Supreme Court to hear immunity, discrimination, free speech cases

[jody]

Source: Jurist

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari Monday in four cases. In
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the court will determine whether three oil companies are immune from US lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 for torture and international law violations that took place overseas. In a similar case, Mohamad v. Rajoub, the court will decide whether political organizations including the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization could be immune from liability under the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1992 (TVPA). The plaintiffs in both cases allege human rights violations against an entity other than an individual person. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the oil companies were immune from liability, and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reached the same result with respect to political organizations. The court will hear arguments for both Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Rajoub in tandem.



Read more: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/10/supreme-court-to-hear-immunity-discrimination-free-speech-cases.php

---

When is a corporation a human and when is it not?

ANSWER: whichever is most profitable for the corporation!

Wikipedia says

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

1. Looks like

The Yes Men have some new targets.

[nineteen50]

2. Is this the same court that selected

George bush president and did not give its reasons?

[cstanleytech]

4. That aside they will I suspect rule in favor of the oil companies not

because they were bought off (or atleast I doubt most of them were bought off as you just cant be sure with Thomas given his past history after all) but because imo they should be suing them in the country in which the alleged crime took place.

[24601]

5. You may disagree with the reasoning, but the court's explanation

was clear.

1. On a vote of 7-2, it ruled that Florida's recount was allowing different standards for judging votes in the different counties and that the differing standards violated the equal protection provisions of the US Constitution.

2. On a vote of 5-4, the court upheld the statute that required that "...any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12." and that there was "no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/00-949P.ZPC

[YvonneCa]

6. Refresh my memory...

...please. Didn't the Florida GOP go out of its way and didn't they do everything possible to help meet that December 12 deadline? ;)

[sofa king]

3. I cringe every time I see one of these headlines now.

It's not just that I expect them to fly the bird at everyone on the wrong side of money and power. I'm sure we're all used to that by now.

Now I look at each one of those issues and ask myself, "will that be the spark that touches off the powder keg?"