Litigious Corporations by Jim Hightower

[Democrats_win]

http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6164

Corporate executives are always whining to congress, the courts, the media, and anyone else who'll listen that they are besieged with lawsuits, and they constantly demand laws to prevent people from suing them. But guess what group does more suing than anyone else? Corporations!

For example, consider Scotts Miracle-Gro, a multi-billion-dollar global chemical corporation that is suing a tiny upstart firm named TerraCycle. This small enterprising company is the sort of business that ought to be celebrated, not sued. A maker of all-natural garden products, TerraCycle's best seller is an eco-friendly plant food made of – are you ready? – liquefied worm poop....

(Link goes into more detail about this specific case.)
Who died and made corporations people?

[Double T]

1. The overbearing, monopolistic, corrupt corporations are the...........

number ONE threat to the former American way of life. A government and scotus that empowers them is no better.

[deadmessengers]

2. What a bunch of bastards

I hate Scotts' and won't buy a freaking thing they sell. A few months ago, a salesweasel for their lawn-care service arm tried to bully my wife into signing a ridonkulously expensive "lawn renovation and treatment program". He tried to convince her that our daughter would be a social outcast because of our brown lawn, and that I didn't love her enough to take better care of the lawn myself. Never mind that my lawn looks like ass because we here in Georgia are currently in an utterly EPIC drought, and I, unlike my idiot neighbors, refuse to disobey the watering restrictions we're currently under.

Fortunately, my wife is a Bronx girl and has one of the finest and well-honed bullshit detectors of anyone I've ever met. She called this asshat on his bullshit and told him to go to hell ;-)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. Incredibly frivilous lawsuit. nt.

[Nite Owl]

4. Who made corporations people?

Seems that it was a mistake and in over a century has not been corrected. A very interesting article by Thom Hartman, the whole thing is worth a read:

What most people don’t realize is that this is a recent agreement—and it is based on an historic error. Only since 1886 have the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment been applied explicitly to corporations. For 100 years people have believed that the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad included the statement “Corporations are persons.” But looking at the actual case documents, I found that this was never stated by the court, and indeed the chief justice explicitly ruled that matter out of consideration in the case.

The claim that corporations are persons was added by the court reporter who wrote the introduction to the decision, called “headnotes.” Headnotes have no legal standing.

It appears that corporations acquired personhood by persuading a court reporter and a Supreme Court judge to make a notation in the headnotes of an unrelated law case. In Everyman’s Constitution, legal historian Howard Jay Graham documents scores of previous attempts by Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field to influence the legal process to the benefit of his open patrons, the railroad corporations. Field, as judge on the Ninth Circuit in California, had repeatedly ruled that corporations were persons under the 14th Amendment, so it doesn’t take much imagination to guess what Field might have suggested Court Recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis include in the transcript, perhaps even offering the language, which happened to match his own language in previous lower court cases.

>>>snip<<<

Regardless of how it happened, an amendment to the Constitution, designed to protect the rights of African Americans after the Civil War, passed by Congress, voted on and ratified by the states, and signed into law by the president, was re-interpreted in 1886 for the benefit of corporations. The notion that corporations are persons has never been voted into law by the people or by Congress, and all the court decisions endorsing it derive from the precedent of the 1886 case—from Davis’ error.



>>>>more<<<<


http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=555