Trump deserved to lose on all these points, and the Colorado Supreme Court correctly rejected his arguments on them. But I think he did have a plausible argument on the issue of whether his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack was extensive enough to qualify as “engaging” in insurrection. At the very least, he had a better argument there than on self-execution. The Court’s resolution of the latter issue is based on badly flawed reasoning and relies heavily on dubious policy arguments invoking the overblown danger of a “patchwork” of conflicting state resolutions of Section 3 issues. The Court’s venture into policy was also indefensibly one-sided, failing to consider the practical dangers of effectively neutering Section 3 with respect to candidates for federal office and holders of such positions.
Only SCOTUS can. Scotus is not bound by their own precedent.
We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.
Not true, common legislation can change the law and even abrogate the Court’s jurisdiction over matters.
But would this not only work up to the point where the laws conflict with something SCOTUS can warp the Constitution around to get their way?
Like everything in law, it depends.
Most definitely. I’d hope for Americans and especially American women, they find a way to assure full access to reproductive healthcare across the US. And a way to abolish corporate personhood, cause these things seem to really wreak havoc on the US and the world.
Corporate “personhood” is actually really important to a modern society. It’s largely misunderstood.
Why? There’s plenty modern countries without it, and they seem to do fine.
No, there aren’t. Any place that conducts business in a form recognizable from the 1600s onward has the legal and economic framework for an incorporated entity to hold property, seek legal redress for perceived harms, engage in contractual relationships, be held liable for malfeasance, and all the other privileges and responsibilities which accompany what has commonly come to be referred to as “legal personhood” in online discourse. You literally cannot form a business, local activist organization, or even just a partnership without these concepts established into law.
I see you are posting from a Dutch instance; the Netherlands, for example, has at least six different types of corporate structures which establish a legal personality.
Aha, just reading up there’s a myriad of rules. I was addressing the citizens united ruling of 2010 giving corporations the right to unlimited political spending because they are legally a ‘person’.
That’s que uniquely American imho, and not really worth spreading to legislature elsewhere.
I think most people understand why it exists, but in practice it is used as a way to shield the people making the decisions from consequences.
And the way it allows companies to influence politics in the US is pretty darn detrimental.
The fact that we now learn that many people controlling some of the larges companies in the world knew they where actively destroying the planet, hurting peoples health, poisoning people and kept quiet… for decades… meaning there is no recourse for us (the collective us) while some individuals get rich.
The fact that shipping companies create individual llcs for ships so they can cut the loss in case of a disaster and leave us holding the bag for the consequences cannot be what we want for our planet and future.
If corporate personhood can/needs to stay that’s fine, as long as we adress these issues then.
Yeah, 100% what you said.