Members bsman Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 The concern over whether the court is going to outlaw the sale of used guitars is silly and unwarranted. Yes -- but how about if they have PAF (patent applied for) pickups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members honeyiscool Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Considering out supreme court is illegal and corrupt, I don't have faith in them to do the right thing. This country is so effin' screwed up it's not funny. Ha what? How is the Supreme Court illegal and corrupt? How illegal? They can't make laws, they can only decide on cases that have come up through other courts. And how corrupt? Justices never face re-election... for the large part, you have your conservative justices and your liberal justices and they largely vote based on where their beliefs lie, not based on who pays them... because nobody does. I'd argue that they're the only branch of government that you can truly trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Ha what? How is the Supreme Court illegal and corrupt? How illegal? They can't make laws, they can only decide on cases that have come up through other courts. And how corrupt? Justices never face re-election... for the large part, you have your conservative justices and your liberal justices and they largely vote based on where their beliefs lie, not based on who pays them... because nobody does. I'd argue that they're the only branch of government that you can truly trust. Uhm, let's see ... Citizens United, corporations are legally people Super PACs, corporations have no limit on campaign contributions, considered free speach? Corporate expansion of Eminent Domain, i.e. corporations can now take your property And one of my favorites in Indiana, No Legal Right To Resist Unlawful Entry! Several decisions have turned the Constitution on it's ass. What part of illegal and corrupt don't you get? I used to be a very right wing person politically, but I can assure you that all of these decisions are WRONG! You don't have the freedoms that I had when I was your age. It's going to continue to get much worse with a {censored}ed up court system like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DarkHorseJ27 Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Uhm, let's see ... Citizens United, corporations are legally people Super PACs, corporations have no limit on campaign contributions, considered free speach? Corporate expansion of Eminent Domain, i.e. corporations can now take your property And one of my favorites in Indiana, No Legal Right To Resist Unlawful Entry! Several decisions have turned the Constitution on it's ass. What part of illegal and corrupt don't you get? I used to be a very right wing person politically, but I can assure you that all of these decisions are WRONG! You don't have the freedoms that I had when I was your age. It's going to continue to get much worse with a {censored}ed up court system like this. Your hyperlinks are misleading, at least compared to the information the links contain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kulardenu Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Hyperlinks aside those are some pretty corrupt decisions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DarkHorseJ27 Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 Hyperlinks aside those are some pretty corrupt decisions... One may argue they follow the letter of the Constitution, but whether or not they follow the spirit of it is an entirely different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted October 8, 2012 Members Share Posted October 8, 2012 The legal opinion that corporations are people pre-dates Citizens United by a LONG time. What Citizens United did was state that corporations could make unlimited donations to political causes without disclosure. That includes wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign corporations being able to make unlimited donations to influence US politics. What's funny is that corporations can get all the benefits of being "persons" but none of the bad things . . . when was the last time a corporation was sentenced to prison for negligent homicide? Uhm, let's see ... Citizens United, corporations are legally people Super PACs, corporations have no limit on campaign contributions, considered free speach? Corporate expansion of Eminent Domain, i.e. corporations can now take your property And one of my favorites in Indiana, No Legal Right To Resist Unlawful Entry! Several decisions have turned the Constitution on it's ass. What part of illegal and corrupt don't you get? I used to be a very right wing person politically, but I can assure you that all of these decisions are WRONG! You don't have the freedoms that I had when I was your age. It's going to continue to get much worse with a {censored}ed up court system like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 Your hyperlinks are misleading, at least compared to the information the links contain.OK, I was in a hurry. I'll try to find some unbiased links in a bit. Kinda busy at the moment. I KNOW the 4th link is correct though as Tony George, owner of the Indy 500 and one of the wealthiest people in Indiana, tried to close down and take away Dotlich Crane, a small family business here in town. I went to school with one of the Dotlich boys and his uncle used to weight train at Pat Vidan's Studio Of Health when I was a kid. Good people. George was going to uproot Dotlich Crane, which has been located in the same spot forever, and give them next to nothing for their property and business. It wasn't until a very vocal member of The Speedway Press (and fortunately for Dotlich a relative) became very vocal about this and the bad press stopped George from usurping the property. If the government needs to build a freeway to benefit people, that's one thing. But a corporation should have to pay for any property they acquire. Period! EDIT: And the 3rd one is right too, so I guess I only need to look up 2 and not all 4 as you alluded. This was a bipartisan decision. And one of my favorites in Indiana, No Legal Right To Resist Unlawful Entry! Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry. "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment. When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him. Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence. "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer." Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree." Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling. But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad." This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home. On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike Fiasco Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 They aren't discounted by the Canadian government really. Unlike (as an example), the medicare drug plan passed in the US in 2005 which doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate lower pricing,, Canadian drug laws permit negotiation of drug prices with the suppliers. The Canadian government isn't doing the discounting, they simply have different negotiation and pricing guidelines which allow them to obtain lower prices from the manufacturer.. I had heard that the Canadian government subsidizes drug costs in their borders. Was I incorrect? You are right that Medicare does not negotiate with drug manufacturers, but in fact they have mandated 50% discounts for certain Medicare recipients. No negotiation required apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 The legal opinion that corporations are people pre-dates Citizens United by a LONG time. What Citizens United did was state that corporations could make unlimited donations to political causes without disclosure. That includes wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign corporations being able to make unlimited donations to influence US politics. What's funny is that corporations can get all the benefits of being "persons" but none of the bad things . . . when was the last time a corporation was sentenced to prison for negligent homicide? OK, well that was basically what I wanted to get across in my 3rd link. Horrible, absolutely horrible. :mad: :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 Hyperlinks aside those are some pretty corrupt decisions...That's my point. These so called justices have no business deciding ethics for the rest of the country. This is how it all begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DarkHorseJ27 Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 OK, I was in a hurry. I'll try to find some unbiased links in a bit. Kinda busy at the moment. I KNOW the 4th link is correct though as Tony George, owner of the Indy 500 and one of the wealthiest people in Indiana, tried to close down and take away Dotlich Crane, a small family business here in town. I went to school with one of the Dotlich boys and his uncle used to weight train at Pat Vidan's Studio Of Health when I was a kid. Good people. George was going to uproot Dotlich Crane, which has been located in the same spot forever, and give them next to nothing for their property and business. It wasn't until a very vocal member of The Speedway Press (and fortunately for Dotlich a relative) became very vocal about this and the bad press stopped George from usurping the property. If the government needs to build a freeway to benefit people, that's one thing. But a corporation should have to pay for any property they acquire. Period! I wasn't complaining that the sources were biased. Your first hyperlink was "Citizens United, corporations are legally people" and the information it linked to, at glance, seemed to be concerned about corporations' first amendment rights. In "Super PACs, corporations have no limit on campaign contributions, considered free speach?" under the definition of super PACs it said they aren't allowed to make contributions of campaigns or candidates. And in "Corporate expansion of Eminent Domain, i.e. corporations can now take your property?" it states that the local government must also be involved for land to be seized. Your sources undermine what you hyperlinks say somewhat. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just noting the discrepancies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 I wasn't complaining that the sources were biased. Your first hyperlink was "Citizens United, corporations are legally people" and the information it linked to, at glance, seemed to be concerned about corporations' first amendment rights. In "Super PACs, corporations have no limit on campaign contributions, considered free speach?" under the definition of super PACs it said they aren't allowed to make contributions of campaigns or candidates. And in "Corporate expansion of Eminent Domain, i.e. corporations can now take your property?" it states that the local government must also be involved for land to be seized. Your sources undermine what you hyperlinks say somewhat. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just noting the discrepancies.Sorry, I was in a hurry. My fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members etawful Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 I wasn't complaining that the sources were biased. Your first hyperlink was "Citizens United, corporations are legally people" and the information it linked to, at glance, seemed to be concerned about corporations' first amendment rights. In "Super PACs, corporations have no limit on campaign contributions, considered free speach?" under the definition of super PACs it said they aren't allowed to make contributions of campaigns or candidates. And in "Corporate expansion of Eminent Domain, i.e. corporations can now take your property?" it states that the local government must also be involved for land to be seized. Your sources undermine what you hyperlinks say somewhat. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just noting the discrepancies. Well technically, in order for an entity to have First Amendment rights, it must be a person. The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-persons. However, the status of corporations as "people" predates Citizens United by quite some time and dates back nearly to the founding of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kulardenu Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 Corporations that kill should go to prison IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doctor Morbius Posted October 9, 2012 Members Share Posted October 9, 2012 Corporations that kill should go to prison IMHO...Limited Liability keeps a lot of evil doers from going to prison, if that's what you mean. Not quite sure what you really mean though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.