Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I'm not sure who you are suggesting are idiots. If it's the Justices, I might agree:
“It’s less and less clear why we took this case and why you [Nvidia] should win it,” Justice Elena Kagan said at another point during arguments.
This was not a ruling on the merits of the suit. Merely a ruling that the plaintiffs (the investment firm) in this suit against Nvidia had in fact met the threshold for their suit to be heard.
As to why the court granted cert, without reading the case I can only offer speculation.
Justice Sonomayor said that this case didn't provide an opportunity to further clarify how securities claims could be dismissed for being frivolous. Add to that the court's bent toward weakening corporate regulations. One winds up speculating that the court had hoped to give corporations greater protection than they already have against being sued. For anything.
Due to the Rule of 4/9, any of the 5 remaining Supremes can complain why they took some case? But such complaints are unusual.
"According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court."
I must confess my first reaction when that UNH insurance CEO was killed last week was recalling the trauma that company had inflicted on me 20 years ago and feeling some of sense of justice.
In hind sight, I should have bought that company stock 20 years ago (instead of being resentful of their actions) because anyone that has figured out to operate like them was going to make a lot of money and some of those crumbs are going to accrue to the shareholders.
Over the next few years, we should talk about all the companies that screw consumers and the public with impunity so we can figure out which companies to invest in. And there will be plenty.
As to Nvidia, I live a few minutes from that company, I know how the company operates. They all are playing the "catch me if you can" game. Meta is a gangster in that respect.
"...the extent its sales depended on volatile cryptocurrency miners...."
filthy, risky, irresponsible, stoopid. all concerned are used douche nozzles. ...And, with reference to Eli Wallach, above: one good turn deserves another. Yes, consumers and investors will be fleeced at every turn, every opportunity, under the incoming regime. no doubt. Rule of Law? Who needs THAT?
Between business exec and public officials acting with impunity, consumers (public) are screwed. We are getting crushed from both sides. Of course, we are the enablers of both those category of abusers. We are stupid enough to be hypnotized into doing their bidding.
Of course, we are the enablers of both those category of abusers. We are stupid enough to be hypnotized into doing their bidding.
I'm likely too tired after a way long day; but I hope others or you offer more clarity and better yet, a list of how I would or have become an enabler or stupid. Are you relating your statement to your CNN link, or is there a wider picture that I can not envision at this time of the evening?
Wider picture but the CNN article is just a reminder of the wider picture.
if my statement sounds incomprehensible or improbable even after a week, send me a PM, I am more than happy to share examples of how we are the enablers.
Every time I am irritated with someone in my life, the first thing I do is investigate my role (as an enabler) in that person’s bad behavior. I have quit jobs when I realized I was an enabler of my bosses’ bad behavior. Enabling does not have to be direct.
if my statement sounds incomprehensible or improbable even after a week, send me a PM, I am more than happy to share examples of how we are the enablers.
There won't be a PM from me. If the topic is worth discussing, you may start a new thread in OT, as it doesn't fit in this thread.
Trump had warm words about TikTok while TT appealed to the S Ct for stay of execution.
"“You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points and there are those that say that TikTok has something to do with it,” Trump said earlier Monday at a wide-ranging press conference – his first since the election."
I am looking forward to S. Ct. surprising me by not granting the stay.
Comments
“It’s less and less clear why we took this case and why you [Nvidia] should win it,” Justice Elena Kagan said at another point during arguments.
This was not a ruling on the merits of the suit. Merely a ruling that the plaintiffs (the investment firm) in this suit against Nvidia had in fact met the threshold for their suit to be heard.
As to why the court granted cert, without reading the case I can only offer speculation.
Justice Sonomayor said that this case didn't provide an opportunity to further clarify how securities claims could be dismissed for being frivolous. Add to that the court's bent toward weakening corporate regulations. One winds up speculating that the court had hoped to give corporations greater protection than they already have against being sued. For anything.
"According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court."
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
From the perspective of our new improved executive office consumers have one and only one function: to be exploited to the maximum extent possible.
If God didn't want them sheared he would not have made them sheep.
In hind sight, I should have bought that company stock 20 years ago (instead of being resentful of their actions) because anyone that has figured out to operate like them was going to make a lot of money and some of those crumbs are going to accrue to the shareholders.
Over the next few years, we should talk about all the companies that screw consumers and the public with impunity so we can figure out which companies to invest in. And there will be plenty.
As to Nvidia, I live a few minutes from that company, I know how the company operates. They all are playing the "catch me if you can" game. Meta is a gangster in that respect.
filthy, risky, irresponsible, stoopid. all concerned are used douche nozzles.
...And, with reference to Eli Wallach, above: one good turn deserves another. Yes, consumers and investors will be fleeced at every turn, every opportunity, under the incoming regime. no doubt. Rule of Law? Who needs THAT?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/13/politics/joe-biden-commutations-pennsylvania-illinois/index.html
Thank you
Wider picture but the CNN article is just a reminder of the wider picture.
if my statement sounds incomprehensible or improbable even after a week, send me a PM, I am more than happy to share examples of how we are the enablers.
Every time I am irritated with someone in my life, the first thing I do is investigate my role (as an enabler) in that person’s bad behavior. I have quit jobs when I realized I was an enabler of my bosses’ bad behavior. Enabling does not have to be direct.
"“You know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok because I won youth by 34 points and there are those that say that TikTok has something to do with it,” Trump said earlier Monday at a wide-ranging press conference – his first since the election."
I am looking forward to S. Ct. surprising me by not granting the stay.