Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules On Corporate Privacy
heptapod writes "The Supreme Court unanimously decided (PDF) Monday that AT&T can't keep embarrassing corporate information that it submits to the government out of public view; 'personal privacy' rights do not apply to corporations. 'We trust that AT&T will not take it personally,' concluded the ruling."
we still have quite a few other personal rights that have been given to corporations that shouldn't have
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Finally, some common sense. Now if only they would have done the same in previous cases.
About frakking time. Corporations should have no more access to human rights than a tree or rock or building. If an entity can not vote, then it should not have rights.
Privileges like trademarks and advertising? Sure. But such privileges should be strictly regulated and limited (unlike individual speech rights which should be unlimited).
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
I think they just don't like the idea of not knowing what the companies in their stock portfolio are up too. Make no mistake, the Supreme Court is in it for the money
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Even with the deregulation, competitors still have to use AT&T copper to run their services. It's not like they're going anywhere.
Loading...
I am sure if you make some "donations", a bill will quickly be passed to change this ruling. I think bill's name will be the "Freedom Defense".
"Ones and zeros were everywhere. I even think I saw a two!" - Bender
flying pigs
"We trust that AT&T will not take it personally" concluded the ruling.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THAR!
First off: "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally"
Hahahaha! That's like a big middle finger stuck right into the ruling. Nice!
Now that I got that out of my system...the whole corporate personhood thing is such a farce anyway. A corporation is nothing but a group of people. It could be one person or 100,000 people. But if you remove all the people from the corporation, can it make a decision? Can it sign a piece of paper? Can it continue to function at all? NO.
What's worse: the idea that people do things "on behalf" of corporations. Such as the fallacy that a corporation is to blame and not the person who does the wrong thing and rationalizes "I'm not a sociopath because I decided to pollute that river with toxic waste then obstruct justice during the investigation by shredding all those documents on behalf of the corporation."
Corporations don't commit crimes. People do. Maybe it's "on behalf of" the corporation. But it's always a person doing the deed.
Again, a corporation is its people. It's not its own person.
What does that mean for our elections? Can Murray Hill Inc. still run for office? Can it still run, only without any personal privacy?
Thankfully, this dialing back corporate personhood and granting personal rights to corporations has long been overdue. Odd case to have it happen in, as the outcome is not clearly positive in all cases, but the overall result for the law in general is a positive one.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
If corporations were individuals they would be sociopaths as this 2003 Canadian documentary endeavors to show. In D&D they would be considered either lawful evil or chaotic evil (depending on the corporation). They are narrowly selfish and greedy to such an extent that as an individual they would almost certainly be criminals. Profit trumps every other concern without exception. So corporations are an evil institution, but are they a necessary evil? The price we pay for economic prosperity. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give them any more power than necessary to get what we (as a society) want from them (inexpensive, innovative, useful products).
I consider myself a Libertarian, but I would argue that even in a free society corporations-as-individuals should be prohibited. It simply does not make sense to grant them the same rights as an individual not only because they clearly are a group of individuals, but because corporations need to have limitations on their power and on their predictably ruthlessly selfish/evil behavior. Corporations are the only institutions that can even remotely compete with governments in terms of power and abuse of power and they should be treated warily because of this.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Folks here are already saying things about this ruling diminishing the "person" aspect of corporations. The ruling doesn't really do that. Instead, it rests on a question of statutory construction. In particular, the court says that "personal privacy", a phrase used in FOIA, does not merely mean the privacy of a person, as AT&T argued, but instead refers to particular elements of privacy that only carry meaning when you're talking about an actual human being.
we still have quite a few other personal rights that have been given to corporations that shouldn't have
I'll be glad when this fad goes away. The whole reason for corporate personhood is to protect the rights of the people involved with the corporation. If the US dismantled the corporate personhood machinery, it would have to be replaced with something else that does pretty much the same thing. Else groups of people would have their rights trampled. It's not rocket science.
Also, note that even moderately controversial decisions (such as the frequently reviled Citizens United v. FEC case) are decided by narrow majorities (5-4 decision in that case) while obvious stretches of corporate personhood are decided by 9-0 rejections. This isn't an area that is careening out of control.
Sadly, most elected officials do not realize, that we the People, ALLOW these businesses to do business in our country.
Just like they think they lead us, when the words lead, leader and leadership, do not exist in the U.S. Constitution.
The tail shall not wag the dog. End of story. Get out and vote against these idiots! It is your DUTY as an informed
electorate.
Apparently, these eight supreme court justices need to be taught a lesson.
Don't they know that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution was that corporations are persons, except when it comes to paying taxes? Also, union members are not persons.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And I don't see why a group of people working together should have MORE rights then the individuals that make up the group.
Corporations are not people. The people working in the corporation... wait for it... are people. If we crippled the power of the corporations, they'd have the exact same rights as you or me.
Each individual in the group already has 100% of their rights as a person. Nothing is lost.
I personaly don't see why people working together should have less rights than people working alone.
They don't. The people working at a corporation are nowhere even the subject of the discussion. The rights at stake are additional rights given to the corporation.
I personally don't see why people working together should have more rights than people working alone.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I personaly don't see why people working together should have less rights than people working alone.
Scale. Gangs of thieves also don't get to have 100,000 employees worldwide. You can put a whole gang of thieves in jail, effectively dissolving their "corporation."
Thief corporations can only be dissolved and jail pretty much avoided in the USA --look at Bernie Madoff's cover-up of his 'nonexistent' accomplices. A result is that the same 100,000 thieves will be out there doing other thieving and banding together after a PR rebranding effort.
The question is which 'status' would most people choose given a default 'evil' mentality?
I do when their cooperation limits their liability, hence their accountability to illegal or unethical behavior.
Yes it is.
But a corporation doesn't live.
When a company is fined, who pays the price? For public companies (most of the companies we care about), the answer is basically shareholders -- almost all of whom had no part in the wrongdoing. So the main effect is that some people in the company do something wrong, then all shareholders get fined. I think more fines should be leveled on the people who actually did the wrongdoing (although fining the company is still somewhat useful as it does provide an incentive not to break the law -- it's just that the burden of the fine is mostly misplaced).
And every single one of those parties enjoys the freedom of the individual, as well as the responsibilities that come with that freedom.
Corporations want the same freedoms, but cannot be held to the same responsibilities as the individuals involved.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"People working together" is a partnership. That's something the state should not be able to prevent. But a corporation is a distinct entity, created with the permission of the state, to shield groups of people from individual liability. When we, the people, grant such permissions, we have the right to withhold any individual rights or impose duties and responsibilities as we see fit.
As a creation of the state, it should not be possible to create a corporation that is granted rights with the state itself does not possess. That's just an end run around the Constitution.
Have gnu, will travel.
People working in corporations have MORE freedoms than those not working in one. One tasty bit is that unless it can be proven that a single individual broke a very specific law, individuals are NOT held responsible for things that were done in the name of corporation. Another one is that only assets held in the name of the corporation can be seized in case a corporation did something wrong, or is going bankrupt. This means that an individual acting on behalf of a corporation has more freedoms and less risks than someone who isn't. This needs to be balanced.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Corporations can lobby politicians, who ignore commoners. Money, power, fame are the only ways to get noticed by politicians. Corporations have all three.
And they really donate when the politicians are running for office.
wake up and hold your nose
Are you suggesting that individuals are (or should be) responsible for things that you cannot prove they actually did? Life *would* be much easier without that whole "presumption of innocence" thing, wouldn't it?
The individual working alone can incorporate, and enjoy the same legal protections as any other corporation, while conducting his or her business. Costs a couple hundred dollars in Massachusetts to file the necessary paperwork - if you have assets or conduct business worth more than that, you should be incorporated.
There, it's balanced.
The creation of the limited liability company was and is a scam to allow rich people to screw you and me without having to take responsibility for it.
The fewer 'rights' a corporation has the better so far as I am concerned.
Where can I get Supreme Court fan T-shirts?
Folks here are already saying things about this ruling diminishing the "person" aspect of corporations. The ruling doesn't really do that. Instead, it rests on a question of statutory construction. In particular, the court says that "personal privacy", a phrase used in FOIA, does not merely mean the privacy of a person, as AT&T argued, but instead refers to particular elements of privacy that only carry meaning when you're talking about an actual human being.
The most telling part is when Roberts points out that "personal" frequently refers to non-corporate, non-business, non-commercial activities: your personal expenses as opposed to your business expenses, personal deductions vs. business deductions, personal correspondence vs. business correspondence, etc. That doesn't say that a corporation may not have a right to "business privacy" (and they do, see trade secrets), but that "personal privacy" refers to a different animal.
He doesn't seem to be suggesting that at all.
I think his point is that since government regulation creates corporations, it should also probably address any corporate bad behavior.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Anyone know if this can have a residual effect on the way the WikiLeaks bank data might be handled when that goes public? Does this ruling give WikiLeaks a little more breathing room? And, for that matter, what about the HBGary data?
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
....
Let's look at what he actually wrote:
In what court do you NOT have to prove that a single individual broke a very specific law in order for that individual to be held accountable for violating that law? I have two responses to this "tasty bit":
1) It's a good thing that we can't hold someone liable without PROVING that the individual broke a law;
2) This is the case for everybody, not just corporations;
That's not what he said, and I'd like specific examples of what you mean by this statement. What bad behavior is allowed of corporations that would not be allowed to individuals?
Then corporations finagled life in perpetuity from governments, and the long slide into unchecked power began. In 1886, a landmark Supreme Court ruling deemed corporations "artificial persons" with nearly all the rights due a natural person. With that, they won the right to lobby the government and twist our system to their sociopathic ends.
Now here we are after more than 200 years of this experiment in democracy, watching corporations not only lie, cheat, steal, kill, and corrupt with impunity, but subvert our government so thoroughly that it no longer matters which political party holds power; and now they are preparing to sweep away the last vestigial check on their abuses by sidestepping public shareholders and stock markets in favor of private equity where they are beholden to no one but themselves and their buddies in other mega corporations.
The body politic must wake up soon and correct this, or we will definitely arrive at a very dark place as fast as unfettered avarice can take us. Stripping corporations of the right to lobby and live in perpetuity would be a very significant first step. Applying anti-trust legislation ("Trust" was the previous term for cartels and monopolies) to break up the "too big to fail" companies would be an excellent follow-up. But whatever is done, it must be across the board, with no loopholes, or we will find ourselves back in the same place in a fortnight.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
If anyone working for a corporation commits a crime, they are legally accountable. It's not like corporations have a license to break the law. But, why should people working for the corporation, or investors, who were not party to the decisions to break the law, nor party to the actual illegal acts, be held liable?
See, everyone keeps trying to make this argument, but I see no reason why every person in the group should be 100 percent accountable for the actions of every other member of the group, even if they had nothing to do with the crime? Can you please explain that to me, because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting *should* be the case?
For the first point, you are right that the standard of proof should apply to people whether they are working inside of a corporation or not, the interesting part of the question is whether corporations ever enable an individual to obfuscate such proof in a way that would not be possible as an individual.
As for the second, the point isn't that corporations are allowed more freedoms than individuals, the point is that incorporation concentrates capability in such a way that corporations can do things that individuals can't (like create deep water drilling rigs).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Where can I get Supreme Court fan T-shirts?
China.
Seriously. I didn't find Supreme Court T-shirts in the few months I was there, but I did find Supreme Court hats. They have the words "Supreme Court" embroidered on them in flowing quasi-cursive like it was the name of the local minor league ball club.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2015772&cid=35358632
APK
P.S.=> ROTFLMAO! apk
This decision, unfortunately, did not limit the personhood of corporations. It just limited what "personal privacy" means, to exclude business dealings. This standard applies the same to natural persons as it does to corporations, but since corporations have only business dealings by definition, nothing they do falls under "personal privacy". What we really need is for corporations to be ruled non-persons when it comes to rights generally, and this decisions goes nowhere near even touching that issue.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2015772&cid=35358632
Why'd you run from discussing that troll? You sure "talk a big game" but when it came down to specifics?? YOU RAN!
(OR, didn't YOU troll ME, first, there?)
APK
P.S.=> You sure can "dish it out", but you cannot take it... and you RAN like the trolling beyotch you are... lol! apk
As Heinlein also pointed out in the series about the Howards -- long lives give inherent advantages, especially financially. People have to die at some point, but we don't now force corps to die (we did used to). That's the other major imbalance.
Third, and some tiny progress is being made here, is the corporate veil is all too difficult to penetrate. For example, the people who signed off on Sony's rootkit should face the same penalties I would if I did the same thing. SCO's executives should face jail for fraud. Things that get us regular humans into jail should also apply to corporate employees, period. At least we now make the CEO personally responsible for the financial reports he signs -- a tiny start, but a start.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
And what exactly changed for the better? Or for that matter, at all? Now the new clowns, in their vanity, claim a "mandate" when in truth all we were doing it picking the only other unacceptable choice off a very short multiple choice list. How many times (and years we can't get back) do we have to repeat the performance before the next batch of clowns "gets it". And how many times should it take, by rights? One? did that. Two? Did that too. In fact we've been doing it in most elections for my entire lifetime, and it's almost over for me, I ain't getting any younger -- are you? So get real about the ballot box helping anything at all. That's the bullshit cool-ade they got you drinking. I fell for it too, for about 40 years. I'm telling you from the other side, it's bullshit cool-ade and a flat out lie -- whether by design or accident doesn't matter.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
But obfuscation is not a side effect of incorporation, it's a side effect of a large group of people working together - the actions of a single person become harder to track when they've got a hundred other people around them doing stuff that connects to their work. This is not a problem with corporations, per se, but an innate quality of any large group. In fact, the notion of corporate personhood helps to make that "herd immunity" less of an issue with assigning blame: even if someone in an organization manages to hide their individual culpability VERY well, it's still easy to demonstrate that the organization "as a whole" bears some liability for harm.
If you're truly concerned that obfuscation is a risk, then regulations to Increase retention and transparency on corporations may be a reasonable response, but I don't think abolishing the notion of corporate personhood does anything to address or mitigate against this risk.
But if you read back up through this chain of responses, you'll see very clearly that several people are in fact asserting that very thing - again, to review what was written by the person I initially responded to: "People working in corporations have MORE freedoms than those not working in one."
I am not claiming that regulation of corporations is unnecessary or undesirable, however, the regulations should apply to the activity, not the entity performing the activity - if you want to regulate deep-water drilling, to use your example, then the regulations should be exactly the same on me if I'm an individual with deep pockets, or a corporation with deep pockets. The structure of the entity performing the activity being regulated shouldn't matter - the activity itself, and whether or not it's conducted lawfully, does.
I deeply regret that most unethical corporate behavior is not illegal, but much of it is. When an executive conceals evidence that their products kill people or sells financial products designed to fail, they are not held criminally liable despite obvious criminal negligence or fraud. Instead, their corporation settles in a civil court for a token penalty and no admission of guilt. This "freedom" as you so aptly describe hardly extends to a negligent nurse or common grifter, who are routinely criminally prosecuted for gross negligence or fraud.
"It's not like corporations have a license to break the law."
Actually they do. Token settlements without the admission of guilt constitute a permission slip from the government to break the law. In situations where corporations are not above the law, they have tremendous resources with which to pervert the legal system. Furthermore, the larger an organization becomes the easier it is to hide attribution of illegal behavior.
As for as penalizing investors and other corporate stakeholders? They are liable up to the value of their investment. I have no qualms about holding a board of pharma executives criminally liable for gross negligence and perjury, if they conceal evidence their products kill people. They should be prosecuted criminally and serve the same jail sentence as a negligent nurse who also lied about her involvement in a patient death. Their corporation should be dissolved, its assets seized. Investors lose their investment. Employees lose their jobs. The cost of corporate malfeasance is VERY steep. Future investors and employees become more scrupulous. The present system which seeks to avoid widespread destruction ( the poor employees! investors, etc) simply fosters increased corruption and eliminates personal liability.
FYI, at "the end of the day" groups of people are not the same as individuals, their psychology and behavior are entirely different, thus they should not be treated as individuals.
Because the investors or the board votes in the CEO who manages the minion who signs off on the deal which poisons thousands in India.
Al Capone orders his boy Lou to "deal with the situation" and Lou goes out and kills a guy, do you think that Al is completely guilt free?
But to say that everyone in the group is 100% accountable is a ludicrous characacher of the argument. You're trying to justify them being 0% accountable, which is equally bullshit.
n/t
Well, maybe I should expand a little bit. Let's take a very real example: the oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Normally, if I perform an action that kills someone, I'm responsible, unless I did it in self-defense. Involuntary man-slaughter might be involuntary, but it still lands me in the slammer. Compare that to what happened in the gulf explosion. People died, nothing happened to anybody. The most that did happen to a person was that the CEO of BP had to step down. The issue here is that because there is no requirement to track decisions or activities on an individual level, it becomes impossible to figure who was actually responsible for the disaster. It always, always, devolves into an issue of he-said, she-said. I can give you another example: pollution. I can dump my canister of used motor oil in the river, and if someone catches me, I'm out a significant chunk of money. But if I am employed by a company and do this, I might get fired, but I won't get fined. The corporation will get fined. Make the company big enough, and I might not even get fired, because no one knows whether it was me or Bob who dumped the oil.
Because people can band together in the legal construct of corporations, individual responsibilities for activities carried out under the banner of the corporation get diluted to the point of being null. This creates immense freedom for individuals to act in manners that are not accessible to individual people, or people in single-person corporations.
And what Maxume said is right - corporations are legal constructs. As a result, the laws they are subject to can and have to be tailored to maximize the overall benefit to society.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I am not claiming that regulation of corporations is unnecessary or undesirable, however, the regulations should apply to the activity, not the entity performing the activity - if you want to regulate deep-water drilling, to use your example, then the regulations should be exactly the same on me if I'm an individual with deep pockets, or a corporation with deep pockets.
But they aren't. Let's assume for a second that it is actually possible to operate a deep-water drill without incorporating (it really isn't). If I do that, any fine that is the result of my operation of the deep-water drill will hit all my personal belongings. I can lose everything, and be out on the street. Wages can be garnished for eternity. However, if I did incorporate, and the activity in question does not require the corporate veil to be pierced (look it up - it's a very specific term), then the only thing that happens is that the corporate assets can be seized. But all my personal property is still intact.
And that's an enormous freedom.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
This is an Open ID test.
Individuals can incorporate. If you're smart enough to have billions of dollars to build & operate a drilling rig as an individual, then you're also smart enough to spend $500 to purchase the liability protection that incorporation gives you. The regulations simply need to state that "the entity which fucks up pays big fines." If you happen to be operating as an unincorporated individual, then you pay big fines yourself. If you're smart enough to structure & operate your business as a corporation (arm's length, proper protocols & filings, etc - all of the stuff which, when neglected, would allow a court to successfully pierce the corporate veil), then the corporation pays your fines, and your personal assets (not *corporate* assets) are safe.
Arguing that corporations somehow give protections to "groups" of people that are unavailable to individuals is just spurious nonsense. If you want the protection, it is available to you, even as an individual. File the legal paperwork, incorporate, and run your business properly to protect your personal assets.
First: the explosion occurred less than 1 year ago. I think it's safe to say that we haven't even begun to see the end of the lawsuits that will occur as a result of this, but you can see here that there are already several hundred lawsuits filed in the US over the event, and it appears as if more criminal charges may be coming.
Second: it's entirely possible for you to accidentally kill someone, and have no charges filed as a result - accidental deaths do happen, and unless there is specific negligence or recklessness on the part of the person who "caused" the death, there may not be criminal liability at all - the law does not impose a liability for failure to act unless there is a specific requirement to act codified by law. There may still be civil liability for wrongful death, however. Given the nature of the event, and the fact that multiple factors and conditions contributed to it, it's possible that there is simply no way of pinning the blame for this on a single person's actions or inactions.
And that has nothing to do with the "corporation" - if people are criminally liable for their negligence, and it can be proved, you will see people stand trial for it. Suggesting that the largest spill & disaster the oil industry has ever seen should have all its legal loose ends tied up less than a year after the event is a pretty tall order, especially when investigations are still ongoing.
This has nothing to do with corporations per se, and everything to do with the fact that in large groups of people working together, it's often difficult to determine where one person's culpability begins and another person's ends. Unions aren't incorporated - does this mean that wrongdoing (and hiding that wrongdoing) is somehow harder for them because of it? The mafia isn't incorporated - are they a model of transparency and clear lines of responsibility & liability?
What incorporation DOES grant people is the existence of a single entity to sue for damages & wrongdoing, and who has assets which can be forfeited to satisfy judgements against them for wrongdoing. Let's turn it around: if you work for a company that files for bankruptcy protection, and I'm a creditor, should I be able to go after your house? After all, you draw a salary from a company which owes me a lot of money - aren't I entitled to recover the money owed to me from the assets of the people involved in the group of people who are stiffing me? I could certainly make a legal argument, if you do away with the idea of corporate personhood, that your house was paid for with money which rightfully should have been used paying me for the goods & services your employer got from me, and then failed to pay for. The fact that you work for a *corporation* protects you from having to defend yourself against actions like this.
They are NOT 0% accountable. You are Just. Plain. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Corporate leaders are absolutely accountable for the orders they give. IYou guys can keep saying that all you want, but if the leaders in a corporation order someone to commit a crime, and a prosecutor can PROVE it, those leaders are GOING TO PRISON (in some cases, possibly facing the death penalty).
What more do you want?!? Gross miscarriage of justice? Hang 'em all and let God sort em out?
Hitting the shareholders' pocketbooks is what should motivate them to keep douchebags out of leadership positions in the company.
That can work (although it's harder to do than it should be), but it's mostly a second order effect; hit the shareholders who then hit the wrongdoers. Why not just hit the wrongdoers directly? That's almost guaranteed to be more effective. As mentioned before, it also has the advantage of not hitting the non-wrongdoers.
Hey! Can we PLEASE have a shipment of that non-corrupt good common sense over here in Oz! PLEEEEZE!
If you're smart enough to have billions of dollars to build & operate a drilling rig as an individual, then you're also smart enough to spend $500 to purchase the liability protection that incorporation gives you.
The regulations simply need to state that "the entity which fucks up pays big fines." If you happen to be operating as an unincorporated individual, then you pay big fines yourself. If you're smart enough to structure & operate your business as a corporation[...], then the corporation pays your fines, and your personal assets (not *corporate* assets) are safe.
And yet, you are somehow still arguing that being incorporated makes no difference to what happens to someone who breaks the law or fails some regulatory test.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
" We trust that AT&T will not take it personally." (Taken from page 12 of the PDF.)
What better way to stick it to AT&T than after telling them not to take it "personally" after telling them that the "personal privacy" they are requesting isn't valid.
While in fact the Supreme Court really isn't all that conservative, people simply declare that because the small (gettin' smaller all the time in fact ;) ) majority were nominated by Republican Presidents -- though I could also question just how "conservative" those Republican Presidents would be considered in this day and age of "the Constitution doesn't specifically have my name in it so I don't have to do anything I don't want!" thinking.
Now, up until this point, the right-wing has been getting everything they've wanted because up and until this point, the "Boundaries of Law" have been pushed by center-left causes by center-left (I refuse to call them liberals because, by my definition, they are VERY far away from "liberal" in their mindsets) politicians. Therefore the right has been able to count on the, in theory at least, center-right leaning court to keep the country in a right-leaning status.
But now we're starting to get into things that WERE considered center-right until the right-wing Republicans (not to be confused with sane Republicans) decided they could better get elected by turning tale and supporting the opposite simply to score cheap points.
Their decades old dependence on the Supreme Court to ultimately give them their way is quickly going to come to an end. Such as when the the center-left members of the Court, lead by Chief Justice John Roberts, form a majority opinion that the Healthcare Reform act is Constitutional -- heard it here first folks!
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
must say that overall I am really impressed with this blog.It is easy to see that you are passionate about your writing. If only I had your writing ability I look forward to more updates.
Small Business Loan