No, first to state SC, then US SC. The US SC said lower Fed and Appeal Courts had no business meddling in state judiciary systems. It was unfair for the trial to be in TX or NY. It should have been done in CA, where getty was based. But the Texaco legal team should have done that much earlier.
(JT's brain-dead inclusion of alt.binaries.schematics.electronic on the To: line in a text-only post removed.)
Antonin Scalia claims to be just following the law but if you go over his decisions one by one, you'll see ideology deeply embedded in the pattern.
The full personhood of corporations: The Long March of corporate-friendly SCOTUS decisions dates back to 1886. 
culminating in unlimited spending on political campaigns without any transparency required.
. . I used to be a Leftist. Now I'm a Radical Far Leftist. Capitalism has reverted to a feudalistic state; if you're not the lord of the manor, you're just another serf; the Middle is disappearing and the serf class expands daily. Think you are immune? Guess again. The top 0.01% want ALL of the wealth. It stopped being about what you could *buy* a long time ago. Now it's just a dick-measuring contest and a power grab and they won't stop until it's a complete oligarchy. . .  It was actually a clerk who slipped in the personhood provision; the justices, however, ate it up with a spoon when they saw it.
Yes, well, nice try but the left has answered that question a thousand times on myriad 'talking head' programs and it's 'any decision they don't like' because that's their nonsensical sophist 'definition' of 'activism' which, in turn, is part and parcel of their favorite tactics of simply redefining everything and declaring false equivalencies.
IMNSHO: No treatment of a liberal should be considered "torture" ;-)
"In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority justices adopted an excessively permissive reading of federal immigration law in authorizing the Arizona statute.
Federal immigration law bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on those who hire illegal immigrants. But it allows the states to adopt licensing regulations related to the employment of illegal immigrants."
Arizona's law IS a "licensing law".
How about dumbshit judge "Sumi"? I'll not tell you what that judge did, figuring you're too ignorant to know on your own :-)
I could go on for hours.
What? Binary group lurkers can't read text ?:-)
If you would get your nose out of your own butt hole you might smell the roses ;-) ...Jim Thompson
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas, both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions, gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.
But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights diminished. Only the rest of us.
So, two guys get together and kill someone. Either one COULD and WOULD have pulled the trigger, but you say that, in reality, only one of them actually did it. But, are not both of them equally guilty under the law? If you can prove, to a reasonable doubt, that either of them did!
So, that's the approach the DA should have taken. Not the obvious -- and obviously government sanctioned -- lie that _both_ of them, _separately_ shot _one_ fatal shot.
I'm all for putting the bad guys in jail, and in this case it was obvious that both fellows colluded to kill their victim. But letting the DA get away with his lie means that he can lie about _me_ or _you_ when we're completely innocent. Then unless we have barrels full of money we're going to go to jail or worse, and when they're done with us we won't have any money at all.
When we give up our liberty for security, we will find ourselves with neither.