Before 1998, whenever a customer disputed how much money it would pay for cost overruns and change orders on a construction project, Halliburton recorded revenue only after resolving the claim. Until the customer agreed, the company couldn’t say for certain how much (or how little) it eventually would receive.
In 1998, Halliburton faced Wall Street skepticism about its merger with Dresser Industries and year-to-year declines in both sales and revenue. Under Cheney’s leadership, Halliburton--with approval of its auditor, Arthur Andersen (natch)--changed its accounting for these claims, and started estimating future results and booking as revenue today what the company guessed it would recover from the disputed amounts down the line. The change let Halliburton double its 1998 pretax operating profits.
This convenient change--which Paul Brown, chair of the NYU Business School accounting department called “clearly a way of pumping up revenues”--and Cheney’s dreadful Dresser merger finally have caught up with Halliburton. The company’s stock has fallen by more than 50 percent since Cheney left. In fact, Halliburton stock today sits below its price on Oct. 1, 1995, when Cheney became CEO, while the S&P 500-stock index, despite recent losses, is still up 86 percent since then.
That’s Dick Cheney’s record as a businessman. Remember, last year we bought a tax cut based on 10-year revenue projections from these guys. Ouch!
Pakistan has threatened to use nuclear weapons even if India stuck to conventional arms in any conflict, asserting that it has never subscribed to "no-first-use" of atomic weapons and that ruling out their use would give New Delhi a "license to kill."
"India should not have the license to kill with conventional weapons while Pakistan's hands are tied regarding other means to defend itself," said its new ambassador to the United Nations Munir Akram.
A company that operates floating casinos objected when a South Carolina state agency denied its boat permission to dock in state-owned facilities. The company claimed that South Carolina was discriminating against it in violation of federal maritime law and filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission. ... in this case, the state argued that the 11th Amendment's sovereign immunity principle insulated its actions from review ... Yesterday the Supreme Court accepted that argument.
The problem with the decision is that the 11th Amendment does not apply. Sovereign immunity protects states, as the amendment says, against exercise of the "Judicial power of the United States." But the Federal Maritime Commission is not a court; it is part of the executive branch. It is ironic, to say the least, to see Justice Clarence Thomas, an outspoken critic of judicial activism, explain for the court's majority why it is irrelevant that the Federal Maritime Commission does not exercise judicial power. What matters, he argues, is not the text of the amendment but the fact that a broader notion of sovereign immunity is "embedded in our constitutional structure."
11th amendment issue in the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA et al. v. GARRETT (the ADA case)
Held: Suits in federal court by state employees to recover money damages by reason of the State's failure to comply with Title I of the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Pp. 4-17.
The Eleventh Amendment provides:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, our cases have extended the Amendment's applicability to suits by citizens against their own States. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 72-73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 669-670 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 15
(1890). The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.
Let's look at what the Rehnquist court has done. First of all, it misinterpreted the 11th amendment, and granted states immunity from suits by citizens of that state. Having established that principle - with age-old (!) precedents from 1996, 1999, and 2000 - the court then extends the immunity encompass non-judicial forums. Using that logic, it's hard to see what falls under the purview of the federal government.
That's pretty incredible when you think about it. A complete inversion of the meaning of the 11th amendment, followed by an expansion in scope. The Supreme Court is not relying on "textualism" (what the Constitution says), "originalism" (what the Founders meant), or even "traditionalism" (precedent).
Forget all the talk about what the guiding philosophy is of this court. It's simply a conservative court. One with no regard for the law.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]