Dow Chemical settles case citing Supreme Court uncertainty

[rooster59]

Dow Chemical settles case citing Supreme Court uncertainty

MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Business Writer


Dow Chemical said Friday it will pay $835 million to settle a long-standing class action lawsuit, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia decreased its chances of prevailing at the Supreme Court.

The announcement is an early indication of how corporations are shifting their legal strategy following the loss of the court's 5-4 conservative majority.

"I think most corporations facing class actions regarded Justice Scalia as a friend," said Robert Peck, president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation in Washington. "He has been a thoroughly consistent vote on their side of the equation."

Dow was found liable in 2013 by a Kansas jury of allegedly conspiring to fix prices for polyurethane, an industrial chemical used in everything from packaging to car interiors. The judgment dealt with alleged actions by Dow and several other companies between 2000 and 2003. Dow had petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the judgment.

But the company said Friday the court's current lineup has "increased the likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits."

Following Scalia's death earlier this month, the Supreme Court is now evenly split 4-4 between justices who are usually conservative and those who are liberal. Split decisions revert to the lower court's opinion, such as the federal court in Kansas which ruled against Dow.

Among many other business-friendly decisions, Scalia authored the majority opinion in a 2011 decision in favor of Wal-Mart, throwing out a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by some 1.5 million female employees.

President Barack Obama has said he will nominate a replacement to the bench, but Senate Republicans have vowed to neither hold hearings nor vote on his pick.

Dow, a conglomerate of industrial and agricultural chemical businesses, said the settlement would benefit shareholders.

"While Dow is settling this case, it continues to strongly believe that it was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was fundamentally flawed as a matter of class action law," the company said in a statement.

Shares of Dow Chemical Co. rose 64 cents, or 1.3 percent, to close at $48.74. Its shares are down about 1 percent over the past year.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-02-27

[Chicog]

"I think most corporations facing class actions regarded Justice Scalia as a friend"

Another reason to swing the Supreme Court away from the right.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Dow has to pay $835 Million Fine for price fixing of polyurethane but on the other hand the Saudi's can price fix the price of oil, which is used to make almost everything, and in which they have done several times, and nobody says anything. Dow price fixing probably never cost a single job in the USA but the Saudi price fixing of oil cost thousands of jobs in North America. But yet all of our governments call the Saudis our valuable friends

The American Companies also get dinged for putting some money under the table to get a contract in Nigeria, where in Nigeria that is the normal course of doing business there. No wonder the Americans can't compete on an even playing field when they have a government tying there hands and setting rules that only they have to follow.

[up2u2]

So the Justices make rulings on political ideology not on whether a lower court correctly applied the law and arrived at the correct judgement. I am not sure there is much left of any value in the USA. It seems to have all gone to ruin.

[sirineou]

With their lapdog gone the Corporations are running for cover.The Corporate lobby must be getting writers cramps writing checks to the republicans to block an Obama Supreme court nomination.

[sgtsabai]

A drop in the bucket for DOW. Nobody has every really made them pay for the crimes against the people. Will Monsanto and DOW ever pay for what they did to us, Vietnam, Thailand, Okinawa, Lao, Cambodia? Not no but hell no. Protected by the government. Keep GitMo open for those that really belong there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange . As far as Scalia, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[TheCruncher]

I'm no American so I was a bit puzzled when the death of a supreme court judge made the world news, but I start to understand now why. The good ol US where corruption is all under control.

[SABloke]

Good to see that tge Supreme Court has no bias and and that decisions are made based ob legal merits and not personal preferences

[Johpa]

All somewhat of a moot point so to speak once the neo-liberal agendas of the TTP and TTIP agreements are realized and cede legal decisions, and thus sovereignty, away from national courts towards tribunals run by the corporations themselves. This is just a temporary feint by Dow, an affordable loss and probably just written off as a business expense (tax write-off), before the legislative doggy doo doo that they are paying for really hits the proverbial fan and then splatters all over our faces.

[Berkshire]

I'm no American so I was a bit puzzled when the death of a supreme court judge made the world news, but I start to understand now why. The good ol US where corruption is all under control.

Corruption is alive and well in the west, including the USA. But it's hidden and sophisticated enough so that the sheep will still think they're not being scammed left and right.

[lannarebirth]

All somewhat of a moot point so to speak once the neo-liberal agendas of the TTP and TTIP agreements are realized and cede legal decisions, and thus sovereignty, away from national courts towards tribunals run by the corporations themselves. This is just a temporary feint by Dow, an affordable loss and probably just written off as a business expense (tax write-off), before the legislative doggy doo doo that they are paying for really hits the proverbial fan and then splatters all over our faces.

True. That's where the real money is, private interests writing national and international policies.

[Credo]

I find it interesting that some posters would think that it's corruption when something is going through the Court system.

A judgement was awarded by a lower court (that doesn't sound like corruption to me). The Company appealed the judgement and it has now reached the level of the SC. The Company is now reassessing it's position because of the change in the Court's composition. Scalia was a constitutional purist and less likely to make an interpretive ruling. He is much more like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who believe their books are to be adhered to as written.

The SC decides what cases it will or will not hear and there needs to be a constitutional issue involved. I am not sure what the constitutional issue is, but the SC is not going to hear a case in which the defendant appeals because they don't think it's fair and they don't want to pay the amount.

Life isn't fair and companies have money and influence. Apparently Dow has decided that they don't have enough money or influence to get out of this situation. They will live with the lower court's ruling.

It's hardly corruption.

[SABloke]

I find it interesting that some posters would think that it's corruption when something is going through the Court system...

...Life isn't fair and companies have money and influence. Apparently Dow has decided that they don't have enough money or influence to get out of this situation. They will live with the lower court's ruling.

It's hardly corruption.

One man's ''money and influence to get out of a situation'' is another man's corruption Edited February 28, 2016 by SABloke

[up2u2]

I find it interesting that some posters would think that it's corruption when something is going through the Court system.

A judgement was awarded by a lower court (that doesn't sound like corruption to me). The Company appealed the judgement and it has now reached the level of the SC. The Company is now reassessing it's position because of the change in the Court's composition. Scalia was a constitutional purist and less likely to make an interpretive ruling. He is much more like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who believe their books are to be adhered to as written.

The SC decides what cases it will or will not hear and there needs to be a constitutional issue involved. I am not sure what the constitutional issue is, but the SC is not going to hear a case in which the defendant appeals because they don't think it's fair and they don't want to pay the amount.

Life isn't fair and companies have money and influence. Apparently Dow has decided that they don't have enough money or influence to get out of this situation. They will live with the lower court's ruling.

It's hardly corruption.

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

[Traveler19491]

I find it interesting that some posters would think that it's corruption when something is going through the Court system.

A judgement was awarded by a lower court (that doesn't sound like corruption to me). The Company appealed the judgement and it has now reached the level of the SC. The Company is now reassessing it's position because of the change in the Court's composition. Scalia was a constitutional purist and less likely to make an interpretive ruling. He is much more like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who believe their books are to be adhered to as written.

The SC decides what cases it will or will not hear and there needs to be a constitutional issue involved. I am not sure what the constitutional issue is, but the SC is not going to hear a case in which the defendant appeals because they don't think it's fair and they don't want to pay the amount.

Life isn't fair and companies have money and influence. Apparently Dow has decided that they don't have enough money or influence to get out of this situation. They will live with the lower court's ruling.

It's hardly corruption.

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

"A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform."

I would disagree. One's personal political philosophy is naturally going to influence one's understanding of the Constitution. As with any legal document, its wording is subject to interpretation. Being as the Constitution is the ultimate arbiter of all legislation, then any Justice must determine the Constitutionality of that legislation based on their personal understanding of the document. Anyone who actually believes in pure impartiality is deluded. Every single Supreme Court decision, going all the way back to the country's founding, has been subject to the Justices' personal interpretations. That's why there are nine Justices. The Founders understood that ideological differences would influence decisions, so they put an uneven number of Justices on the bench so that there would never be a tie vote.

This is the huge mistake being made by the Republicans in their determination to refuse to give any Obama nomination a fair hearing...the lower courts are largely tilted slightly to the left. Since Scalia's absence makes it highly likely that any case heard before the court will result in a tie vote, such a tie would mean that the lower court's ruling would stand. That's why the corporations are scared silly. Additionally, Republican obstruction and intransigence is going to reflect negatively on the GOP come election time. Bad call all around for the derps on the right.

[up2u2]

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

"A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform."

I would disagree. One's personal political philosophy is naturally going to influence one's understanding of the Constitution. As with any legal document, its wording is subject to interpretation. Being as the Constitution is the ultimate arbiter of all legislation, then any Justice must determine the Constitutionality of that legislation based on their personal understanding of the document. Anyone who actually believes in pure impartiality is deluded. Every single Supreme Court decision, going all the way back to the country's founding, has been subject to the Justices' personal interpretations. That's why there are nine Justices. The Founders understood that ideological differences would influence decisions, so they put an uneven number of Justices on the bench so that there would never be a tie vote.

This is the huge mistake being made by the Republicans in their determination to refuse to give any Obama nomination a fair hearing...the lower courts are largely tilted slightly to the left. Since Scalia's absence makes it highly likely that any case heard before the court will result in a tie vote, such a tie would mean that the lower court's ruling would stand. That's why the corporations are scared silly. Additionally, Republican obstruction and intransigence is going to reflect negatively on the GOP come election time. Bad call all around for the derps on the right.

Give me strength. So you are before a Judge. According to the law you are guilty of no crime. However, the judges personal religious, political ideologies mandates that he / she must find you guilty. So be it. The most crucial quality an eminent and respected justice must possess is their ability to apply the law in total and utter isolation to any other external influence. A SC is not an annex to government it is a separate entity. It is not there as a cheerleader for a political Party or Executive Government. The Supreme Court is a powerful adversary not a 'lap dog' for the government of the day.

It should NEVER be the case that a Corporation cannot run a defence in the Supreme Court because the Court is corrupted by political ideology.

Do you understand why the blindfold is depicted? Other than the law and the scales of justice and evidence justice is blind.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

If this alone doesn't show how big corporations have the republican party bought and paid for then I don;t know what will (maybe nothing ever will be enough for those that just don;t want to see).

The world is better off without scum like Scalia in it.

If there is a hell, Scalia is there right now.

[jerojero]

And the Courts, especially Supreme, are supposed to be politically independent.

[Traveler19491]

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

"A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform."

I would disagree. One's personal political philosophy is naturally going to influence one's understanding of the Constitution. As with any legal document, its wording is subject to interpretation. Being as the Constitution is the ultimate arbiter of all legislation, then any Justice must determine the Constitutionality of that legislation based on their personal understanding of the document. Anyone who actually believes in pure impartiality is deluded. Every single Supreme Court decision, going all the way back to the country's founding, has been subject to the Justices' personal interpretations. That's why there are nine Justices. The Founders understood that ideological differences would influence decisions, so they put an uneven number of Justices on the bench so that there would never be a tie vote.

This is the huge mistake being made by the Republicans in their determination to refuse to give any Obama nomination a fair hearing...the lower courts are largely tilted slightly to the left. Since Scalia's absence makes it highly likely that any case heard before the court will result in a tie vote, such a tie would mean that the lower court's ruling would stand. That's why the corporations are scared silly. Additionally, Republican obstruction and intransigence is going to reflect negatively on the GOP come election time. Bad call all around for the derps on the right.

Give me strength. So you are before a Judge. According to the law you are guilty of no crime. However, the judges personal religious, political ideologies mandates that he / she must find you guilty. So be it. The most crucial quality an eminent and respected justice must possess is their ability to apply the law in total and utter isolation to any other external influence. A SC is not an annex to government it is a separate entity. It is not there as a cheerleader for a political Party or Executive Government. The Supreme Court is a powerful adversary not a 'lap dog' for the government of the day.

It should NEVER be the case that a Corporation cannot run a defence in the Supreme Court because the Court is corrupted by political ideology.

A_Justice.jpg

Do you understand why the blindfold is depicted? Other than the law and the scales of justice and evidence justice is blind.

Why, exactly, do you think that the Republiclowns are refusing to allow Obama to nominate a Justice? Political ideology. I never said that a Justice should be influenced by their ideology when rendering a decision. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. What I said is that their political beliefs will necessarily influence their understanding of the Constitution, and that understanding is what will determine their decision. This is precisely what Scalia did. He was a extreme conservative literalist, meaning that he believed in a Constitution that should be unchanging, not evolve with time to reflect the changing morals and beliefs of a contemporary society. His beliefs would never have permitted women to have the vote, would never have permitted the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, which is exactly what happened when the VRA was gutted. Kennedy is a moderate, voting sometimes with the conservatives, sometimes with the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the epitome of a liberal jurist, seeing the Constitution in that light. So, which one is right, and which one is wrong? You will arrive at that answer via your own biases. Perhaps you applaud Scalia's work on the bench. Perhaps you despise it. But the fact is that he was influenced by his beliefs, as has been every Justice throughout history. In a perfect world, your assertion about blind justice would be the norm. It's not. There are "tough on crime" judges, who regularly side with prosecutors. There are lenient judges who bend over backwards for defense lawyers. We live in a real world, not an ideologically perfect one. The purpose of the U. S. Supreme Court is NOT to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine the Constitutionality of a given law, or the application of that law. Of course a corporation should be able to present its claim before the court, if that claim involves a question of Constitutionality. Where your argument fails is in the assumption that Justices can operate in an intellectual vacuum. How is that possible? Exactly how would they go about that? The human mind is a thinking, reasoning machine. It analyzes data, and either accepts or discards data which it agrees with. Anyone has to be able to arrive at conclusions based on how they process information. Expecting anyone to make a decision devoid of their personal way of analyzing the data is a simple impossibility. A judge's job is NOT to view the law in an intellectual vacuum. It is to apply the law equally to everyone. THAT is the meaning of the blindfold. Thus, we have an imperfect judicial system...but it's one of the best in the world.

[sirineou]

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

"A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform."

I would disagree. One's personal political philosophy is naturally going to influence one's understanding of the Constitution. As with any legal document, its wording is subject to interpretation. Being as the Constitution is the ultimate arbiter of all legislation, then any Justice must determine the Constitutionality of that legislation based on their personal understanding of the document. Anyone who actually believes in pure impartiality is deluded. Every single Supreme Court decision, going all the way back to the country's founding, has been subject to the Justices' personal interpretations. That's why there are nine Justices. The Founders understood that ideological differences would influence decisions, so they put an uneven number of Justices on the bench so that there would never be a tie vote.

This is the huge mistake being made by the Republicans in their determination to refuse to give any Obama nomination a fair hearing...the lower courts are largely tilted slightly to the left. Since Scalia's absence makes it highly likely that any case heard before the court will result in a tie vote, such a tie would mean that the lower court's ruling would stand. That's why the corporations are scared silly. Additionally, Republican obstruction and intransigence is going to reflect negatively on the GOP come election time. Bad call all around for the derps on the right.

Give me strength. So you are before a Judge. According to the law you are guilty of no crime. However, the judges personal religious, political ideologies mandates that he / she must find you guilty. So be it. The most crucial quality an eminent and respected justice must possess is their ability to apply the law in total and utter isolation to any other external influence. A SC is not an annex to government it is a separate entity. It is not there as a cheerleader for a political Party or Executive Government. The Supreme Court is a powerful adversary not a 'lap dog' for the government of the day.

It should NEVER be the case that a Corporation cannot run a defence in the Supreme Court because the Court is corrupted by political ideology.

A_Justice.jpg

Do you understand why the blindfold is depicted? Other than the law and the scales of justice and evidence justice is blind.

Why, exactly, do you think that the Republiclowns are refusing to allow Obama to nominate a Justice? Political ideology. I never said that a Justice should be influenced by their ideology when rendering a decision. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. What I said is that their political beliefs will necessarily influence their understanding of the Constitution, and that understanding is what will determine their decision. This is precisely what Scalia did. He was a extreme conservative literalist, meaning that he believed in a Constitution that should be unchanging, not evolve with time to reflect the changing morals and beliefs of a contemporary society. His beliefs would never have permitted women to have the vote, would never have permitted the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, which is exactly what happened when the VRA was gutted. Kennedy is a moderate, voting sometimes with the conservatives, sometimes with the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the epitome of a liberal jurist, seeing the Constitution in that light. So, which one is right, and which one is wrong? You will arrive at that answer via your own biases. Perhaps you applaud Scalia's work on the bench. Perhaps you despise it. But the fact is that he was influenced by his beliefs, as has been every Justice throughout history. In a perfect world, your assertion about blind justice would be the norm. It's not. There are "tough on crime" judges, who regularly side with prosecutors. There are lenient judges who bend over backwards for defense lawyers. We live in a real world, not an ideologically perfect one. The purpose of the U. S. Supreme Court is NOT to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine the Constitutionality of a given law, or the application of that law. Of course a corporation should be able to present its claim before the court, if that claim involves a question of Constitutionality. Where your argument fails is in the assumption that Justices can operate in an intellectual vacuum. How is that possible? Exactly how would they go about that? The human mind is a thinking, reasoning machine. It analyzes data, and either accepts or discards data which it agrees with. Anyone has to be able to arrive at conclusions based on how they process information. Expecting anyone to make a decision devoid of their personal way of analyzing the data is a simple impossibility. A judge's job is NOT to view the law in an intellectual vacuum. It is to apply the law equally to everyone. THAT is the meaning of the blindfold. Thus, we have an imperfect judicial system...but it's one of the best in the world.

an excellent well thought out eloquent opinion.

[up2u2]

Give me strength. So you are before a Judge. According to the law you are guilty of no crime. However, the judges personal religious, political ideologies mandates that he / she must find you guilty. So be it. The most crucial quality an eminent and respected justice must possess is their ability to apply the law in total and utter isolation to any other external influence. A SC is not an annex to government it is a separate entity. It is not there as a cheerleader for a political Party or Executive Government. The Supreme Court is a powerful adversary not a 'lap dog' for the government of the day.

It should NEVER be the case that a Corporation cannot run a defence in the Supreme Court because the Court is corrupted by political ideology.

A_Justice.jpg

Do you understand why the blindfold is depicted? Other than the law and the scales of justice and evidence justice is blind.

Why, exactly, do you think that the Republiclowns are refusing to allow Obama to nominate a Justice? Political ideology. I never said that a Justice should be influenced by their ideology when rendering a decision. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. What I said is that their political beliefs will necessarily influence their understanding of the Constitution, and that understanding is what will determine their decision. This is precisely what Scalia did. He was a extreme conservative literalist, meaning that he believed in a Constitution that should be unchanging, not evolve with time to reflect the changing morals and beliefs of a contemporary society. His beliefs would never have permitted women to have the vote, would never have permitted the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, which is exactly what happened when the VRA was gutted. Kennedy is a moderate, voting sometimes with the conservatives, sometimes with the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the epitome of a liberal jurist, seeing the Constitution in that light. So, which one is right, and which one is wrong? You will arrive at that answer via your own biases. Perhaps you applaud Scalia's work on the bench. Perhaps you despise it. But the fact is that he was influenced by his beliefs, as has been every Justice throughout history. In a perfect world, your assertion about blind justice would be the norm. It's not. There are "tough on crime" judges, who regularly side with prosecutors. There are lenient judges who bend over backwards for defense lawyers. We live in a real world, not an ideologically perfect one. The purpose of the U. S. Supreme Court is NOT to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine the Constitutionality of a given law, or the application of that law. Of course a corporation should be able to present its claim before the court, if that claim involves a question of Constitutionality. Where your argument fails is in the assumption that Justices can operate in an intellectual vacuum. How is that possible? Exactly how would they go about that? The human mind is a thinking, reasoning machine. It analyzes data, and either accepts or discards data which it agrees with. Anyone has to be able to arrive at conclusions based on how they process information. Expecting anyone to make a decision devoid of their personal way of analyzing the data is a simple impossibility. A judge's job is NOT to view the law in an intellectual vacuum. It is to apply the law equally to everyone. THAT is the meaning of the blindfold. Thus, we have an imperfect judicial system...but it's one of the best in the world.

Any Justice that is swayed by personal religious or political ideology or anything that does not pertain to the rule of law should be impeached by a joint sitting of government and removed from the Bench. A politically Conservative or politically Liberal justice should not exist. If it does then the judicial system is corrupted and is in need of reform. Dow seemed to be relying on a politically corrupt Supreme Court to carry their case rather than whether they acted fraudulently. At this point it seems to me the Lower Court got it right.

Yes a Justice does act in a total and absolute vacuum. That is their unique ability.

[Traveler19491]

Give me strength. So you are before a Judge. According to the law you are guilty of no crime. However, the judges personal religious, political ideologies mandates that he / she must find you guilty. So be it. The most crucial quality an eminent and respected justice must possess is their ability to apply the law in total and utter isolation to any other external influence. A SC is not an annex to government it is a separate entity. It is not there as a cheerleader for a political Party or Executive Government. The Supreme Court is a powerful adversary not a 'lap dog' for the government of the day.

It should NEVER be the case that a Corporation cannot run a defence in the Supreme Court because the Court is corrupted by political ideology.

A_Justice.jpg

Do you understand why the blindfold is depicted? Other than the law and the scales of justice and evidence justice is blind.

Why, exactly, do you think that the Republiclowns are refusing to allow Obama to nominate a Justice? Political ideology. I never said that a Justice should be influenced by their ideology when rendering a decision. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. What I said is that their political beliefs will necessarily influence their understanding of the Constitution, and that understanding is what will determine their decision. This is precisely what Scalia did. He was a extreme conservative literalist, meaning that he believed in a Constitution that should be unchanging, not evolve with time to reflect the changing morals and beliefs of a contemporary society. His beliefs would never have permitted women to have the vote, would never have permitted the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, which is exactly what happened when the VRA was gutted. Kennedy is a moderate, voting sometimes with the conservatives, sometimes with the liberals. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the epitome of a liberal jurist, seeing the Constitution in that light. So, which one is right, and which one is wrong? You will arrive at that answer via your own biases. Perhaps you applaud Scalia's work on the bench. Perhaps you despise it. But the fact is that he was influenced by his beliefs, as has been every Justice throughout history. In a perfect world, your assertion about blind justice would be the norm. It's not. There are "tough on crime" judges, who regularly side with prosecutors. There are lenient judges who bend over backwards for defense lawyers. We live in a real world, not an ideologically perfect one. The purpose of the U. S. Supreme Court is NOT to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine the Constitutionality of a given law, or the application of that law. Of course a corporation should be able to present its claim before the court, if that claim involves a question of Constitutionality. Where your argument fails is in the assumption that Justices can operate in an intellectual vacuum. How is that possible? Exactly how would they go about that? The human mind is a thinking, reasoning machine. It analyzes data, and either accepts or discards data which it agrees with. Anyone has to be able to arrive at conclusions based on how they process information. Expecting anyone to make a decision devoid of their personal way of analyzing the data is a simple impossibility. A judge's job is NOT to view the law in an intellectual vacuum. It is to apply the law equally to everyone. THAT is the meaning of the blindfold. Thus, we have an imperfect judicial system...but it's one of the best in the world.

Any Justice that is swayed by personal religious or political ideology or anything that does not pertain to the rule of law should be impeached by a joint sitting of government and removed from the Bench. A politically Conservative or politically Liberal justice should not exist. If it does then the judicial system is corrupted and is in need of reform. Dow seemed to be relying on a politically corrupt Supreme Court to carry their case rather than whether they acted fraudulently. At this point it seems to me the Lower Court got it right.

Yes a Justice does act in a total and absolute vacuum. That is their unique ability.

Out of curiosity, which currently sitting Supreme Court Justices are you referring to? Thomas? Ginsburg? Roberts? Alito? Perhaps the late Justice Scalia? Which one of these individuals are you asserting have the ability to operate in an "absolute vacuum", and do so? All one has to do is listen to or read their questions from the bench of the litigating parties to ascertain their philosophical positions regarding the Constitutional positions on the case before them. You call this a "vacuum"? Give me a break.

[F430murci]

I find it interesting that some posters would think that it's corruption when something is going through the Court system.

A judgement was awarded by a lower court (that doesn't sound like corruption to me). The Company appealed the judgement and it has now reached the level of the SC. The Company is now reassessing it's position because of the change in the Court's composition. Scalia was a constitutional purist and less likely to make an interpretive ruling. He is much more like fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who believe their books are to be adhered to as written.

The SC decides what cases it will or will not hear and there needs to be a constitutional issue involved. I am not sure what the constitutional issue is, but the SC is not going to hear a case in which the defendant appeals because they don't think it's fair and they don't want to pay the amount.

Life isn't fair and companies have money and influence. Apparently Dow has decided that they don't have enough money or influence to get out of this situation. They will live with the lower court's ruling.

It's hardly corruption.

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

Interesting, but humorous comments throughout this thread. Obviously, a of misdirected or misplaced anger and very little knowledge regarding the topic.

The Supreme Court generally hears issues of first impression and cases or cases involving a split among the Circuits. Accordingly, statements about applying the law is misguided as there is not a set rule of law to apply in either instance.

I have been following the Tyson Food and Dow cases for some time, particularly the Tyson Food case. I am currently defending 3 class actions in California, 2 in New York, 1 in Pennsylvania and 1 in Tennessee. I also represent plaintiffs in class actions so I like to think I am an equal opportunist a-hole. My personal preference is to have pro-plaintiff rulings as I make money whether I am defending and prosecuting class actions.

Both cases presented very interesting issues impacting certification of class actions. Tyson Foods in particular presented serious questions needing resulting including whether use of statistical sampling can be used to ignore differences in class members and whether class treatment may be appropriate where not all members of the class have sustained damages.

The basic premise of Rule 23 is to preserve class actions for cases involving common, typical claims of all similarly situated putative class members. Tyson Foods deviated a bit from this standard perhaps because of record issues in Tyson Foods that made class sampling necessary. I can see the pros and cons of both views, but we desperately need resolution of these issues one way or the other.

Scalia's decision in Walmart v. Dukes on somewhat similar issues was actually a very well written and well reasoned opinion. The case actually left wiggle room for both the plaintiff and defense bar depending on the facts of the case.

There is generally no right or wrong answers to amy of these questions. Some individuals take a real stringent, hardline strict interpretation of Rules such as Rule 23 (Scalia and the conservative approach) while other may view Rule 23 as needing to remain pliable as a remedial rule. Is one view right and the other view wrong. Typically not.

Mere disagreement with one or the other view makes neither view wrong. The Supremes hear and resolve exceedingly difficult issues. Are some decisions driven by religious and philosophical beliefs. Perhaps so. We are all human. Do I get frustrated with rulings. You betcha. One side will likely never be happy and many times, both sides end up not completely happy.

The US legal system is not perfect. Nothing human is, but it is dang good and I am generally very proud of it. I wrote for a state appellate court judge and a state Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court job was a very difficult job, but very rewarding. I believe in our system and, without a doubt, our system is the best there is.

[up2u2]

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

Interesting, but humorous comments throughout this thread. Obviously, a of misdirected or misplaced anger and very little knowledge regarding the topic.

The Supreme Court generally hears issues of first impression and cases or cases involving a split among the Circuits. Accordingly, statements about applying the law is misguided as there is not a set rule of law to apply in either instance.

I have been following the Tyson Food and Dow cases for some time, particularly the Tyson Food case. I am currently defending 3 class actions in California, 2 in New York, 1 in Pennsylvania and 1 in Tennessee. I also represent plaintiffs in class actions so I like to think I am an equal opportunist a-hole. My personal preference is to have pro-plaintiff rulings as I make money whether I am defending and prosecuting class actions.

Both cases presented very interesting issues impacting certification of class actions. Tyson Foods in particular presented serious questions needing resulting including whether use of statistical sampling can be used to ignore differences in class members and whether class treatment may be appropriate where not all members of the class have sustained damages.

The basic premise of Rule 23 is to preserve class actions for cases involving common, typical claims of all similarly situated putative class members. Tyson Foods deviated a bit from this standard perhaps because of record issues in Tyson Foods that made class sampling necessary. I can see the pros and cons of both views, but we desperately need resolution of these issues one way or the other.

Scalia's decision in Walmart v. Dukes on somewhat similar issues was actually a very well written and well reasoned opinion. The case actually left wiggle room for both the plaintiff and defense bar depending on the facts of the case.

There is generally no right or wrong answers to amy of these questions. Some individuals take a real stringent, hardline strict interpretation of Rules such as Rule 23 (Scalia and the conservative approach) while other may view Rule 23 as needing to remain pliable as a remedial rule. Is one view right and the other view wrong. Typically not.

Mere disagreement with one or the other view makes neither view wrong. The Supremes hear and resolve exceedingly difficult issues. Are some decisions driven by religious and philosophical beliefs. Perhaps so. We are all human. Do I get frustrated with rulings. You betcha. One side will likely never be happy and many times, both sides end up not completely happy.

The US legal system is not perfect. Nothing human is, but it is dang good and I am generally very proud of it. I wrote for a state appellate court judge and a state Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court job was a very difficult job, but very rewarding. I believe in our system and, without a doubt, our system is the best there is.

It is your only system, as if you have a choice. You're stuck with it. A judgement should never be handed down on the basis of a personal political ideology. A decision should never be considered in the light of a personal bent Conservative or Liberal. That is a corrupted judicial system. IF the public feel a decision is wrong and does not reflect community standards then new Legislation is enacted that the Justices must then apply or possibly strike down if it conflicts on a matter of legal argument but NEVER on a personal political ideology.

Absolutely bizarre that anyone could role over and conclude, oh the system is corrupt but hey it's the best system in the World. In your dreams it is. Any justice that even gave an impression he / she was swayed by a political ideology would simply be removed from the bench by both Houses of Parliament. It simply would not be tolerated.

My personal view is Dow are a pack of thieving bastards that would sell granny up the river if they thought they could make a buck but they have a right to walk into the highest court in the land and present their case and have that case measured against the law not on the political ideology of a Justice. It's outrageous!

[Rancid]

His death was a great loss...to corporate America. A small step back for fascism that will be soon corrected by the other partner.

[F430murci]

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

Interesting, but humorous comments throughout this thread. Obviously, a of misdirected or misplaced anger and very little knowledge regarding the topic.

The Supreme Court generally hears issues of first impression and cases or cases involving a split among the Circuits. Accordingly, statements about applying the law is misguided as there is not a set rule of law to apply in either instance.

I have been following the Tyson Food and Dow cases for some time, particularly the Tyson Food case. I am currently defending 3 class actions in California, 2 in New York, 1 in Pennsylvania and 1 in Tennessee. I also represent plaintiffs in class actions so I like to think I am an equal opportunist a-hole. My personal preference is to have pro-plaintiff rulings as I make money whether I am defending and prosecuting class actions.

Both cases presented very interesting issues impacting certification of class actions. Tyson Foods in particular presented serious questions needing resulting including whether use of statistical sampling can be used to ignore differences in class members and whether class treatment may be appropriate where not all members of the class have sustained damages.

The basic premise of Rule 23 is to preserve class actions for cases involving common, typical claims of all similarly situated putative class members. Tyson Foods deviated a bit from this standard perhaps because of record issues in Tyson Foods that made class sampling necessary. I can see the pros and cons of both views, but we desperately need resolution of these issues one way or the other.

Scalia's decision in Walmart v. Dukes on somewhat similar issues was actually a very well written and well reasoned opinion. The case actually left wiggle room for both the plaintiff and defense bar depending on the facts of the case.

There is generally no right or wrong answers to amy of these questions. Some individuals take a real stringent, hardline strict interpretation of Rules such as Rule 23 (Scalia and the conservative approach) while other may view Rule 23 as needing to remain pliable as a remedial rule. Is one view right and the other view wrong. Typically not.

Mere disagreement with one or the other view makes neither view wrong. The Supremes hear and resolve exceedingly difficult issues. Are some decisions driven by religious and philosophical beliefs. Perhaps so. We are all human. Do I get frustrated with rulings. You betcha. One side will likely never be happy and many times, both sides end up not completely happy.

The US legal system is not perfect. Nothing human is, but it is dang good and I am generally very proud of it. I wrote for a state appellate court judge and a state Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court job was a very difficult job, but very rewarding. I believe in our system and, without a doubt, our system is the best there is.

It is your only system, as if you have a choice. You're stuck with it. A judgement should never be handed down on the basis of a personal political ideology. A decision should never be considered in the light of a personal bent Conservative or Liberal. That is a corrupted judicial system. IF the public feel a decision is wrong and does not reflect community standards then new Legislation is enacted that the Justices must then apply or possibly strike down if it conflicts on a matter of legal argument but NEVER on a personal political ideology.

Absolutely bizarre that anyone could role over and conclude, oh the system is corrupt but hey it's the best system in the World. In your dreams it is. Any justice that even gave an impression he / she was swayed by a political ideology would simply be removed from the bench by both Houses of Parliament. It simply would not be tolerated.

My personal view is Dow are a pack of thieving bastards that would sell granny up the river if they thought they could make a buck but they have a right to walk into the highest court in the land and present their case and have that case measured against the law not on the political ideology of a Justice. It's outrageous!

See, you are ruled by emotions and personal prejudices governed by ignorance of that you judge and hate. You make incorrect statements based inaccurate assumption driven by apparent personal biases and struggles. Lol, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to walk around with such deep hatred and resentment about people and things of which you are very ill informed.

BTW, the Dow case and Tyson Food case pending before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Dow or Tyson Foods. It has everything to do with very difficult area of law that have wide ranging impact on thousands of cases. Those issues still need resolution, but if it makes you feel satisfied to believe the big evil system is just trying to help Dow, Tyson Foods or any partying particular . . . more power to you!

I have worked for and been around a lot of judges. They are not corruot, they are not in the take and they make difficult decisions doing the best they can. Of course they do what the believe in and are consistent in their beliefs. That does not make them corrupt, but if it makes you happy to walk around cussing them as evil and corruot, God bless you!

Edited February 29, 2016 by F430murci

[willyumiii]

Dow has to pay $835 Million Fine for price fixing of polyurethane but on the other hand the Saudi's can price fix the price of oil, which is used to make almost everything, and in which they have done several times, and nobody says anything. Dow price fixing probably never cost a single job in the USA but the Saudi price fixing of oil cost thousands of jobs in North America. But yet all of our governments call the Saudis our valuable friends

The American Companies also get dinged for putting some money under the table to get a contract in Nigeria, where in Nigeria that is the normal course of doing business there. No wonder the Americans can't compete on an even playing field when they have a government tying there hands and setting rules that only they have to follow.

Yes, yes, yes!

Other countries are sleazy..

So it's O.K. for U.S. corporations to be sleazy too!

Not! The idea is to improve life...

not seek the lowest level and join it!

[willyumiii]

This is good news and I hope other sleazy corporations follow suite.

A balanced court is a good thing.

If the GOP does not stop playing around and does prevent Obama from appointing a Justice,

The next Justice appointed could be Obama himself.

Lawyer, law professor, ex senator an President, he is qualified for the job.

GOP heads would explode!

They seem confident the next President will be Republican and in the pockets of the corporations. But they have not come up with a serious candidate yet!

In fact, some GOP leaders are talking about supporting HRC ( a Republican in Democrat clothing also in the pockets ) just to prevent Trump from getting into office!

Many of us strongly disagree.

Edited February 29, 2016 by willyumiii

[up2u2]

Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment. Dow understands perfectly well that with a evenly split politically motivated SC a 4/4 decision result then the lower court judgement stands.

A SC that is influenced by political ideology Left or Right is inherently corrupted. The decision of a SC Justice should be based on applying the rule of law NOT a personal political ideology. America is in desperate need of Law Court reform.

It is your only system, as if you have a choice. You're stuck with it. A judgement should never be handed down on the basis of a personal political ideology. A decision should never be considered in the light of a personal bent Conservative or Liberal. That is a corrupted judicial system. IF the public feel a decision is wrong and does not reflect community standards then new Legislation is enacted that the Justices must then apply or possibly strike down if it conflicts on a matter of legal argument but NEVER on a personal political ideology.

Absolutely bizarre that anyone could role over and conclude, oh the system is corrupt but hey it's the best system in the World. In your dreams it is. Any justice that even gave an impression he / she was swayed by a political ideology would simply be removed from the bench by both Houses of Parliament. It simply would not be tolerated.

My personal view is Dow are a pack of thieving bastards that would sell granny up the river if they thought they could make a buck but they have a right to walk into the highest court in the land and present their case and have that case measured against the law not on the political ideology of a Justice. It's outrageous!

See, you are ruled by emotions and personal prejudices governed by ignorance of that you judge and hate. You make incorrect statements based inaccurate assumption driven by apparent personal biases and struggles. Lol, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to walk around with such deep hatred and resentment about people and things of which you are very ill informed.

BTW, the Dow case and Tyson Food case pending before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Dow or Tyson Foods. It has everything to do with very difficult area of law that have wide ranging impact on thousands of cases. Those issues still need resolution, but if it makes you feel satisfied to believe the big evil system is just trying to help Dow, Tyson Foods or any partying particular . . . more power to you!

I have worked for and been around a lot of judges. They are not corruot, they are not in the take and they make difficult decisions doing the best they can. Of course they do what the believe in and are consistent in their beliefs. That does not make them corrupt, but if it makes you happy to walk around cussing them as evil and corruot, God bless you!

I certainly hold those views but I have no time for hatreds nor am I a Supreme Court Justice so my view would not impact on Dow Chemicals. The fact that I hold those views yet still demand that Dow has an absolute right to run their case and be treated without bias and free from the personal political ideologies of Justices in the Supreme Court demonstrates that I actually hold myself to a higher standard than the US Supreme Court Justices.

You have made your position clear 'well of course it is a corrupted process, but hey, it is the best system around'. For a start it is not the best system around and as a participant in the system your integrity and courage really comes into question. Your attitude seems to answer why the system is the way it is. The fact that you support and excuse a corrupted system I am marking you 'Could do better'. Harsh but fair I think.

My view would be that the number one prerequisite for a Supreme Court Justice is their ability to deal with far reaching complex legal matters and arrive at a legally sound judgement free from any personal political ideology. You seem to accept that the latter is acceptable.

When did you actually 'sell out' your values and ethics within the legal system? What motivated you to excuse and defend a corrupt legal system? Career? Money?

[F430murci]

It is your only system, as if you have a choice. You're stuck with it. A judgement should never be handed down on the basis of a personal political ideology. A decision should never be considered in the light of a personal bent Conservative or Liberal. That is a corrupted judicial system. IF the public feel a decision is wrong and does not reflect community standards then new Legislation is enacted that the Justices must then apply or possibly strike down if it conflicts on a matter of legal argument but NEVER on a personal political ideology.

Absolutely bizarre that anyone could role over and conclude, oh the system is corrupt but hey it's the best system in the World. In your dreams it is. Any justice that even gave an impression he / she was swayed by a political ideology would simply be removed from the bench by both Houses of Parliament. It simply would not be tolerated.

My personal view is Dow are a pack of thieving bastards that would sell granny up the river if they thought they could make a buck but they have a right to walk into the highest court in the land and present their case and have that case measured against the law not on the political ideology of a Justice. It's outrageous!

See, you are ruled by emotions and personal prejudices governed by ignorance of that you judge and hate. You make incorrect statements based inaccurate assumption driven by apparent personal biases and struggles. Lol, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to walk around with such deep hatred and resentment about people and things of which you are very ill informed.

BTW, the Dow case and Tyson Food case pending before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Dow or Tyson Foods. It has everything to do with very difficult area of law that have wide ranging impact on thousands of cases. Those issues still need resolution, but if it makes you feel satisfied to believe the big evil system is just trying to help Dow, Tyson Foods or any partying particular . . . more power to you!

I have worked for and been around a lot of judges. They are not corruot, they are not in the take and they make difficult decisions doing the best they can. Of course they do what the believe in and are consistent in their beliefs. That does not make them corrupt, but if it makes you happy to walk around cussing them as evil and corruot, God bless you!

I certainly hold those views but I have no time for hatreds nor am I a Supreme Court Justice so my view would not impact on Dow Chemicals. The fact that I hold those views yet still demand that Dow has an absolute right to run their case and be treated without bias and free from the personal political ideologies of Justices in the Supreme Court demonstrates that I actually hold myself to a higher standard than the US Supreme Court Justices.

You have made your position clear 'well of course it is a corrupted process, but hey, it is the best system around'. For a start it is not the best system around and as a participant in the system your integrity and courage really comes into question. Your attitude seems to answer why the system is the way it is. The fact that you support and excuse a corrupted system I am marking you 'Could do better'. Harsh but fair I think.

My view would be that the number one prerequisite for a Supreme Court Justice is their ability to deal with far reaching complex legal matters and arrive at a legally sound judgement free from any personal political ideology. You seem to accept that the latter is acceptable.

When did you actually 'sell out' your values and ethics within the legal system? What motivated you to excuse and defend a corrupt legal system? Career? Money?

Your initial comment certainly sounds like comment from a well adjusted, rationale individual without a deep seeded resentment:

"Oh please Scolia was a pig ignorant homophobic Right Wing nutter totally corrupted by the Wealthy Elite and Corporate Establishment"

Rules of law are man made. They are "opinions." You wrongly equate the concepts of opinion or interpretation with corruption and bias. Your comments and word choice reflects an ideology shaped by a personal feeling of persecution and inadequacy. Perhaps you perceive certain legal rulings, opinions and truisms as perpetuating those feelings, but that does not make those rulings or options corrupt or bias.

My values? I try to focus on the larger picture and don't think everything is about me or directed at me. I am certainly sorry that you go through life thinking anyway who is happy, functions well in society and is overall grateful for our legal system is corrupt or a sell out for money. There you go ago again. Judging someone you don't know or really understand.