Post by jeffolie on Mar 7, 2012 9:34:27 GMT -6
Corp torture rules from US Sup Ct: morals, rights
The borders parents define for children draw lines of right and wrong as moral judgements ... In my home we place great meaning to right and wrong with emphasis on the Ten Commandments
As the US Supreme Court defines borders of right and wrong for corporations as moral judgements, the Ct gave human like rights and now must define the punishments for violating the borders it decides for moral wrongs. The Ct gave corps the right to freedom of speech and now addresses the punishment for human rights violations ... specifically torture
As the Ct. defines moral corporations right and wrong for torture, the Ct makes rare and important judgements as to what humans also can be held subject to court and legal sanctions for torture as an unintended consequence to making moral border lines for corps.
Below, the US Sup Ct decided to make moral judgements on the rights for torture by corporations in the Ct's schedule to make holdings on torture by corporation in 2 upcoming decisions:
================================
March 5: Six days after hearing arguments in a major human rights case about whether corporations may be sued for complicity in torture abroad, the court instructed the parties to address an even broader question. The justices called for additional briefs to be filed by June and a reargument to be held during the court’s next term, which starts in October 2012. The original question in the case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, No. 10-1491, was whether corporations might be sued in United States courts for human rights violations. At the argument the previous week, it emerged that several justices were interested in a larger question. They wanted to know whether American courts might ever hear disputes under the law for human rights abuses abroad, whether the defendant was a corporation or not.
Feb. 28: The court heard arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, No. 10-1491, which asks whether corporations may be sued in human rights cases in which the events took place abroad. A second case, Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, No. 11-88, asks whether victims of torture can sue not just individuals, but also organizations.
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html
The borders parents define for children draw lines of right and wrong as moral judgements ... In my home we place great meaning to right and wrong with emphasis on the Ten Commandments
As the US Supreme Court defines borders of right and wrong for corporations as moral judgements, the Ct gave human like rights and now must define the punishments for violating the borders it decides for moral wrongs. The Ct gave corps the right to freedom of speech and now addresses the punishment for human rights violations ... specifically torture
As the Ct. defines moral corporations right and wrong for torture, the Ct makes rare and important judgements as to what humans also can be held subject to court and legal sanctions for torture as an unintended consequence to making moral border lines for corps.
Below, the US Sup Ct decided to make moral judgements on the rights for torture by corporations in the Ct's schedule to make holdings on torture by corporation in 2 upcoming decisions:
================================
March 5: Six days after hearing arguments in a major human rights case about whether corporations may be sued for complicity in torture abroad, the court instructed the parties to address an even broader question. The justices called for additional briefs to be filed by June and a reargument to be held during the court’s next term, which starts in October 2012. The original question in the case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, No. 10-1491, was whether corporations might be sued in United States courts for human rights violations. At the argument the previous week, it emerged that several justices were interested in a larger question. They wanted to know whether American courts might ever hear disputes under the law for human rights abuses abroad, whether the defendant was a corporation or not.
Feb. 28: The court heard arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, No. 10-1491, which asks whether corporations may be sued in human rights cases in which the events took place abroad. A second case, Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, No. 11-88, asks whether victims of torture can sue not just individuals, but also organizations.
topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html