That monstrousity keeps coming back, I keep asking, were any humans personally denied their rights?
The plaintiffs in the was clearly outsmarted the dufas judges, had the judges ask to see the human victims first, before the corporate victim, then who would have stepped forward? The entire witness to the corporate rights violation, according to plaintiff, the corporate officers who hare expert witnesses precisely because they were not personally injured.
The case falls apart, humans were involved, if there was rights damage, humans would have felt it, humans would have shed up as plaintiffs, they didn't. Our Supremes are dim bulbs, folks, they all have that Sotomayor problem.
Consider the shareholders, what was there grievance?
They invested in a corporation that makes and sells political materials. They thought, what? they oould make some money this season with the new poduct. Likely, actually, that was likely their real greivence, and that is not a fundamental rights issue.
The majority vote of the shareholders grants them ownership of the material, they gain private control, and walk the materials over to be sold as a group. The structure of the corporate limited liability law is clear, it rest on the principle that shareholders are absentee owners, thee is no condition under which their personal rights can be violated by corporate action or inaction. They were not even material witnesses, having agreed to abstain on personal matters when they signed the ownership contract.
The Supremes really frigged this up, a Sotomayor humongo.
No comments:
Post a Comment