ITT: Citizens United Get's a Devil's Advocate

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.

This'n?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html

Gonna be interesting. Easy out with the whole international thing if they want to take it, though that'd be pretty ballzy with Citizen's United still floating in the air. First I've seen of this but I'm assuming no "how" has been established, since "if" was still up in the air. If they say yes to "if", if and how they address "how" will be pretty interesting, too. If they just throw "is people" at the corporation and leave "how" untouched, "is people" gets broader. If they give some standard, however minimal or non-binding, "is people" get's narrower. Of course with this being international I'm not sure if it's to be decided under treaty, constitution, statute or what. It's possible that it could yield a whole new corporate person entirely.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.

This'n?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html

Gonna be interesting. Easy out with the whole international thing if they want to take it, though that'd be pretty ballzy with Citizen's United still floating in the air. First I've seen of this but I'm assuming no "how" has been established, since "if" was still up in the air. If they say yes to "if", if and how they address "how" will be pretty interesting, too. If they just throw "is people" at the corporation and leave "how" untouched, "is people" gets broader. If they give some standard, however minimal or non-binding, "is people" get's narrower. Of course with this being international I'm not sure if it's to be decided under treaty, constitution, statute or what. It's possible that it could yield a whole new corporate person entirely.

That's not the one I heard about, but it's very interesting! It's going to be quite a year.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

There's a case being tried right now that I am trying to remember enough about to find it... all I can remember is that the issue is one in which the corporation is being sued as a person.

This'n?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html

Gonna be interesting. Easy out with the whole international thing if they want to take it, though that'd be pretty ballzy with Citizen's United still floating in the air. First I've seen of this but I'm assuming no "how" has been established, since "if" was still up in the air. If they say yes to "if", if and how they address "how" will be pretty interesting, too. If they just throw "is people" at the corporation and leave "how" untouched, "is people" gets broader. If they give some standard, however minimal or non-binding, "is people" get's narrower. Of course with this being international I'm not sure if it's to be decided under treaty, constitution, statute or what. It's possible that it could yield a whole new corporate person entirely.

That's not the one I heard about, but it's very interesting! It's going to be quite a year.

Got as far as the question of whether there is a an applicable law that Dutch broke in aiding and abetting extra-judicial killing, and lost my appetite. This one's ugly...