Reply #53: I approve this message. [View All]

[TexasObserver]

I don't have the patience to address this kind of nonsense, and am glad you do. These stories always have as their premise that if we all knew the "real" ruling from way back when, the world would change immediately. As if today's Supreme Court would suddenly alter any of its positions on corporations and their rights. The GOP voting justices would not change their position on personhood if James Madison appeared to them and told them to do so.

Every year, in many cases, the high court further refines and defines corporate rights and personhood. Anyone who wants to do something about the problem wants one thing: a court majority that will stop the expanding of corporate personhood and rein it in. No misconstrued or misunderstood old opinion by a former court will do that. Only replacing one of the five rightward voting justices will do so.

Every good lawyer knows NEVER to rely on head notes, because lawyers who do so are invariably embarrassed to learn while arguing a motion that the case doesn't stand for what the headnote says it does. We read the opinions, and we find the HOLDINGS, and those we follow, those we cite.

Every Supreme Court opinion is written by a justice, and to get five votes, it must meet with the approval of five justices.