Below is a copy of the email exchange I just had (omitting numerous kudos for the person I disagree with and attempted slapdowns of me) with the President of the national Worker's Insurance Litigation Group, of which I happen to be a member and practitioner. Next up, a copy of my application at McDonalds.
In response, I would suggest you look at the text of the email below. Nowhere is worker's compensation or any other similar issue mentioned. However, the author suggests that because the conservatives on the Court wrote the opinion they are "politicized and activist" and if I remember correctly, political opinion is supposed to be off the board here. Yes, insurance companies have moved to gut Louisiana's comp law, and thanks to some fine work by the LIWG, they headed off some of the more heinous provisions. I happen to believe that under a Constitutional analysis, the Supreme Court made the right decision in Citizens United. I believe it is absurd to think that corporations should be banned from having any say in how they are governed. I think there was something similar in the Boston Harbor a few hundred years ago with a similar theme. I believe markets benefits from an abundance of information, not from a restriction of it. I also seem to remember that the Texas comp system was gutted long before the Citizens United decision, as were others. I believe in the workers' compensation system as I believe the economic costs of doing business should be retained within the confines of the business and the consumer, not the society at large. Anyone with any knowledge of precedent could have seen the decision being handed down was going to happen under an analysis of the extension through the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the states. A state can only offer greater protections than those afforded, not less.
In all, this is the last I have to say on the subject and I will be leaving the group after 48 hours so that anyone who cares to may respond to me. But frankly, I'm sick of hearing political opinions here. If needs be, I will fight to retain and improve the workers compensation system on my own, because it is clear that this group does not reflect my values. And I'm damned happy Scott Walker won the recall.
Mark R. Ladd, Esq.
The Mark Ladd Law Firm, LLC
2511 St. Charles Ave., #501
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Tel : (504) 218-8348
Fax : (504) 324-0642
The Mark Ladd Law Firm, LLC
2511 St. Charles Ave., #501
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Tel : (504) 218-8348
Fax : (504) 324-0642
This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me via return e-mail and permanently delete the original and destroy all copies.
From: J.R. Boyd
To: WILG Members' ListServe
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:45 AM
Subject: [wilg] Fwd: [matamembers] Citizens United not revisited
|
From our state TLA.....yet another reason to place no trust in the ability of our nation's highest court to remain neutral. If anything, they are more politicized and activist, than any other court in its history....
JR
JR
The Supreme Court's decision today is a blow to limiting the powers of corporations. See the decision below (yes that is the whole decision):
PER CURIAM.
A Montana state law provides that a "corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." Mont. Code Ann. §13--35--227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners' claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that "political speech does not lose First Amendment protectionsimply because its source is a corporation." 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment ofthe Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUS-TICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court's hold-ing for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens' dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, "technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much thesame way as direct contributions." Id., at ___ (slip op., at67--68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a "substantial body of evidence" suggesting that "[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements." Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 64--65).
Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court's legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court's finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.Given the history and political landscape in Montana, thatcourt concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36--37, 363 Mont. 220, 235--236, 271 P. 3d 1,
2
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK
BREYER, J., dissenting
36--37. Thus, Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant thepetition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court's per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.
J.R. Boyd
BOYD & KENTER, P.C.
1150 Grand Blvd.
Suite 700
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816) 471-4511 (p)
(816) 471-8450 (fax)
No comments:
Post a Comment