|
Nah, Neal Katyal is exactly the kind of self important lawyer that thinks it doesn't matter if your client is the evilest motherfucker on the planet so long as he can argue in front of a prestigious court and get paid. There are real reasons to take on lovely/evil clients (innocent until proven guilty etc), but he just wants to act like king poo poo of the lawyer pile
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
So his argument about how companies can't be sued under the Alien Tort Statute is that at Nurnberg the Allies put the individuals leading the companies on trial and not the companies themselves? Doesn't that seem a little short sighted? Like the justices could say "companies can't be sued under ATS but the plaintiffs are free to sue individual executives and owners on a personal basis" which seems like a much worse outcome for his clients.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Ah but you see the individuals were simply acting out of fiduciary duty to the company, conducting perfectly normal business operations. It's the evil, unaccountable corporation with its black heart that forced them to do this, practically enslaved these unfortunate execs who, when you think about it, are the real victims here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
I'm a radical centrist. So radical you could call me fascist But mother wouldn't approve So I'm a centrist
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:So his argument about how companies can't be sued under the Alien Tort Statute is that at Nurnberg the Allies put the individuals leading the companies on trial and not the companies themselves? Doesn't that seem a little short sighted? Like the justices could say "companies can't be sued under ATS but the plaintiffs are free to sue individual executives and owners on a personal basis" which seems like a much worse outcome for his clients. I assume proving culpability of individual executives and owners in a situation like this is likely to be harder in practice than proving culpability of the company as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I assume proving culpability of individual executives and owners in a situation like this is likely to be harder in practice than proving culpability of the company as a whole. Yeah, I highly doubt any Nestle executives have written a smoking-gun email that says "here's a million dollars, go spend it knowingly and intentionally enslaving some African children." Proving culpability for the company as an entity might be possible but proving culpability for individual executives is almost certainly impossible. Like, to use the comparison that Katyal himself used, the IG Farben Nuremberg trial, this is what the defendants in that trial were accused of: quote:1. Planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression and invasions of other countries. And even then, the actual burden of proof was absurdly high: quote:Despite the extensive evidence presented by the prosecution that showed that the company had been deeply involved in Germany's rearmament after World War I from the onset, the tribunal rejected the charges for preparing an aggressive war and for conspiracy to that end. On count three ("slave labor"), the judgement "allowed the defendants the benefit of the defense of 'necessity'" (Telford Taylor, "The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials"; International Conciliation, No. 450, April 1949). Only in the case of Auschwitz, where IG Farben had constructed a plant next to the concentration camp with the clear intent to use inmates as slave workers, did the tribunal consider the evidence sufficient to prove that IG Farben acted on its own initiative. The tribunal concluded that the defendants could be held responsible only for this one case If Katyal got his way and this same approach was used with Nestle executives, there's no way in hell any of them would face any penalties whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
There's also the fact that there was a good reason no companies were held legally liable during the Nuremberg Trials: companies deemed to be complicit in war crimes had already been seized by the Allied Control Council, which at the time planned to dissolve the companies and remove or destroy their assets. There was little use in dragging the companies to court for judicial punishment when the Allies had already created a mechanism for punishing the companies via executive actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
yeah ig farben existed to 2012 to pay reparations. it's a nonsense argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:
It's sounding like they needed to punish the lawyers involved to get them to stop filing frivolous suits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 13:42
|
|
|
"See, this one time, we didn't prosecute ATS to the fullest extent. This is effectively a veto" come the gently caress on, people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 13:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's also the fact that there was a good reason no companies were held legally liable during the Nuremberg Trials: companies deemed to be complicit in war crimes had already been seized by the Allied Control Council, which at the time planned to dissolve the companies and remove or destroy their assets. There was little use in dragging the companies to court for judicial punishment when the Allies had already created a mechanism for punishing the companies via executive actions. Is...there not someone in that courtroom pointing this out? This whole loving thing is looking like farce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
ALAB did their Neal episode in the nick of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is...there not someone in that courtroom pointing this out? would it actually matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Is...there not someone in that courtroom pointing this out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 15:56
|
|
|
I’d love to see some headlines in the big papers that say something along the lines or “Nestle compares itself to Nazi gas manufacturer in legal filing”. I’d like to think that’d force them to tell Katyal to chill the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:The way this is being described makes it sound like the lawyer is self-sabotaging, ostensibly arguing his case while subtly making it absurd. After Trump, even if that is the case, I almost expect something bad to happen and the courts to say "Well okay!" and choose the worst option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
here is some more analysis, it expects Cargill to win - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/...slavery-abroad/. the excerpts of Katal's argument avoid addressing the problems with plaintiff's case apparently. Jealous Cow posted:I’d love to see some headlines in the big papers that say something along the lines or “Nestle compares itself to Nazi gas manufacturer in legal filing”. I’d like to think that’d force them to tell Katyal to chill the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:here is some more analysis, it expects Cargill to win - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/...slavery-abroad/. the excerpts of Katal's argument avoid addressing the problems with plaintiff's case apparently. Right, but it still surprises (disappoints?) me that only law nerds get to see how gross this is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Keep in mind, Nestle's CEO or whoever doesn't agree that water should be freely available to people. They're a flat out evil company and don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
I haven't read the oral argument yet, but this summary in Slate comes to the conclusion that while the conservative justices seemed uncomfortable with making a broad ruling that corporations are above the law, they're very likely to make a narrow ruling in Katyal's favor anyway that the plaintiffs didn't prove that Nestle definitely knew about the slavery. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/12/neal-katyal-supreme-court-nestle-cargill-child-slavery.html So essentially the outcome is the same as if they're above the law: technically they are subject to the law but, just like bribing politicians with campaign contributions, it's effectively impossible to ever convict one unless you have a signed statement saying "yes I am fully aware and intentionally doing a criminal thing, and not the thing where I feign naivete and can't be convicted, because I'm just that evil bwahahahaha"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
So would the end result of this then be "Yeah they're above the law" if it goes their way? Would it have the same effect?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Gatts posted:So would the end result of this then be "Yeah they're above the law" if it goes their way? Would it have the same effect? It would mean they and other corporations could at least be sued in the future, and potentially found liable if anyone is ever able to meet SCOTUS' standard for proving intent, which is I guess "better" than future lawsuits being dismissed immediately because corporations can't be punished for breaking international laws at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Keep in mind, Nestle's CEO or whoever doesn't agree that water should be freely available to people. They're a flat out evil company and don't give a poo poo. So he doesn’t think some people should be enslaved to provide free stuff to other people? Seems inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
It's pretty amusing to see Gorsuch, of all people, characterize a clear application of the text of the ATS as "creating a new cause for action" and appealing to legislative intent. What a fucker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I haven't read the oral argument yet, but this summary in Slate comes to the conclusion that while the conservative justices seemed uncomfortable with making a broad ruling that corporations are above the law, they're very likely to make a narrow ruling in Katyal's favor anyway that the plaintiffs didn't prove that Nestle definitely knew about the slavery. "If you don't have a recording where the two parties are loudly saying 'WE ARE DOING CRIME', then it's not enforceable"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Some members of the SCOTUS may or may not have a vested interest in ensuring that corruption is extremely hard to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
This would instantly make them the most hated people in America. https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1336938763772190721
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
Not 1 in 10,000 Americans will connect the increasing shitiness of their lives to this Supreme Court decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Not 1 in 10,000 Americans will connect the increasing shitiness of their lives to this Supreme Court decision. You vastly underestimate the pettiness of Americans in particular and people in general. Ban abortion? Support a coup? Tens of millions of people will yawn. Increase the number of spam calls they get? That's rage inducing for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 10:30
|
|
|
So responses in Texas v. Pennsylvania are due this afternoon. Are we likely to hear today if they'll reject the case? I believe on Tuesday SCOTUS rejected Kelly's lawsuit a few hours after the responses came in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
I cannot fathom how they can do anything but reject it. It was filed a day before safe harbor, which was after the election, which was months after any of the contested election changes were implemented. The doctrine of laches should apply like thrice over. That's aside from Texas's almost assured lack of standing to contest the election rules in other states, and their own unclean hands (if their arguments were valid) as they implemented many of the same procedure non-legislatively.
Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I cannot fathom how they can do anything but reject it. It was filed a day before safe harbor, which was after the election, which was months after any of the contested election changes were implemented. The doctrine of laches should apply like thrice over. That's aside from Texas's almost assured lack of standing to contest the election rules in other states, and their own unclean hands (if their arguments were valid) as they implemented many of the same procedure non-legislatively. Oh, yeah for sure, I just want to know approximately when to expect that to happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
No idea, but I would say the longer we go the more likely they are to to take the case. Frankly, if the Supreme Court overturns the results of the elections in 4 states by the citizens in those states who, in good faith, abided by the rules in place at the time of the election (39 million people living in those states) than we are in calvinball territory and a civil war or secession is likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 15:34
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Frankly, if the Supreme Court overturns the results of the elections in 4 states by the citizens in those states who, in good faith, abided by the rules in place at the time of the election (39 million people living in those states) than we are in calvinball territory and a civil war or secession is likely. this is the biggest reason I think this case is another nothingburger. It's not merits; if SCOTUS thought this was a Gore 2000 situation, they would probably try to hand it to Trump. But it's not, and as Not A Lawyer Or Policy Wonk I share your view that SCOTUS ruling in this way would basically be the end of American democracy, it would have catastrophic financial impacts which do not in any way serve the interests of the ruling class, and so it seems very very unlikely to me. Obviously I'd rather have this denied cert, than have 4 days of mild anxiety about it, but I do still have a box of Restas...
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
The court unanimously ruled this morning that under the RFRA, Muslims who were placed on the No Fly List can sue individual federal employees. While this is a good ruling by itself, I feel like it could cause more problems down the road.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The court unanimously ruled this morning that under the RFRA, Muslims who were placed on the No Fly List can sue individual federal employees. While this is a good ruling by itself, I feel like it could cause more problems down the road. Good because it let a non-Christian religion assert RFRA. Bad because RFRA is terrible and should be limited at every opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:This would instantly make them the most hated people in America. https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1336938763772190721 The ruling that Duguid wants would make every smart phone in the country constitute an ATDS under the TCPA, and could subsequently open up anyone to liability for dialing the wrong phone number, of up to $1500 per call. this potential poo poo show of a result has been looked at in the ACA international case in the 7th circuit and the DC Court of Appeals, and was part of the reason they rejected the end result that Duguid. the marks opinion in the 9th COA potentially makes your cell phone an ATDS and thus subject to the TCPA. Facebook trying to get the TCPA declared a violation of the 1st amendment is stupid The TCPA is a poo poo show of a law and just needs to be re-written
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
Is Texas v Pennsylvania the big multistate one?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:The TCPA is a poo poo show of a law and just needs to be re-written Specifically, the problem with it is that it bans devices that "store or produce" phone numbers using a "random or sequential number generator", neither of which have applied to the state of the art in automated calling for years. haveblue fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Dec 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
cr0y posted:Is Texas v Pennsylvania the big multistate one? Yes https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 17:49
|
|