Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a corporation is a person that can contribute to political camapigns does it commit corprocide if it puts another corporation out of business? Could this be considered corporate murder? Why should it not be considered an corporate killing?
So, what do you free-market fundamentalists think? If a corporation is a person, shouldn't Frieman be let off without a fine?
The entity, as it always is to limit the shareholder's liability. It is not a person. It is only become a person after Lincoln put it into law (indirectly).
So, what do you free-market fundamentalists think? If a corporation is a person, shouldn't Frieman be let off without a fine?
I actually support his efforts. The role of the court is to adjudicate and i'm all for bringing about judicial scrutiny to legal definitions. I find some of that stuff fascinating.
Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of "is" is" brought about much consternation from the right, but in legal terms he's right. The definition of a word can be the difference between a good outcome and a bad outcome.
I actually support his efforts. The role of the court is to adjudicate and i'm all for bringing about judicial scrutiny to legal definitions. I find some of that stuff fascinating.
Bill Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of "is" is" brought about much consternation from the right, but in legal terms he's right. The definition of a word can be the difference between a good outcome and a bad outcome.
"Is" has no precedent nor succedent.
It exists outside the confines of linearity.
Is is never not, because even isn't, is.
I almost drove a government lawyer crazy, and really frustrated the biased judge, when I answered a trick question under cross examination thusly:
Government Lawyer: "But you were always using the . . . ; correct?"
Me: "I hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but I guess it depends on what you mean by "always"."
Government Lawyer: "Yes or no. "Always" means always."
Then things got interesting.
The judge finally ruled as obiter dictum, that "always" always means always, but failed to provide any supporting or defining dicta.
It was a scopeless dictum.
It was neither there nor there. Rather, it was in fact, "their". Dicta, that is!
My conclusion: They're dicta.
Dicta is like, stuff, worthless junk.
Last edited by Statutory Ape; 01-07-2013 at 08:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
