Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Conservative Judges to Enron Retirees: Drop Dead

By Robert L. Borosage, TomPaine.com. Posted January 17, 2008.


Roe v. Wade is still standing. But consumers, workers, small investors, and the freedoms of Americans are taking it in the ear.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Robert L. Borosage

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 

Remember the Enron employees who watched their retirement savings evaporate as the Enron ponzi scheme, chaired by George Bush's best buddy, "Kenny Boy" Lay, went up in smoke?

The conservative majority on the Supreme Court just told them all: "Drop Dead." Forced to choose between protecting the rights of the small investors who got defrauded and the companies, banks, accountants and vendors who conspired in creating and profited from the fraud, the Court protected the crooks and skewered the victims.

No surprise. That was the entire point of stacking the court with right-wing, activist judges. Sure the nomination battles over the judges focused on Roe v. Wade and civil rights. But the intent all along was to choose judges who would protect corporate interests and presidential prerogatives. Roe v. Wade is still standing. But consumers, workers, small investors, and the freedoms of Americans are taking it in the ear.

The conservative majority's decision yesterday held that companies that conspired to help Stoneridge report fraudulent profits could not be held liable to the investors who got fleeced. Unless the co-conspirers communicated with the investors directly, investors could not be said to have been misled by them.

The case was widely seen as a precursor of the decision in the suit by Enron investors against the Wall Street banks -including JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup - that worked with Enron to create fake sales that enabled Enron to report mythic profits and hide significant losses.

So now does fraud becomes a profit center for Wall Street banks? With their catastrophic failures in mortgage lending, they need something. The majority noted that the Securities Exchange Commission could pursue the co-conspirators on criminal charges, but needless to say, the toothless SEC won't disturb any fraud peddler's sleep.

The rationale of the decision was to reassure third party lenders and vendors that they couldn't be held liable to unfounded lawsuits against corporate fraud. But these weren't folks just doing business with a crooked company. These were principals in the fraudulent schemes designed to mislead investors. The decision can only undermine investor confidence in US markets at the very moment the reputation of US banks and markets has been savaged by the subprime mortgage debacle, the coming credit card and auto loan defaults, and the terrifying vulnerability of the 40 trillion unregulated and unfathomable credit-default swaps market.

The conservatives on the Supreme Court have just defined that free markets mean free for fraud. If this keeps up, pillows will once more be a popular place for small investors to park their savings.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: third-party liability, enron, supreme court

Robert Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future, and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The current Supreme Court can be changed if we elect a progressive democrat as president and a
Posted by: johngary66 on Jan 17, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
progressive senate. The new president, with senate approval, could add two new justices to the court. There is no limit set on the number of Supreme Court Justices. FDR was the last president to attempt to "Stack the Court". Unfortunately he did not have enough votes in the senate. We could go back to nine by attrition if we desire. I think John Edwards is probably the only candidate that would even make the attempt. It would help to undue some of the damage of the bushit years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does Roe v. Wade define Progressivism?
Posted by: KACalder on Jan 17, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Roe v. Wade is still standing. But consumers, workers, small investors, and the freedoms of Americans are taking it in the ear": Thus the author leads off his article.

Much as I am in tune with the rest of the author's comments, that lead-off knocks me off my progressive stance. Let me cite the response I just now sent to another progressive website (and some friends of similar persuasion):

"I am very sympathetic to progressive issues in general, and have responded to any number of action appeals in support of progressive issues.

HOWEVER, I am a person of genuine principle and cannot subscribe to the "reproductive rights" indoctrination incessantly pounded out by the so-called "pro-choice" forces. A woman exercises her choice when she engages in any voluntary sexual activity, and -- as one who deeply respects the power of choice -- I would maintain she is bound by that choice and whatever it entails. If she seeks to opt out through abortion, it is she who is trivializing the power of choice.

Roe v. Wade is an artifact, a strictly faddish construct upon the Constitution that was in no way envisioned or allowed for by the Constitution's architects. I look forward to the day when we will recognize that this exposition of self-interest actually betrays the Constitution and the principles it codifies.

If a woman's pregnancy results from a sexual encounter that was actually forced upon her, then I respect that she is entitled to Roe v. Wade protection. But I cannot in good conscience have any sympathy for the woman who simply wants to terminate a pregnancy that results from voluntary sexual activity. To do so would be to utterly trivialize the power of choice and drag down the human soul, and such a "choice" has no place in the Constitution nor any valid claim of constitutional protection under any clause whatever. Rather, it is covered under our time-honored laws against murder.

Invoking "privacy" -- the constitutional clause under which abortion "rights" are typically covered -- just doesn't do it. Murder is not justified or excused because it happens to occur in private. Witness "MacBeth": "Methought I heard a voice cry, 'Sleep no more! MacBeth does murder sleep -- the innocent sleep . . .'"

I respect the Progressive platform, as a strictly human construction. But there are principles above Progressivism that I MUST respect more . . ."

Has Roe v. Wade become the litmus test of what qualifies as even minimally acceptable in progressive dialogue??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Question still stands, cont. Posted by: KACalder
» i disagree... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
After reading the comments for this article...
Posted by: lenioui on Jan 19, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it becomes clear that the point was lost.

Do I need to say more?

As the commenters bicker about who is right on Roe v Wade, the wholesale economic destruction of our country persists.

Writer of the article, this was an informative article. You did manage to get the attention of many, it's just too bad that your point was not understood by many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

every issue looks like a nail...
Posted by: lexicon on Jan 22, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lenioui....

The one thing that's sure, is that most posters are "issue hobbyists", who maintain one or perhaps two "pet issues", and every article, no matter how far afield of their pet issue, is viewed through the lens of that issue.

Take, for example, the "hemp guy"...or perhaps one or more of the "WTC Truth guys"...or the "lincoln initiative guy", or perhaps, dare I mention him, the "create your own private US debt instrument guy".

In their worlds, the pet issue is the ONLY issue, and all this blather is just their issue viewed through some tangential aspect.

I know what "issue guy" I want to be:

I'll be the "Who The Hell Is Amy Winehouse, Who Cares, And Why Does She Get Google News Front Page Real Estate Every Other Day, When The Major Worldwide Stock Market Meltdown Is Nowhere To Be Seen" guy.

lexicon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]