Trump deserved to lose on all these points, and the Colorado Supreme Court correctly rejected his arguments on them. But I think he did have a plausible argument on the issue of whether his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack was extensive enough to qualify as “engaging” in insurrection. At the very least, he had a better argument there than on self-execution. The Court’s resolution of the latter issue is based on badly flawed reasoning and relies heavily on dubious policy arguments invoking the overblown danger of a “patchwork” of conflicting state resolutions of Section 3 issues. The Court’s venture into policy was also indefensibly one-sided, failing to consider the practical dangers of effectively neutering Section 3 with respect to candidates for federal office and holders of such positions.
I think most people understand why it exists, but in practice it is used as a way to shield the people making the decisions from consequences.
And the way it allows companies to influence politics in the US is pretty darn detrimental.
The fact that we now learn that many people controlling some of the larges companies in the world knew they where actively destroying the planet, hurting peoples health, poisoning people and kept quiet… for decades… meaning there is no recourse for us (the collective us) while some individuals get rich.
The fact that shipping companies create individual llcs for ships so they can cut the loss in case of a disaster and leave us holding the bag for the consequences cannot be what we want for our planet and future.
If corporate personhood can/needs to stay that’s fine, as long as we adress these issues then.
Yeah, 100% what you said.