Scalia just said "there is no difference between an individual and a corporation"

[whirlygigspin]

God he is such a moron.

on Cspan3 now

This morning, the Supreme Court examines the constitutional basis of campaign finance law when it re-hears Citizens United v. FEC. New Justice Sonia Sotomayor takes part in this special session being held before the official start of the new term.

[Deja Q]

1. Let's all become corporations and suckle for the greenback milk right next to walmart.

Fine by me...

Is that fine by you, Mr. Scalia? Why not?

[enlightenment]

2. Have they considered testing him for dementia?

Because his reasoning is getting increasingly bizarre . . .

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. Too bad they didn't do so before this case came up.

There wasn't any question how Fat Tony would vote on this case. Any excuse to get him off the bench would have been welcome.

[valerief]

9. Do corporations get dementia, too, like individuals? nt

[whirlygigspin]

19. on dementia

...if I remember the film "The Corporation" corporations have a psychological profile similar to a psychopath.

[valerief]

60. Ah, yes, I remember that, too!!!! nt

[grantcart]

3. I agree but there are people here who, while disagreeing with him still

think he is a man of great intellect.


I think it is more of a one trick pony.

[HamdenRice]

11. I've read many of his opinions and they are impressive

although basically wrong. It's hard to explain how a justice can be both wrong and rigorous, but he is, or was. I think he is getting senile, however.

He had a big impact on property rights when he first came on the court, and it was largely through the force of his reasoning.

[grantcart]

49. well I guess I find it difficult how somebody can be both "intelligent" and "wrong"

and I don't want to put words in your mouth.


It seems to me that a more accurate description is that he is "clever" and "wrong".

[HamdenRice]

53. Without breaking out casebooks, I'll put it this way:Property rights was messy and he was logical

The area where he had his biggest impact was the rights of property owners to compensation when their property is regulated for environmental or zoning purposes.

The area's rules were chaotic, and the Supreme Court had explicitly adopted a doctrine of "ad hoc" determinations. It was kind of ripe for the picking by someone with a logical bent. In other words, it was harder to defend the existing set of rules because they weren't very consistent.

The liberals had been fighting since the New Deal to show that property uses could be regulated without the government having to pay the owner compensation. But the liberals, including Marshall, had been adamant that any physical taking of land had to be compensated, even if it was just a few square inches of a building's facade (as in a famous cable franchise case).

Scalia was trying to provide consistent, if reactionary rules, and that's why his reasoning was somewhat persuasive. He asked, basically, why a few inches of cable right of way was compensable, but taking away an owner's right to build a house on undeveloped land wasn't. He persuaded lots of people including the majority of the court.

That's why he could be both intelligent (in creating a coherent doctrine) and wrong on policy (in creating a doctrine intended to make environmental regulation almost impossible).

[grantcart]

55. well that is a very clear explanation

[HamdenRice]

57. Sorry -- added a few sentences since you responded nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. I thought Scalia boasted that he is a strict constructionist

Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that a corporation is a person?

[Raineyb]

17. He must have slipped. He meant he's a strict fascist

Which is the only proper descriptor for people who so entwine corporations and government.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

27. Scalia is engaging in judicial activism

[Raineyb]

67. Only every day.

I despise that man.

[valerief]

5. Well, let's just replace him with Exxon then. nt

[Winterblues]

23. Exactly why can't Exxon be on the Extreme court or President for that matter?

Exxon for President...what a campaign that would be..

[valerief]

61. Yeah, they are anyway. nt

[dysfunctional press]

6. hey, fat tony- how do you put a corporation in prison for murder?

and seeing as you claim to be a religious man- does a corporation have an immortal soul? does a corporation need to fear hell or look forward to heaven? :shrug: what is the basis for corporate morality?

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[tridim]

8. Does that mean we don't have to pay taxes any more?

[Sanity Claws]

10. A corporation does not have the right to vote

The law at this point considers a corporation an ARTIFICIAL person, not a real one. It does not have the same rights as a real person, such as the right to vote. If it doesn't have the right to vote, it has no right to engage in speech regarding voting matters. That's essentially what this case is about.

[Barack_America]

15. Yet.

As you noted, that is essentially what this case is about.

[kelly1mm]

42. While I may agree with your overall point your claim that

"If it doesn't have the right to vote, it has no right to engage in speech regarding voting matters." is problematic. Do 17 year olds have the right to speech regarding voting matters? What about adult convicted felons? Non-citizen immigrants?

[Sanity Claws]

43. Those natural persons

will have the right to vote.
I'm inclined to say that people who will never have the right to vote, such as foreigners domiciled here non-permanently, probably shouldn't share the same rights to speech about the election that persons with the right to vote now or in the future do.

[kelly1mm]

47. Those natural persons have the potential to vote in the future.

the 17 year old could die, the convicted felon could live in a state that does not allow for reinstating of voting rights for felons and the non-citizen immigrant may never choose to become naturalized. My point was that your "no right to vote = no right to engage in political speech" was a problematic argument as it would, if taken literally, stifle the speech of many real persons.

[Sanity Claws]

48. They still have the potential

regardless of what actually happens in the future.
The corporation never has the right to vote. It is not a real person.
Scalia could not see the difference between an artificially created entity and a real person.
That was what I was responding to. I pointed out that the corporation can never have the right to vote. We distinguish between artificial and real persons all the time.

[kelly1mm]

51. Unless Scalia gets his way! I think we agree on the big picture

and I am being a bit too critical of your argument. Too many years of debate makes me hypersensitive to what I perceive as weak arguments - even when I agree with the overall conclusion. Have a great day!

[arcadian]

69. Thye don't, and if foreigners engage in political speech while on U.S. soil

they find themselves the subjects of investigations by counter-intelligence officials at the FBI and are probably deported.

[closeupready]

12. How on earth can anyone respect that man?

Seriously.

[Barack_America]

13. Well, then they should be required to die after 100 years max. nt

[fascisthunter]

14. a corporation is not nor will ever be a person

[MidwestTransplant]

16. So fine, they shoudl be limited to a 2600 contribution to any one candidate as an Individual is.

[BurtWorm]

18. Does he think corporations have a right to vote?

(Of course not, because he doesn't think citizens have that right either.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. and so fascism becomes official

[guitar man]

21. well then

where is my fucking jet?

:crazy:

[leftynyc]

22. Great - where's my corporate welfare? (n/t)

[Initech]

24. Welcome to America, land of corporate fascism. Check all brains at the door.

[MurrayDelph]

25. In that case,

I want to fine every corporation in the country that is over 18 years of age for not registering for Selective Service.

[RC]

26. Scalia is only one person. What about the rest of the SCOTUS?

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. Well, Clarence the Clown will agree with anything Fat Tony says.

Opie Roberts was appointed specifically FOR corporatist interests, and Sammy the Fish will also hold up the Bush Crime Family "values" of unlimited greed and fascism.

So you have 4 solid pro-fascist votes, easily.

And Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor should vote against it.

Kennedy, as usual, is the key vote. Will he side with the fascists, or with sanity?

[Ikonoklast]

28. Then when a corporation is convicted of criminal conduct, each shareholder

needs to go to prison, as they are the owners of said 'person'.

Shareholders must be held personally responsible for the conduct of the corporations that they own. Own shares in a company that kills people through negligence? Hello, state pen.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. We need to send Skittles to kick his ass!

[LatteLibertine]

32. I strongly disagree

furthermore if United States corporations are individuals they're sociopaths.

[Gold Metal Flake]

33. Can we hang a corporation by the neck until it is dead?

Where is the neck?

[dgibby]

72. Lethal injection. n/t

[HughMoran]

34. We know where his morals are - he's going to burn in hell

His bro Satan will be happy when he's back home.

[Seldona]

35. Great! So we can imprison 'corporations' when they break the law?

I am down.

[bemildred]

36. Corporations cannot vote. They cannot run for office. They cannot serve on the USSC.

What a fool.

[Xicano]

37. I would love to see Scalia questioned by a panel of DU'ers

DU Panel: Mr. Scalia you've previously stated that there is no difference between an individual and a corporation. Is that correct?


Scalia: Yes that is correct.


DU Panel: Would you care to explain the bases of this reasoning?


Scalia: Certainly. Well you see a corporation isn't just an inanimate object. Its made up of a group of people. Executive officers, share holders, management and labor. And since a corporation is made up of individuals, the corporation itself is no different than an individual and thus entitled to equal recognition.


DU Panel: You just mentioned company executives, share holders, management and labor. Which of these individuals make the decisions upon which what politicians and political positions the company supports and doesn't support?


Scalia: I don't know. I can't speak on behalf for others.


DU Panel: Mr. Scalia. Isn't it true that each and every one of those individuals you listed as making up a corporation has already their own individual voice, political money contributions and vote at the ballot box?


Scalia: Yes that is correct.


DU Panel: And isn't it also true, monetarily speaking, that a corporation's monetary assets are the culmination of all the labor exerted by all its employees and all the capital invested into it by all its share holders?


Scalia: Yes that is correct.


DU Panel: Now Mr. Scalia would you care to enlighten this panel of esteemed American citizens how is it that someone within that list of individuals which you cite as making up a corporation but don't know who makes the political decisions isn't getting more than just their own individual voice heard because they're speaking both on behalf of not only themselves, but, also on behalf of an inanimate object which you give the status of equal recognition?


Scalia: ......


DU Panel: While you're sitting there trying to decide what to say Mr. Scalia. Would you also care to enlighten this panel as to how is it that this person, or persons, isn't getting an unfair and unequal monetary advantage to influence politics by not only using their own individually allowed political contributions, but, also using the fore mentioned corporate assets?


DU Panel: And while you ponder on how to respond to that question Mr. Scalia, also, ponder on how to answer this question. How is it that this person, or persons, using that culmination of wealth isn't also using someone's labor in a manner not only politically contrary to that individual's wishes, but, also in a manner detrimental against that individual if it results in benefitting the corporation at that individuals' expense?



:rant:

[HughBeaumont]

38. I SHITE on the opinions of ANY of the Filthy Five, thank you very much!

Thanks loads, ya fat bastard. Thanks for the shitty economy, the mountain-sized National Debt, the wealth inequality and two unwinnable occupations. Vaffanculo, figlio di puttana stronzo!

[sonias]

39. I hate that asshole Scalia.

God didn't create a corporation, so how does a corporation get born with inalienable rights? Well actually other like thinking assholes, like you Scalia, on the SCOTUS gave them those rights.

I hope one day some corporation sticks it to him so that he suffers every offense that any individual has suffered by corporations whim. And I hope he will be able to do nothing to get justice for himself. Let's see how the taste of equality of his rights and a corporation's rights suit him then.

Sonia

[Malikshah]

40. W.S. Gilbert got it right in 1893 with Utopia, Ltd. The island nation decides

that "companification" of all their citizens is the answer to their primitive ways. They become too successful, however, with this solution...

They come up with a solution--

"Government by Party! Introduce that great and glorious element - at once the bulwark and foundation of England's greatness - and all will be well! No political measure will endure, because one Party will assuredly undo all that the other Party has done; inexperienced civilians will govern your Army and your Navy; no social reforms will be attempted, because out of vice, squalor, and drunkenness no political capital is to be made; and while grouse is to be shot, and foxes worried to death, the legislative action of the country will be at a standstill. Then there will be sickness in plenty, endless lawsuits, crowded jails, interminable confusion in the Army and the Navy, and, in short, general and unexampled prosperity!"


Yes, it's obscure satire from the Gilbert and Sullivan dating to over a century ago, but it is so frikking relevant to today....

*goes back into geeky corner*

[Joanne98]

41. We need a constitutional amendment to ban corporations from lobbying.

[Blue For You]

44. Sounds like he just debunked the Trinity.

Why have three persons in one Godhead when one will do?

[Javaman]

45. Under the eyes of the law, he's right. Corporations are looked upon and defined as

a person.

This little tidbit that has been destroying peoples lives for generations.

[ctaylors6]

58. Here's great Harvard Law School article regarding this case with lots of background:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2009/08/25/is-the-supreme-court-determined-to-expand-corporate-power/

If anyone's interested, you should also read the Bellotti case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=435&invol=765

I find the dissent by Rehnquist especially interesting. He distinguishes not only between a corporation and natural person for purposes of the first amendment, but he also distinguishes between for-profit corporations and nonprofit corporations:
"here a State permits the organization of a corporation for explicitly political purposes, this Court has held that its rights of political expression, which are necessarily incidental to its purposes, are entitled to constitutional protection. NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 428 -429 (1963). The fact that the author of that opinion, my Brother BRENNAN, has joined my Brother WHITE's dissent in this case strengthens my conclusion that nothing in Button requires that similar protection be extended to ordinary business corporations."

[jberryhill]

46. ...not for all purposes, but it is a pretty mundane observation...

..and it is the reason why you frequently run across the phrase "natural person" in law, to distinguish a human from a corporation.

But, yes, they can sue, be sued, enter into contracts, and perform a lot of everyday transactions just as a natural person.

Of course, for political purposes, they should not be persons.

Although it would be fun to have a corporation, at least 14 years a resident and 35 years old, run for president.

[GreenArrow]

50. Moron's not exactly the word I'd use.

Evil, maybe. Fiendish, maybe. Satanic works. Something inside of him, at the deepest core level is seriously sick.

[WeDidIt]

52. He's right

Under current legal precedent, which has stood for more than a century, there is no difference between an individual and a corporation in the eyes of the law.

[Witchy_Dem]

59. Thank the 14th Amendment.

he 14th Amendment: Corporations are entitled to the same rights under the Constitution that individuals are.
The balance of power has shifted. Governments are losing control to huge multinational corporations. This process is putting basic human rights and vast areas of the natural world in serious danger.

[Uncle Joe]

62. If that be the case, current legal precedent is wrong.

The primary difference between the precedent set by the Taney Court and this current legal precedent is that in the former, a race of people were disenfranchised via the demotion of their humanity and in the latter, all the people are becoming disenfranchised from their government by the promotion of artificial legal constructs, aka super-citizens.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

68. But it's not proper legal precedent

The case that allegedly established corporate personhood, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, did no such thing. The U.S. Supreme Court never addressed the issue in its opinion and never determined whether a corporation can be considered a person under the 14th amendment, entitled to equal protection. In that case, one of the Justices addressed counsel before their legal argument and stated that the court would not consider that issue, even though they felt that a corporation WAS a person. Therefore, nowhere in the opinion of that case does it state that a corporation is a person.

When the Supreme Court specifically stated in the so-called precedent-setting case that they would not consider the issue of corporate personhood and would not hear argument on the issue, how in the heck does a case come to stand down through the years for the affirmation of corporate personhood? The fact that one of the justices as an aside (obiter dictum) stated that the court believed in corporate personhood, but did not hear argument on the issue means that the issue was never adjudicated by the full court.

However, since then, succeeding cases have incorrectly treated that decision as stare decisis. Stare decisis cannot be established by obiter dictum. It must be an offcial, formal part of the opinion of the court. That's why to me guys like Scalia who are incorrectly referring to a Supreme Court case as establishing corporate personhood when that has never been soundly established under the law are engaging in judicial activism.

[Witchy_Dem]

70. I like this response.

What do you think of Judge Peter S. Grosscup's writings?

[Echo In Light]

54. There is no difference between a corporatist, and a FASCIST.

[Snotcicles]

56. Now there is an open mind ready to hear testimony. nt

[Zorra]

63. Tony must have flunked his logic class big time. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

64. Cool, I reverse my previous stand on the death penalty. Let's execute some corporations

This is unacceptable.

[valerief]

65. When do corporations die? What kills them? Will they stop getting healthcare from the US Treasury? n

[SoCalDem]

66. Legally, he may be correct.

Scotus GAVE "personhood" to corporations, so if you keep taking it one step further, it can eventually "make sense"..if you are Scalia..

He also believes that it's ok to execute someone even if you know they are innocent..as long as the conviction was arrived at in a legal manner..

[Kansas Wyatt]

71. Have him tell that to the people sitting in prison.

Really... Throw him in there with them and have him convince all of those people of that.

I do not buy the argument that 'a corporation can be dissolved.' No different than a person bankrupted, especially today.

[ljm2002]

73. What a great legal mind!

What with "no difference between and individual and a corporation" and "mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death penalty duly arrived at" -- well how much better does it get? That, my friends, is why the great Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia is sitting on the Supreme Court, interpreting matters of law for us peons: pure intellectual brilliance.

:sarcasm: