law?
GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE OSHA REGULATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIMINALS
Fallacy of false composition, Abatis. You don't get to recast my comments into your box.
Because you can't argue my points, Abatis, you change them into a false composition.
No, it was not definitely col. mustard. with a wrench in the study.
I call BS on you and your word silliness and emotional childishness. Do you want the last word?
Abatis, you were corrected appropriately, and you have been crying ever since. I won't argue your silliness, merely point it out.
Bookmarks