Supreme Court Appears to Back Corporations in Torture Cases

[Hissyspit]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-torture-20120229,0,1578783.story

Supreme Court appears to back corporations in torture cases
Conservative justices indicate that multinational firms and political groups should be shielded from lawsuits in the U.S. over atrocities overseas.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
February 28, 2012, 6:55 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court's conservative justices said they were inclined to shield multinational corporations as well as political groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization from being sued in this country for torture or other atrocities around the world.

At issue is whether human rights lawsuits can target not just torturers and tyrants but the corporations and political groups that support them.

Though several liberal justices said they saw no reason to limit such lawsuits, the court's conservatives said they were skeptical of allowing American courts to become the world's forum for overseas violations of international law.

Corporations are sued every day in this country and accused of violating state or federal laws. But Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said it was quite different to permit suits here based on allegations that a multinational corporation conspired with a brutal regime in Africa or Asia.

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Lint Head]

2. Torture by private corporations is coming to this country.

[OnyxCollie]

3. K&R. nt

[intaglio]

4. But ... but ....

People in the states can be prosecuted for such crimes and (according to SCOTUS) corporations are people. Consistency thy name is not "con$ervative ju$tice$"

[Angleae]

5. This is about private lawsuits, not criminal prosecution.

Nothing I read in this decision limits the government to prosecute crimes.

[sendero]

9. Persons..

... can be sued by other persons. This makes the whole "corporate personhood" idea a sham, which of course it is.

[alp227]

6. case is named Mohamed v Palestinian Authority

also see washington post article about this "Court skeptical about overseas corporate abuse suits"

well...if corporations are people...can corporations NOT be sued under this law? if the SCOTUS lets the law stand, citizens united would stand too, thus Karl Rove etc. would still get to spend non stop on elections.

do the conservative justices not respect rule of law? if a transnational corporation wants to operate in the US, the corporation HAS to obey US law. just like how such a corp. would have to obey law in the UK, China, etc.

[fasttense]

7. Well of course they do.

The majority of Supremes are bought and sold by those very same corporations they rule on. There is NO Rule of Law in the US anymore. It is the rule of a rich man's whim that the Supremes are pushing. If anyone thinks we are still governed by fair and just laws, they need to only look at bush v. Gore to see how the dancing Supremes twisted and distorted the Constitution in order to pick their buddy as president.

Thomas sells his vote to the rich man willing to give him the most expensive statue or pay his wife the biggest paycheck. Scalia's vote is much cheaper and can be bought for a dinner and a trip.

As long as the wealthy are allowed to accumulate vast sums of wealth, then the government will always be corrupt. The wealthy work very hard to make the government corrupt. Because if the government were NOT corrupt then the value of their wealth would be limited to buying only stuff. The 1% have a vested interest in insuring the government and it's supposed laws are corrupted otherwise they could not buy politicians, laws, judges and get favorable treatment. By corrupting the government, their money can now also buy power, influence and exemptions from laws that apply to everyone else.

The Supremes will always rule in favor of the corrupt because they gain from a corrupt system. Law is gone, the whim of the lazy rich now rules.

[cstanleytech]

8. I agree with most of what you said but I dont think the law is gone

its just more difficult to get than it should be to get with this current court, in fact they seem to me to be behaving alot like another SCOTUS did over a hundred years ago so I guess we could call this the Dred Scot II court?

[tclambert]

10. That title confused me. I thought it referred to corporations torturing their employees.

In which case, the Roberts Court would of course support the corporations. "Bad, evil employees! Yes, go ahead and torture them! Especially if they join a Union."

[just1voice]

11. RW justices are insanely pro-torture as are most RWers

One of these days the rest of America will realize what an affront to humanity it is to have torture supporters as America office holders. Until then, the conservatives in America remain a disgrace to mankind as are the people who refuse to hold them accountable for ordering torture, creating torture camps and maintaining policies of torture.

[Arugula Latte]

12. Quelle surprise.