Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

New Media Darling & American Hero, Tim Howard, US Men's National Team Goalie, Is (Shhh) a Christian | Main | Today's Meme: Obama is Giving Up
July 02, 2014

Dear Emptyheaded Left Wing Writers

Please stop saying that a corporation is a "fictitious person" as part of your case in chief against the Hobby Lobby decision.

For one thing, you sound stupid. Not because this is untrue, but rather because it is obviously true, and 90% of all literate people not only know "corporations are fictitious people" but in fact have known this since long before you apparently did.

You sound like 8 year olds who just learned a FunFact (TM) about koalas and can't stop repeating it. Didja know that koala bears are not in fact bears but odd creatures called "marsupials"?!!? Didja? Didja?!!?

Yes, we all knew that. In second grade. But Welcome to the World, I guess.

It's a big place. You'll want to take notes about it until you get your bearings.

Secondly, and here I fear I will lose you completely because this is going to get slightly abstract and logical, the fact that "corporations are fictitious persons" actually destroys your arguments, rather than strengthens them, which, if you'd bother to have read the Hobby Lobby case, which you have not and will not, ever, you'd already know.

See, a corporation is a fictitious person. It is a made-up designation, created by state law, to permit business concerns to live longer than the lifespan of a natural person.

It is a fictitious person. It is not a real person. Fictitious -- an imaginary construct of the law.

Think about what that means.

This means that in a closely-held corporation -- where five or fewer people control the majority of shares (and in fact usually control all of it) -- the "corporation" does not exist in any real way, except for its listing in the tax records of a state.

In a small closely-held corporation, "the corporation" only means "these five guys right here."

The Supreme Court did not acknowledge that corporations qua corporations (look up "qua" on your own time, idiots) have "religious freedoms." Rather, it recognized the obvious -- that in the case of a closely-held corporation, the corporation being a fictitious entity and all, an imposition of a duty on "the corporation" is in reality just an imposition of a duty on the five or fewer people (often one or two) who own it.

Thus, when we say the Hobby Lobby corporation must provide abortifacient drugs to its employees, this is precisely the same as laying this responsibility on the five or fewer individual persons (who definitely have the right to religious freedom) to provide abortifacient drugs to their employees.

Given that the corporation is a fictitious entity of no tangible presence (something you seem so delighted to have recently learned), forcing the corporation to provide abortions is precisely the same as forcing the family who owns Hobby Lobby to provide them.

You see? You see what your problem is here?

I mean, one of your problems. You have many, beginning with the facts that 1 you are not terribly well educated and 2 you seem to believe you are extremely well educated.

Now, in a very large corporation, what we call a "publicly traded" corporation, wherein many thousands (or even millions) of persons might have shares and thus ownership interests in this fictitious person, one could very easily make the case that each individual shareholder is so attenuated from actual control of the corporation that to impose a duty on the corporation does not implicate the individual shareholder at all, or implicates him so slightly, so trivially, that we can round down and simply say "Forcing Exxon to provide abortion drugs should not offend the conscience of Exxon's thousands of owners."

We could say in that case that an imposition on the corporation has no real implication for the individual owner. He would own, what, one thousand shares out of over ten million shares of the decision to provide abortion services?

A very diffuse responsibility indeed.

But you cannot make this claim when a family of four owns almost all of the stock in a corporation. In that case, the burdens placed on this fictitious entity are actually burdens on the people -- Unless you idiots want to make the case that this fictitious entity that has so mesmerized you actually has the tangible quality of being a real person whose actions do not implicate its real-person owners.

But then in that case you shouldn't keep saying it's a fictitious person-- you should be arguing it's close enough to a real person to be treated as such.

You should be arguing that a corporation is so close to real that we should say a burden on it means nothing at all to its owners-- who are just third-parties with barely anything at all to do with the real person being burdened. The real person being burdened (in this argument) is the corporation, which is basically a totes real person, and no other people are burdened at all.

The Supreme Court agrees with your actual statements about corporations being fictitious persons. In fact, they agree with it so much they based their decision on it.

They're saying "A corporation, being a fictitious construct with no real existence in the context of a closely-held corporation, is too slight and gossamer a thing to put any weight upon as far as distinguishing burdens placed on it and burdens placed on its owners."

By the way, idiots, partnerships (also small collections of people) have always had these rights to religious freedom, as they are obviously Just People and do not surrender their humanity by choosing to form a business partnership with another.

All the court did was say that a closely-held corporation is sufficiently similar to a partnership for the same rule to attach.

"Attach" means "apply" in this contest, dummies. I don't mean they glued the rule to them.

I know you'll all thank me for clearing up your latest stupidity so allow me to say, in salutation,

You're Welcome, Imbeciles,

Your Buddy,


PS-- "SCOTUSblog" is not the Supreme Court's personal web-log. It's just some guys who follow the court.

Please update your records, dum-dums.

PPS -- I don't know if "SCOTUSblog" is an incorporated fictitious person. You should get right on that yourselves, though. I'm sure that fact holds the key to this whole mystery.

digg this
posted by Ace at 06:20 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Ciampino - The SS is a joke #46: "385 ...332 always disappointed that they don't ser ..."

screaming in digital: "My apologies for overlooking the carnivorous contr ..."

mikeski: "[i]What is the Occam Fallacy? I just made it up. A ..."

Eromero: "Well sure, and they thought Jimmah Carter was gonn ..."

Anonosaurus Wrecks, Covfefe Today, Covfefe Tomorrow, Covfefe Forever![/s] [/b] [/u]: "Heh. I started reading old Playboys some time ago. ..."

Rex B: "430 Post-shooting body cam video of SS and LE at s ..."

Gref: "410 I watched the coconut meme explanation. I s ..."

Alberta Oil Peon: "John Mayall is mort Posted by: Mark1971 at July 2 ..."

BurtTC: "They couldn't break down a tire and patch a tube, ..."

"Perfessor" Squirrel: "Helena is the supplier, Jordan the distributor. P ..."

Jordan61: "I'll be bringing it again this year. Posted by: B ..."

"Perfessor" Squirrel: "Leftist Americans think there are thousands of hig ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64