Supremes Give Big Business Yet Another License to Screw the Public

[George Costanza]

Well, Bush's gang of Right-Wing jurists just keeps rolling along. The most recent outrage concerns The Supreme's efforts to save the lovable asses of those two corporate crooks, former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling and former newspaper magnate, Conrad Black. Skillings and Black had been convicted under the so-called "honest services" law which makes it illegal to deny someone the intangible right to one's "honest services."

Admittedly a somewhat vague statute, The Supremes eliminated that feature by ruling in these cases that the honest services law may only be used to prosecute bribes and kickbacks, neither of which Skilling or Black had been guilty of. (They both remain in prison however on other convictions.)

This ruling of The Supremes greatly lessens the ability of prosecutors to go after corporate biggies for screwing others, and greatly broadens the ability of corporate biggies to do precisely that - something near and dear to the lovable heart of the GOP, of course. For example, conflicts of interest are no longer on the list of offenses punishable under the law. Henceforth, if Clarence Crass, CEO of Up Yours, Inc., awards a huge contract to a construction firm in which his wife is a major shareholder, he can no longer be prosecuted under the honest services law. Formerly, he could have been.

I'm telling you - we are flipping IN for it.

SCOTUSblog “Honest services” law pared down

 

[Truthmatters]

Its why they were picked.

The Bush admin were corporate whores at every turn.

It gave us this entire mess including the gulf spill.

 

[George Costanza]

Its why they were picked.

The Bush admin were corporate whores at every turn.

It gave us this entire mess including the gulf spill.

TM!!!! GOOD TO SEE YA, KID!!!! Where ya been anyway?

 

[George Costanza]

Hmmmm . . . not too many Big Business Republicans in the forum today I guess.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Well, Bush's gang of Right-Wing jurists just keeps rolling along.

According to the link you posted, The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to "pare the law down to it's core" which meant that it can only be applied to bribery and kickbacks.

The 6 Justices that pared the law down included:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Sonia Sotomayor

Um, those justices were nominated by whom?

You, just like many in the Democrat Party, didn't do any reading. Perhaps that "shrinkage" is going on in your brain as well?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, Bush's gang of Right-Wing jurists just keeps rolling along. The most recent outrage concerns The Supreme's efforts to save the lovable asses of those two corporate crooks, former Enron chief Jeffrey Skilling and former newspaper magnate, Conrad Black. Skillings and Black had been convicted under the so-called "honest services" law which makes it illegal to deny someone the intangible right to one's "honest services."

Admittedly a somewhat vague statute, The Supremes eliminated that feature by ruling in these cases that the honest services law may only be used to prosecute bribes and kickbacks, neither of which Skilling or Black had been guilty of. (They both remain in prison however on other convictions.)

This ruling of The Supremes greatly lessens the ability of prosecutors to go after corporate biggies for screwing others, and greatly broadens the ability of corporate biggies to do precisely that - something near and dear to the lovable heart of the GOP, of course. For example, conflicts of interest are no longer on the list of offenses punishable under the law. Henceforth, if Clarence Crass, CEO of Up Yours, Inc., awards a huge contract to a construction firm in which his wife is a major shareholder, he can no longer be prosecuted under the honest services law. Formerly, he could have been.

I'm telling you - we are flipping IN for it.

SCOTUSblog “Honest services” law pared down

You think it is a bad idea to pare down a vague law to something that a reasonable person would know is illegal before he does it, as opposed to a law that allows prosecutors to go after anyone they want to simply because the result of their advice was bad? If you really want to go after what happened as a result of Enron and the shenanigans of inflating the paper value of a company by shuffling debts of on other companies, make that illegal. I am surprised that you have not seemed to think the implications of this one all the way through.

 

[Tom Clancy]

It gave us this entire mess including the gulf spill.

So every problem is the Republicans fault?

 

[daveman]

It gave us this entire mess including the gulf spill.

So every problem is the Republicans fault?

If you're simple-minded, yes.

 

[code1211]

Its why they were picked.

The Bush admin were corporate whores at every turn.

It gave us this entire mess including the gulf spill.

Was Ginsburg a Bush appointee? it seems your "corporate whore" was Ruth Bader Goinsburg. Will facts ever be considered a basis for forming an opinion?

From the article which is interesting if you care to read it:

Those parts of the ruling, in the main opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens. Justices Antonin Scalia — a long-time critic of the “honest services” law — would have struck down the law as too vague to satisfy the Constitution. His opinion had the support of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

 

[Tom Clancy]

It gave us this entire mess including the gulf spill.

So every problem is the Republicans fault?

If you're simple-minded, yes.

Explain.

 

[code1211]

Hmmmm . . . not too many Big Business Republicans in the forum today I guess.

Did you actually read the article you linked? The division in the court was over the manner in which the law was either too vague to enforce or just plain unConstitutional.

Among those in the majority opinion were:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens.

This a coalition of liberal and conservative appointees and seems to have the majority of what are considered to be the Liberal Justices.

By the by, all of the cases referred to by the court in this ruling are going back to lower courts to be retried. This was not a reprieve. It was a clarification and an added protection of civil rights in that the law was ruled to be excessively vague and would allow prosecution for deeds not specifically against the law.

Are you against all civil rights or simply in favor of selective application of civil rights only to those who are not Republicans?

 

[daveman]

So every problem is the Republicans fault?

If you're simple-minded, yes.

Explain.

Some people have an extremely limited world-view brought about by a plain ol' lack of smarts. In their mind, Democrats = Good and Republicans = Bad.

I'd say that sums up Truthmatters' and George Costanza's thinki...well, you can't really call it "thinking", can you? Such folks are driven solely by emotion. Facts and logic don't register.

 

[edthecynic]

If you're simple-minded, yes.

Explain.

Some people have an extremely limited world-view brought about by a plain ol' lack of smarts. In their mind, Democrats = Good and Republicans = Bad.

I'd say that sums up Truthmatters' and George Costanza's thinki...well, you can't really call it "thinking", can you? Such folks are driven solely by emotion. Facts and logic don't register.

As a Cynic, I see it as, Democrats = Bad and Republicans = Worse.

 

[Oddball]

That would make you definitely not a cynic, but just another Fabian socialist schmuck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain.

Some people have an extremely limited world-view brought about by a plain ol' lack of smarts. In their mind, Democrats = Good and Republicans = Bad.

I'd say that sums up Truthmatters' and George Costanza's thinki...well, you can't really call it "thinking", can you? Such folks are driven solely by emotion. Facts and logic don't register.

As a Cynic, I see it as, Democrats = Bad and Republicans = Worse.

I have come to see it as, minority party bad, majority party worse.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that the SCOTUS ruling was unanimous, it's difficult to portray it as a rightwing one.

 

[daveman]

Explain.

Some people have an extremely limited world-view brought about by a plain ol' lack of smarts. In their mind, Democrats = Good and Republicans = Bad.

I'd say that sums up Truthmatters' and George Costanza's thinki...well, you can't really call it "thinking", can you? Such folks are driven solely by emotion. Facts and logic don't register.

As a Cynic, I see it as, Democrats = Bad and Republicans = Worse.

I suppose a case could be made for that.

 

[daveman]

Considering that the SCOTUS ruling was unanimous, it's difficult to portray it as a rightwing one.

But dammit, they're trying!

 

[boedicca]

Of course they are. Everything bad must be Boooooosssshhhhh's fault.

It's their Great Unifying Theory of Blame.

 

[daveman]

Of course they are. Everything bad must be Boooooosssshhhhh's fault.

It's their Great Unifying Theory of Blame.