The Abortion Memo - David Brooks

[homersapien 11,453]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes but Scalia is, to whom I referred in the comment you responded to. 

So what? 

How does Citizens United rely on textualism per se'?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So they should vote, right?

Simply because corporations are legal entities that can own property and incur liabilities hardly makes them citizens. 

Not sure what you mean by the "true colors" remark, but your position is a lot more radical than mine.

Of course they cannot vote. No one would ever argue that they could. Corporations are juridical persons, authorized by law with certain obligations equivalent to those of a "natural person." To be literal, a corporation is composed of citizens who act for the corporation, i.e., citizens which make up the "juridical person" that a corporation is. 

In what way is my position radical???????? 

When a lawsuit is between two individuals, it is easy to determine citizenship—it’s the state of permanent residence.  But what about corporations?  The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that a corporation is a citizen of both (1) the state where it is incorporated, and (2) “the State where it has its principal place of business.”

It is safe to say that you lack fundamental understanding to proceed in this conversation. 

[homersapien 11,453]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The operative words seem to refer to things such as:

20 weeks or more gestation (give or take a week or so).

The life of the mother being in danger.

In other words, roughly what the GOP proposed earlier this week with the late term abortion ban that was shot down by the Dems.  Hence, Brooks' column.

That's why I said Brooks made some good points.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Of course they cannot vote. No one would ever argue that they could. Corporations are juridical persons, authorized by law with certain obligations equivalent to those of a "natural person." To be literal, a corporation is composed of citizens who act for the corporation, i.e., citizens which make up the "juridical person" that a corporation is. 

In what way is my position radical???????? 

When a lawsuit is between two individuals, it is easy to determine citizenship—it’s the state of permanent residence.  But what about corporations?  The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that a corporation is a citizen of both (1) the state where it is incorporated, and (2) “the State where it has its principal place of business.”

It is safe to say that you lack fundamental understanding to proceed in this conversation. 

If corporations are "citizens", then they should have the right to vote.  You can't have it both ways.

And simply because a corporation's legal parameters depend on the state in which it was incorporated doesn't make it a "citizen" of that state.  

Citizens are legal entities but not all legal entities are citizens.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If corporations are "citizens", then they should have the right to vote.  You can't have it both ways.

And simply because a corporation's legal parameters depend on the state in which it was incorporated doesn't make it a "citizen" of that state.  

Citizens are legal entities but not all legal entities are citizens.

 

Good god Homer!!!!!!!! See 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1332

(c)For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title—

(1)a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business, except that in any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of—

(A)

every State and foreign state of which the insured is a citizen;

(B)

every State and foreign state by which the insurer has been incorporated; and

(C)

the State or foreign state where the insurer has its principal place of business; and

 

 

Voting is not a matter of "citizenry," in the sense that you are arguing for. You're wrong, and that is a fact. Just admit, for once, that you are completely wrong.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

40 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So what? 

How does Citizens United rely on textualism per se'?

When I mentioned Grouch's textualism, you spewed out your "money is speech and corporations are citizens" remark. The only possible basis, though erroneous basis, I presumed was Citizens United. I'f I am wrong, then please explain the "money is speech and corporations are citizens" remark. 

 

[homersapien 11,453]

OK, you are right.  You just "schooled me" on the legal aspects of corporations as citizens or persons. 

Guess I am just not as much of a legal expert as you are. ( Considering the cheap insult ratio, I am not as much of an as**hole as you are either, but I digress.....)

Regardless, it's not something I - or many others - agree with.  I think it has the potential of destroying our liberty. There is just insufficient accountability.  (It would help if we started jailing CEO's and corporate boards in the case of criminal activity.)

Interestingly, my position has always been that corporations - being merely legal institutions - should not pay income taxes at all.  I always felt income tax should be paid only when profits are distrubuted to actual citizens.

I guess I'll have to change my position on that.  We should require corporations to pay income tax at the appropriate rate for the highest bracket for which they qualify. Not necessarily the best thing for the country, but fair is fair.

[homersapien 11,453]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When I mentioned Grouch's textualism, you spewed out your "money is speech and corporations are citizens" remark. The only possible basis, though erroneous basis, I presumed was Citizens United. I'f I am wrong, then please explain the "money is speech and corporations are citizens" remark. 

BTW, I just schooled you on corporate citizenship, buddy.

Freudian slip?  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Freudian slip?  

A slip, but not a Freudian Slip. 

Also, I deleted the insult - forgot this isn't smack talk. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

OK, you are right.  You just "schooled me" on the legal aspects of corporations as citizens or persons. 

Guess I am just not as much of a legal expert as you are. ( Considering the cheap insult ratio, I am not as much of an as**hole as you are either, but I digress.....)

Regardless, it's not something I - or many others - agree with.  I think it has the potential of destroying our liberty. There is just insufficient accountability.  (It would help if we started jailing CEO's and corporate boards in the case of criminal activity.)

Interestingly, my position has always been that corporations - being merely legal institutions - should not pay income taxes at all.  I always felt income tax should be paid only when profits are distrubuted to actual citizens.

I guess I'll have to change my position on that.  We should require corporations to pay income tax at the appropriate rate for the highest bracket for which they qualify. Not necessarily the best thing for the country, but fair is fair.

I'm no expert either. Just nitpicking. Didn't mean to derail thread. 

Yes, it makes for an interesting convo. There are many blurred lines. 

[DKW 86 7,441]

There comes a time in our journey when we often do the right thing for the wrong reasons. It has happened throughout history. I think Mr Brooks has hit upon what may be the next leg of our journey. I have marveled at how anti-science many of my liberal brethren get over this topic. Their stance has become more emotional knee jerk than anything remotely resembling logic or science. The Tissue in question doesnt have the DNA of the mother. The tissue mass has uniquely different and provably different DNA.When we have fully viable babies at 22 Weeks, to continue further is just insane. The issue is no longer Rights of One Persons Body. There are two people at play here. 

This is a disgusting issue. Maybe the worst of all choices is termination.We have many people waiting years and wasting $10Ks for a chance to raise a child. There are so many more better options. Today, choosing the worst option is really more of just plain old hard headedness.

The Right must step as well too. They have to stand up and acknowledge that care must come after the birth as well.

Brooks may be 10 years ahead of the ultimate outcome. Culturally, it may just be time to move on. It is happening with many issues now: LGBTQ Rights, Marijuana Legalization, and others. I watched a movie yesterday 100 Rifles starring Burt Reynolds, Raquel Welch, and Jim Brown. It was made in 1968. Guess who got the girl. It wasnt Burt. Now back in 1968 that was a huge statement to be made in a movie. To see a Powerful Black Male Lead making love to a beautiful White/Latino Woman was likely a huge shock to many in America. Today, we have just moved on so much so that Interracial Dating and Marriage are no longer even really that noteworthy. I have a feeling we are about to move on on this topic too.