A new SCOTUS outrage!

[Joanne98]

When we were debating during the Senate hearings of fascist brothers Roberts and Alito ALL we got to talk about was abortion. BUT we are seeing the damage these bastards will bring down on this country and it's ALL about corportism.

Shareholder Suits Against Vendors, Banks Limited by High Court

By Greg Stohr

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court put new limits on shareholders suits against a company's banks and business partners in a ruling that may hinder efforts to recoup billions of dollars lost in frauds at Enron Corp. and HealthSouth Corp.

The justices, voting 5-3, threw out a lawsuit by Charter Communications Inc. shareholders against two of the cable company's suppliers, Motorola Inc. and Scientific-Atlanta Inc. The court said the shareholders didn't show that they relied on the alleged deception by the suppliers in making investment decisions.

The case is Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, 06-43.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [e-mail] .

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aojGxK8MIJkE&refer=home

[Fresh_Start]

1. isn't it an absolute outrage

the day Lincoln won the battle for corporations (a trial where we was representing big business) was a very sad day for America

[Joanne98]

2. I've always suspected that was what the civil war was really about!

and the South got put thru the first "reconstruction" program. I wish the Civil War buffs would connect the dots and do a history book on it.

[Fresh_Start]

3. I don't believe the civil war was corporatism

I think it was states rights v nations rights at heart.

But Lincoln was not a liberal.

[Joanne98]

4. Wasn't he a corporate lawyer for the railroads?

I didn't think so either until I read The Shock Doctrine. I know it's set in modern times but their are so many similarities. I've just started thinking about it though...

[Fresh_Start]

5. before he was president

and that was the court case I was referring to.

However I don't believe the court case was directly related to the civil war
I believe it was states rights v nations right.
I think that the south didn't want to pay the federal government.
I'd read that it might have been money which could have been used for infrastructure (i.e., national railroads) but don't know that I'd seen that it in more than one place so I wasn't confident about it

[Joanne98]

6. Thanx