|
surely the doctrine of "gently caress you im above the law" will apply with equal vigor once the democrats take th-
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
It directly involving congress means you get right to “political question” - congress has the power to handle this
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
It'd be cool if Dems weren't a bunch of worthless pieces of poo poo, since if they were actual decent people and won a majority they could at least pack the courts to deal with this loving nonsense. Instead if they take back control we're going to get  from assholes like Schumer and Pelosi as they ignore demands to unfuck the country because at the end of the day they're also old rich white assholes who love power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:The court is illegitimate. the stay was 7-2ish (if Kavanaugh's involved in it, but I assume he is), with the only dissents (Thomas and Gorsuch) arguing that none of the depositions should go forward if we accept the stay against deposing Ross, it's actually not a completely crazy argument, although apparently the other 7 decided the burden was adequately met re the other officials and not met re Ross it's also, you know, a stay until the deposition petition can be reviewed by SCOTUS*, not just tossing the whole thing out * - the fedgov has a week to ask for review, if they don't ask the stay goes away automagically Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Oct 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It'd be cool if Dems weren't a bunch of worthless pieces of poo poo, since if they were actual decent people and won a majority they could at least pack the courts to deal with this loving nonsense. Instead if they take back control we're going to get it's on the people of new york and california to primary them or defeat them
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:the stay was 7-2ish (if Kavanaugh's involved in it, but I assume he is), with the only dissents (Thomas and Gorsuch) arguing that none of the depositions should go forward The only published dissents. Nobody else's name is on the paper (except Ginsburg, as the one who took the application). It could've been 5-4, and we'd be none the wiser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:The only published dissents. Nobody else's name is on the paper (except Ginsburg, as the one who took the application). It could've been 5-4, and we'd be none the wiser. Actually, rereading, I think you're right. My mistake on that part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
I think this belongs here? reuters.com posted:Critics have said the settlements, known as "cy pres" (pronounced "see pray") awards, are unfair and encourage frivolous lawsuits, conflicts of interest and collusion between both sides to minimize damages for defendants while maximizing fees for plaintiffs' lawyers. Supporters have said these settlements can benefit causes important to victims and support underfunded entities, such as legal aid. I understand that lawyers get paid for their work like anyone else, but those numbers seem pretty out of whack. $2 million for a settlement that paid $15k total to the people affected. Am I missing something? Sure, sending a check for a nickel is pointless, but I still feel like something's fucky here. Is this a dumb take? E: oh, and if you didn't read the article, the Republican justices are the ones saying this is a problem, and the Dems are all "this is fine, why are we even seeing this?" so I'm prepared for this to be a dumb take. Lprsti99 fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:I think this belongs here? This is not about the lawyers' fees, this is about what to do when it's not feasible to distribute a settlement that would be a few cents per class member. Is it reasonable to spend a dollar to print and mail a check for 30 cents? (hypothetical numbers, I imagine it costs more and receives less in this case) So instead they donate that 30 cents/class member to advocacy groups who have missions in line with the policy objectives of the suit. The Republicans are griping because they hate anything that can be used to punish corporations. https://www.classaction.org/blog/what-happens-to-unclaimed-settlement-money quote:Donated to Charity They'd rather see Option 3: return it to the defendant (big bad company). We've already established that it's not feasible to distribute to class members, and the other typical approach is the Cy Pres approach that is being opposed. Some of the objection also seemed to be that some money would go to AARP, who engages in political speech / lobbying. But lobbying legislatures is the primary way you can enhance internet privacy, so that seems like a bad argument to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
Lprsti99 posted:I understand that lawyers get paid for their work like anyone else, but those numbers seem pretty out of whack. $2 million for a settlement that paid $15k total to the people affected. Am I missing something? Sure, sending a check for a nickel is pointless, but I still feel like something's fucky here. Depends. Is there any social benefit to having a means of stopping a company from breaking the law in a way that doesn't cost any one person a dramatic amount of money (i.e., not doing $2 million in damage to one person, but doing $0.05 to 120 million people) without having to wait for underfunded government enforcement?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:15
|
|
|
Privacy is kind of a universal good in the abstract but it's weird the AARP is siding with privacy given how easily their constituents get massively scammed by people on the internet and the fallback position of "just educate them about okcupid stranger danger" is completely oblivious to the fact that the average bank teller has to argue with one of these victims every day over whether that $30k wire they can barely fill the form out for is legit and will result in their soulmate finally coming to get hitched. Privacy is such a good thing even Scalia knew it, with few exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
The actual solution would be for massive criminal activity by corporations (or wealthy individuals in the case of crimes involving fines) to be punished based on the worth, value or activity of the company rather than defined by the crime so that the amounts aren't so hilariously low as to be rounding errors to the perpetrator. Legal consequences being applicable to the rich is entirely at odds with the foundational principles of american justice though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:The actual solution would be for massive criminal activity by corporations (or wealthy individuals in the case of crimes involving fines) to be punished based on the worth, value or activity of the company rather than defined by the crime so that the amounts aren't so hilariously low as to be rounding errors to the perpetrator. Yeah about the only time something came close to this was: Like 2013 or 2014 I think posted:A New York state court judge on April 15 sentenced BNP Paribas in a related case in which it agreed to forfeit $2.24 billion. Note the fine still being less than their revenue in that quarter, in exchange for a decade of willful sanctions violations. The next biggest fine against a bank for this kind of thing is, if I recall, less than a billion. The BNPP suit was only that big because a ton of people who lost family in terror attacks (which could provably be tied to the ongoing violations conducted by BNPP) were involved and it was painfully obvious the government had to set an example. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Nov 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Don't forget about HSBC getting away with literally laundering money for terrorists with a slap on the wrist fine rather than having the entire c-suite and board of directors arrested and the firm completely dissolved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:Don't forget about HSBC getting away with literally laundering money for terrorists with a slap on the wrist fine rather than having the entire c-suite and board of directors arrested and the firm completely dissolved. Yeah theirs was as if not more egregious (like offering private banking services to the zetas) and it was basically a rounding error. If the various enforcement agencies around the globe were to crack down on correspondent banking and nothing else it would probably collapse the west coast real estate markets from Vancouver to San Diego and cause major disruptions to most other metro markets like Toronto, Atlanta, and San Antonio. So you can see the "interest" in not doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:The actual solution would be for massive criminal activity by corporations (or wealthy individuals in the case of crimes involving fines) to be punished based on the worth, value or activity of the company rather than defined by the crime so that the amounts aren't so hilariously low as to be rounding errors to the perpetrator. Nah, you actually don't need to penalize the company directly at all. Perps don't care about time other people have to serve, and when you punish a corporation you're punishing the shareholders not the decisionmakers. The real answer is extremely simple: jail those responsible for breaking the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nah, you actually don't need to penalize the company directly at all. Perps don't care about time other people have to serve, and when you punish a corporation you're punishing the shareholders not the decisionmakers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Corporate death penalty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Also, theoretically fining the company gives the shareholders incentive to try and use their power to have the company not break the law in future. In practice, usually when a fine is announced the share price goes up because the threat of an undetermined fine hanging over the company's head is worse than the actual tiny sum that they have to pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Also, theoretically fining the company gives the shareholders incentive to try and use their power to have the company not break the law in future. In practice, usually when a fine is announced the share price goes up because the threat of an undetermined fine hanging over the company's head is worse than the actual tiny sum that they have to pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Simple solution really, make all members of the board and all executives senior VP or higher personally and strictly liable for the repayment of any fines levied on the company. No dollar limit either. They are supposed to be supervising the bank/company to ensure it’s in compliance. If the company isn’t in compliance, these people should be responsible for not doing their jobs. If the assets of the board members/executives won’t cover the fine, the company pays the balance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:That means markets think fines are more dangerous than they usually are. Perhaps we should fulfill their expectations? Eh, that particular point is more that individuals aren't great at quantifying unknowns and that gets magnified across a market. People would rather invest in known quantities even if they know the company will be fine after. We should still consider big fines for people deliberately profiting from taking advantage of consumers. Also individual prosecutions. Just don't take stock price as indicative of anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:The only published dissents. Nobody else's name is on the paper (except Ginsburg, as the one who took the application). It could've been 5-4, and we'd be none the wiser. update on that stay: the fedgov has asked the supreme court to delay the trial, so the stay's not automagically disappearing
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
yay tomorrow John Roberts is going to gut national parks in Alaska like a fish
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:That means markets think fines are more dangerous than they usually are. Perhaps we should fulfill their expectations? This isn't necessarily true. If the uncertainty acts as a multiplier of whatever the fine is, then whether fines for the same crimes are increased or decreased on average, the markets might still prefer the fine over the uncertainty of the fine. I agree that corporate fines need to be increased, though, along with legal penalties for white collar crime. Edit: This post is essentially a rewording of what MrNemo said
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
Gorau posted:Simple solution really, make all members of the board and all executives senior VP or higher personally and strictly liable for the repayment of any fines levied on the company. No dollar limit either. They are supposed to be supervising the bank/company to ensure it’s in compliance. If the company isn’t in compliance, these people should be responsible for not doing their jobs. If the assets of the board members/executives won’t cover the fine, the company pays the balance. LLC: Lots of Liability Company
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
 Opinion! MOUNT LEMMON FIRE DISTRICT v. GUIDO ET AL. Holding: [A fire district, as a political subdivision of a State, is included under the Age Discrimination Act in Employment even if it has less than 20 employees.] Faced with a budget shortfall, Mount Lemmon Fire District, a political subdivision in Arizona, laid off its two oldest full-time firefighters, John Guido (then 46) and Dennis Rankin (then 54). Guido and Rankin sued the Fire District, alleging that their termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq. The Fire District sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the District was too small to qualify as an “employer” within the ADEA’s compass. The Act’s controlling definitional provision, 29 U. S. C. §630(b), reads: “The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” The question presented: Does the ADEA’s numerosity specification (20 or more employees), applicable to “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce,” apply as well to state entities (including state political subdivisions)? We hold, in accord with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that §630(b)’s two-sentence delineation, and the expression “also means” at the start of the second sentence, combine to establish separate categories: persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce with 20 or more employees; and States or political subdivisions with no attendant numerosity limitation. “[T]wenty or more employees” is confining language, but the confinement is tied to §630(b)’s first sentence, and does not limit the ADEA’s governance of the employment practices of States and political subdivisions thereof. … For several reasons, we conclude that the words “also means” in §630(b) add new categories of employers to the ADEA’s reach. First and foremost, the ordinary meaning of “also means” is additive rather than clarifying...Indeed, reading “also” additively to create a separate category of “employer” seemed to this Court altogether fitting in EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U. S. 226 (1983). There, we held that applying the ADEA to state and local governments does not encroach on States’ sovereignty or Tenth Amendment immunity. Id., at 240–242. In the course of so holding, we described the 1974 ADEA amendment as “extend[ing] the substantive prohibitions of the Act to employers having at least 20 workers [as opposed to 25 in the original version], and to the Federal and State Governments.” Id., at 233 (emphasis added). In this regard, we note, it is undisputed that the ADEA covers Federal Government entities, which our opinion in Wyoming grouped with state entities, regardless of the number of workers they employ. 29 U. S. C. §633a. Instructive as well, the phrase “also means” occurs dozens of times throughout the U. S. Code, typically carrying an additive meaning...Notably, in §1715z–1(i)(4), Congress repeated the “sixty-two years of age or over or is handicapped” qualifier to render it applicable to “a single person.” In the ADEA, by contrast, Congress did not repeat the “twenty or more employees” qualifier when referencing state and local government entities. This Court is not at liberty to insert the absent qualifier. Furthermore, the text of §630(b) pairs States and their political subdivisions with agents, a discrete category that, beyond doubt, carries no numerical limitation. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 55–56. ... The Fire District presses the argument that the ADEA should be interpreted in line with Title VII, which, as noted supra, at 3, applies to state and local governments only if they meet a numerosity specification. True, reading the ADEA as written to apply to States and political subdivisions regardless of size gives the ADEA, in this regard, a broader reach than Title VII. But this disparity is a consequence of the different language Congress chose to employ. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U. S. 167, 174 (2009) (differences between Title VII’s and the ADEA’s language should not be ignored). The better comparator is the FLSA, on which many aspects of the ADEA are based. See 29 U. S. C. §626(b) (ADEA incorporates the “powers, remedies, and procedures” of the FLSA). Like the FLSA, the ADEA ranks States and political subdivisions as “employer[s]” regardless of the number of employees they have. … In short, the text of the ADEA’s definitional provision, also its kinship to the FLSA and differences from Title VII, leave scant room for doubt that state and local governments are “employer[s]” covered by the ADEA regardless of their size. Lineup: Ginsburg, unanimous except that Kavanaugh did not participate. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-587_n7ip.pdf [internal citations inconsistently omitted throughout]
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:
It seems moderately amazing that this fairly simple question went all the way to the Supreme Court?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It seems moderately amazing that this fairly simple question went all the way to the Supreme Court? Nah. It would be reasonable for state and local governments to only be covered if they have the same number of employees as would trigger private coverage. Prior to this case, in fact, the other 4 courts of appeals to consider the question had ruled that way. Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido posted:Federal courts have divided on this question. Compare Kelly v. Wauconda Park Dist., 801 F. 2d 269 (CA7 1986) (state and local governments are covered by the ADEA only if they have at least 20 employees); Cink v. Grant County, 635 Fed. Appx. 470 (CA10 2015) (same); Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic Educ., 154 F. 3d 892 (CA8 1998) (same); EEOC v. Monclova, 920 F. 2d 360 (CA6 1990) (same), with this case, 859 F. 3d 1168 (CA9 2017) (state and local governments are covered by the ADEA regardless of their number of employees). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 583 U. S. __ (2018). I agree that the result makes sense, though. ulmont fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Nov 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
https://tspr.ng/c/merrick-garland-gone-but-not
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
This is the story of a Johnny Rotten
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Looks like the fallout of the Kavanaugh fight is that next time Collins and Murkowski won’t matter and Trump can confirm anyone at all. Wonder how those Ginsburg health prayer circles are doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Looks like the fallout of the Kavanaugh fight is that next time Collins and Murkowski won’t matter and Trump can confirm anyone at all. I wouldn't say it was the fight as much as having a SCOTUS nomination be a prominent topic re-energized Republican voters in already-red states. Also the effect did dissipate over time after the confirmation; it's more of a macro-trend of red states just getting redder and blue states getting bluer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Looks like the fallout of the Kavanaugh fight is that next time Collins and Murkowski won’t matter and Trump can confirm anyone at all. but we're into the 2020 election season now, what about the McConnell/Biden rule?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Bonfire Lit posted:You can do both: jail the immediate actors, and then seize the illegal profits/levy a fine on the company for failing to supervise. It's okay to punish the shareholders because they presumably already profited off the illegal activity. I don't think it's enough to jail the immediate actors, I feel like you have to also jail anyone on the board of directors who supported the illegal action, since they select the CEO. That's why I don't see any meaningful change happening, since the board of directors of huge companies are staffed by very, very powerful people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:but we're into the 2020 election season now, what about the McConnell/Biden rule? What about that? Like the majority will get punished somehow for their naked hypocrisy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
qkkl posted:I don't think it's enough to jail the immediate actors, I feel like you have to also jail anyone on the board of directors who supported the illegal action, since they select the CEO. That's why I don't see any meaningful change happening, since the board of directors of huge companies are staffed by very, very powerful people. Powerful people that often represent hedge funds or other large institutional shareholders so you're back to punishing people's 401ks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Powerful people that often represent hedge funds or other large institutional shareholders so you're back to punishing people's 401ks. You know what else punishes people's 401k's? When Wall Street criminals crash the entire economy because there's no accountability or punishment for their crimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Like even from the standpoint of "no not my stocks" it's still in your best interest to have the kind of financial criminals that blew up every major bank and wrecked shareholder value be removed from power and future wannabes be deterred from doing that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Powerful people that often represent hedge funds or other large institutional shareholders so you're back to punishing people's 401ks. This kind of argument was terrible when Eric Holder made his Too Big To Jail statements and it's not getting better with time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:17
|
|