Posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins
“In the 1800’s (I assume before all this convoluted corporate law), how did businesses protect its individual members from personal liability or were they not protected?”
Back then, their liability was limited to what they had agreed to do for a given individual, based on Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 10 M&W 109. As Wiki puts it: “In 1842, the law’s only recognition of “negligence” was in respect of a breach of contract. As the plaintiff was not in a contract with the defendant the court ruled in favour of the defendant on the basis of the doctrine of privity of contract...
...”If the plaintiff can sue,” said Lord ABINGER, the Chief Baron, “every passenger or even any person passing along the road, who was injured by the upsetting of the coach, might bring a similar action. Unless we confine the operation of such contracts as this to the parties who enter into them, the most absurd and outrageous consequences, to which I can see no limit, would ensue.””
In the US, that changed with MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916). “The principle that the danger must be imminent does not change, but the things subject to the principle do change. They are whatever the needs of life in a developing civilization require them to be.” Judge Cardozo, writing for the New York Court of Appeals, overturned the idea that lawsuits should be limited to those with a contract, and extend instead to...everyone. And as had been foreseen years earlier, “...the most absurd and outrageous consequences, to which I can see no limit, [have] ensue[d]...”
God bless Lord Abinger. This is an example why there was sanity in the world in the 1800's.
Then came the 1900's, the ushering in of the end of the current age. The judicial and legal world hails the eloquence of Judge Cordozo. I have yet to see ONE DECISION or OPINION by Cordozo that I agree with.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What about the right of the people to peaceably assemble is so difficult to grasp?
That is the best case scenario.
There is no possibility, none whatsoever, that any of the four liberals -- Clinton appointees Breyer and Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg and Obama appointees Sotomayor (the wise Latina) and her sidekick Kagan -- will side with Hobby Lobby over the Obamanation. It is more likely that pigs will fly out of Obama's butt with copies of Obama's birth certificate and college transcripts.
The only question is whether any of the remaining Justices (in particular Kennedy and Roberts) will side with the liberals.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Probably not, because it’ll raise a lot more questions (ie, if the government can’t force the religious to get insurance, what about the non-religious?) that could shake Obamacare’s already fragile foundation.
Check out posts # 81 and 82 for a little about why the Constitution has been pushed aside for governmental and juridical "wisdom".
We continue to pay dearly for the Progressive Era. It has brought a centuries old curse on our great land.
True, but remember how Roberts actually re-wrote the Obamacare document in order to bend it just far enough to classify it as a "tax."
I predict the SCOTUS will try to apply the King Solomon trick to toss a bone to the good guys, but will rule for the darkside, 5-4.
That's the rub. Obama makes the laws now.
I think it will be 5-4 against Hobby Lobby.
Followed by some condescending statement about removing religion from the workplace.
“I think it will go against Hobby Lobby because it is a corporation rather than a sole propritor or partnership.”
I think they’ll win, but the decision will only apply to closely held companies, including some corporations. Of course it’s extremely hard to predict the Court with Roberts selectively playing politics with some of his decisions.
I think if the court goes against, then Kennedy will cite the 7th day Adventist Business not wanting to pay for blood transfusions. The difference, of course, is life/death (blood) versus convenience/personal (contraception). But justices don’t have to explain themselves. They only have to say what they say. No one can argue with them. That’s why life tenure was a mistake.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.