I have been an atlanticist my entire life. However, the facts speak unequivocally: America has, for the moment, become an unreliable partner, a kleptocracy, and a banana republic. The civilised world is astonished and shall vote with its feet, as we are beginning to witness through the underperformance of the U.S. stock market and currency. Freezing all military aid, including, astonishingly, cutting off intelligence sharing with Ukraine, is among the most egregious examples. Initiating a completely unwarranted trade war with virtually all of your NATO allies and your two gigantic neighbours and friends is another blatant example of an erratically uncivilised government. Alas, the U.S. judicial system is highly compromised these days, as exemplified by yesterday's Supreme Court decision. The case, in simplified form, involved the government contracting individuals to perform a task. These individuals fulfilled the terms of the contract, yet the government subsequently refused to pay. A case was brought forth, arguing that basic contract law should be upheld, and payment should be made. How do four justices justify siding with the government on this matter?
Sic transit... Alas for American justice and the rule of law. Once justice is compromised, the stifling of entrepreneurial activities and society at large becomes a foregone conclusion. Indeed, Lenin's remark that 'there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen' is very much applicable to the current situation in the U.S.A., and not precisely in a good way.
I'm with you, Signore Ferri, except as regards that Supreme Court opinion. The dissenters had some strong points having to do with jurisdiction, sovereign immunity law, and procedure. They also acknowledged that the government's actions appeared shady. I don't believe the Supreme Court is compromised, and I look to it to push back against the Trump encroachments. (At some point, though, Congress needs to stand up for itself.)
I fervently hope that you are correct, caro Lorenzo, although I cannot help but observe that two of the appointments made by the donaldtraitor are exceedingly poor. Alito and Thomas are universally regarded, at least in the civilised world, as utterly disgraceful. It is indeed ironic that our hopes now rest with the Chief Justice, a man of very conservative leanings, yet decent and honest by most standards.
I think Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are very good justices. (I also like Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden.)
I sometimes disagree with the rulings of Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, and I certainly have no use for their wives, and but I believe they also have integrity.
It pleases me to reflect that you are going to be pleasantly surprised by the rulings of the US Supreme Court during the next few years.
Caro Lorenzo, the realm of law is undoubtedly more your domain than mine. Nevertheless, on the matter of the Supreme Court, we find ourselves in stark disagreement. Your assertion—'I think Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are very good justices'—left me quite taken aback. On the contrary, I hold the opposite view, and this is coming from someone who has identified as a Republican for the majority of his life. The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court remains a matter of profound contention, casting a shadow over the integrity of the judicial process. His confirmation was marred by allegations of past misconduct, which, regardless of their resolution, raised significant concerns about his temperament and suitability for such a distinguished role. The hearings themselves were a spectacle of partisanship, undermining the decorum and impartiality expected of the nation's highest court.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh's judicial record reflects a staunchly conservative ideology, often perceived as prioritising corporate interests and limiting individual rights. His stance on pivotal issues, such as reproductive rights and executive authority, has sparked apprehension about the potential erosion of liberties and the balance of power. The narrow margin of his confirmation, the closest in over a century, underscores the divisive nature of his appointment. For many, it symbolises a troubling departure from the principles of impartiality and fairness that ought to define the Supreme Court. Amy... one does not even know from where to begin.
It was a decision that has elicited considerable consternation among the civilised world. Her judicial philosophy, rooted in an unyielding adherence to originalism, has been criticised for its rigidity and lack of adaptability to the evolving complexities of modern society. Such an approach often fails to account for the nuanced realities of contemporary legal and social issues.
Moreover, her relatively limited experience on the federal bench prior to her elevation raises questions about the depth of her judicial acumen. The haste with which her nomination was confirmed, mere weeks before a pivotal presidential election, further undermines the perception of impartiality and decorum that ought to characterise such an esteemed institution.
Her positions on key issues, such as reproductive rights (again!) and healthcare, have been viewed by many as regressive, threatening to erode hard-won liberties and protections. This has led to widespread apprehension regarding her ability to serve as a fair and balanced arbiter of justice.
In summation, while her intellect and academic credentials are semi-indisputable, her appointment represents, to me and many others, a troubling departure from the principles of judicial impartiality that is essential to the Supreme Court's role as a guardian of justice.
Ultimately, I discern a fundamental inconsistency in your reasoning: it is virtually certain that Justice Brown Jackson shall find herself in opposition to Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and their ilk on the majority of 'non-clear-cut' cases (and possibly even on "simple" ones) presented before the Supreme Court. And yet, you regard all of them as exemplary jurists. This cannot logically hold.
I am reminded of an anecdote from Charles Munger during his university days, in which he remarked to one of his professors, 'You give me the case, and I give you the law.' While it is true that equally accomplished professionals may, on occasion, find themselves in disagreement, such frequent and profound discord—especially on matters of great import—suggests that one party is, quite simply, far superior to the other. Still, I bloody hope that you are right!!
I happen to regard the accusations against Kavanaugh at the time of his confirmation hearing as patently paper thin partisan garbage.
Even though I personally am "pro choice," I happen to think Dobbs was correctly decided, and Roe v Wade was the tragic error. We can discuss this further if you would like.
Last term, I read many opinions and concurrences from both Kavanaugh and Barrett. They by no means always agreed with one another, but both were approaching the problems in a serious and intellectually honest way. That's how I feel about Jackson, too. I frequently disagree with her (but sometimes not, as I thought her dissent in the immunity case was compelling), but I like the way (with a different judicial philosophy from others on the Court) she approaches an issue.
If you would point me to an opinion -- majority, concurrence, or dissent -- written by either of Barrett or Kavanaugh that you regard as evidence that they are either dishonest or unqualified, we can discuss.
I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibilities that Mr. Musk has associates in one of the "Families" that represent his interests with Delaware politicians.
Dear Mr Fossi, thank you for yet another clearly explained article.
I can see corporate governance, namely protection of the interests of all involved with a company, is under threat.
In the UK - an international financial bolt-hole - there are moves right now to allow less clarity over public records of business directors - such as using different spellings of director names, not declaring associated connections and so on - 'errors' which are presently against the law. Those who want this do not want accountability which good governance requires. This will dilute the reputation UK corporate law.
Your comment reminds me that I should have mentioned in this piece that SB 21 would also severely limit the kinds of information an aggrieved shareholder can request from the corporation.
Yes. It seems suspect. Alas, Canadian governmental officials appear to have no appetite to get to the bottom of it.
The more fundamental problem is the existence of the subsidies in the first place, in Canada, here, and in so many other western countries. It might be different if EVs were truly a solution to global warming, but they are not. Billions of dollars uselessly flushed away with nothing achieved.
This is bad news for justice, Delaware’s Court of Chancery, corporations, etc., and it may also not be good for all but one Tesla shareholder. What makes the stock price go up or down doesn't yet seem to corelate to fundamentals, but the fundamentals if Musk wins on appeal, is Musk gets a big piece of a bigger pie and everybody else gets diluted. Stock price Bro.
I don't have a problem with it. Some people, thankfully relatively few, are born feeling that their sex does not reflect their true nature. When, as adults, after careful consideration, they decide to change sexes, notwithstanding all the huge difficulties associated with doing so, I respect that. Evidently you do not. I feel sorry for you.
You might want to check the assumptions you have made for this essay. They don't hold up under scrutiny. The larger assumptions are at least as problematic but aren't directly relevant to the essay.
I have been an atlanticist my entire life. However, the facts speak unequivocally: America has, for the moment, become an unreliable partner, a kleptocracy, and a banana republic. The civilised world is astonished and shall vote with its feet, as we are beginning to witness through the underperformance of the U.S. stock market and currency. Freezing all military aid, including, astonishingly, cutting off intelligence sharing with Ukraine, is among the most egregious examples. Initiating a completely unwarranted trade war with virtually all of your NATO allies and your two gigantic neighbours and friends is another blatant example of an erratically uncivilised government. Alas, the U.S. judicial system is highly compromised these days, as exemplified by yesterday's Supreme Court decision. The case, in simplified form, involved the government contracting individuals to perform a task. These individuals fulfilled the terms of the contract, yet the government subsequently refused to pay. A case was brought forth, arguing that basic contract law should be upheld, and payment should be made. How do four justices justify siding with the government on this matter?
Sic transit... Alas for American justice and the rule of law. Once justice is compromised, the stifling of entrepreneurial activities and society at large becomes a foregone conclusion. Indeed, Lenin's remark that 'there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen' is very much applicable to the current situation in the U.S.A., and not precisely in a good way.
I'm with you, Signore Ferri, except as regards that Supreme Court opinion. The dissenters had some strong points having to do with jurisdiction, sovereign immunity law, and procedure. They also acknowledged that the government's actions appeared shady. I don't believe the Supreme Court is compromised, and I look to it to push back against the Trump encroachments. (At some point, though, Congress needs to stand up for itself.)
I fervently hope that you are correct, caro Lorenzo, although I cannot help but observe that two of the appointments made by the donaldtraitor are exceedingly poor. Alito and Thomas are universally regarded, at least in the civilised world, as utterly disgraceful. It is indeed ironic that our hopes now rest with the Chief Justice, a man of very conservative leanings, yet decent and honest by most standards.
As I was saying...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/06/amy-coney-barrett-trump-criticism-supreme-court/
I think Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are very good justices. (I also like Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden.)
I sometimes disagree with the rulings of Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, and I certainly have no use for their wives, and but I believe they also have integrity.
It pleases me to reflect that you are going to be pleasantly surprised by the rulings of the US Supreme Court during the next few years.
Caro Lorenzo, the realm of law is undoubtedly more your domain than mine. Nevertheless, on the matter of the Supreme Court, we find ourselves in stark disagreement. Your assertion—'I think Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are very good justices'—left me quite taken aback. On the contrary, I hold the opposite view, and this is coming from someone who has identified as a Republican for the majority of his life. The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court remains a matter of profound contention, casting a shadow over the integrity of the judicial process. His confirmation was marred by allegations of past misconduct, which, regardless of their resolution, raised significant concerns about his temperament and suitability for such a distinguished role. The hearings themselves were a spectacle of partisanship, undermining the decorum and impartiality expected of the nation's highest court.
Furthermore, Kavanaugh's judicial record reflects a staunchly conservative ideology, often perceived as prioritising corporate interests and limiting individual rights. His stance on pivotal issues, such as reproductive rights and executive authority, has sparked apprehension about the potential erosion of liberties and the balance of power. The narrow margin of his confirmation, the closest in over a century, underscores the divisive nature of his appointment. For many, it symbolises a troubling departure from the principles of impartiality and fairness that ought to define the Supreme Court. Amy... one does not even know from where to begin.
It was a decision that has elicited considerable consternation among the civilised world. Her judicial philosophy, rooted in an unyielding adherence to originalism, has been criticised for its rigidity and lack of adaptability to the evolving complexities of modern society. Such an approach often fails to account for the nuanced realities of contemporary legal and social issues.
Moreover, her relatively limited experience on the federal bench prior to her elevation raises questions about the depth of her judicial acumen. The haste with which her nomination was confirmed, mere weeks before a pivotal presidential election, further undermines the perception of impartiality and decorum that ought to characterise such an esteemed institution.
Her positions on key issues, such as reproductive rights (again!) and healthcare, have been viewed by many as regressive, threatening to erode hard-won liberties and protections. This has led to widespread apprehension regarding her ability to serve as a fair and balanced arbiter of justice.
In summation, while her intellect and academic credentials are semi-indisputable, her appointment represents, to me and many others, a troubling departure from the principles of judicial impartiality that is essential to the Supreme Court's role as a guardian of justice.
Ultimately, I discern a fundamental inconsistency in your reasoning: it is virtually certain that Justice Brown Jackson shall find herself in opposition to Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and their ilk on the majority of 'non-clear-cut' cases (and possibly even on "simple" ones) presented before the Supreme Court. And yet, you regard all of them as exemplary jurists. This cannot logically hold.
I am reminded of an anecdote from Charles Munger during his university days, in which he remarked to one of his professors, 'You give me the case, and I give you the law.' While it is true that equally accomplished professionals may, on occasion, find themselves in disagreement, such frequent and profound discord—especially on matters of great import—suggests that one party is, quite simply, far superior to the other. Still, I bloody hope that you are right!!
I happen to regard the accusations against Kavanaugh at the time of his confirmation hearing as patently paper thin partisan garbage.
Even though I personally am "pro choice," I happen to think Dobbs was correctly decided, and Roe v Wade was the tragic error. We can discuss this further if you would like.
Last term, I read many opinions and concurrences from both Kavanaugh and Barrett. They by no means always agreed with one another, but both were approaching the problems in a serious and intellectually honest way. That's how I feel about Jackson, too. I frequently disagree with her (but sometimes not, as I thought her dissent in the immunity case was compelling), but I like the way (with a different judicial philosophy from others on the Court) she approaches an issue.
If you would point me to an opinion -- majority, concurrence, or dissent -- written by either of Barrett or Kavanaugh that you regard as evidence that they are either dishonest or unqualified, we can discuss.
A little whoopsie here, I think.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz represented TWITTER, not Musk in the Twitter litigation.
Your phrase "The Wachtell firm represented Musk when Twitter sued him..."
Yikes. I've corrected it and added a post-publication note flagging the error. Thank you!
I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibilities that Mr. Musk has associates in one of the "Families" that represent his interests with Delaware politicians.
Dear Mr Fossi, thank you for yet another clearly explained article.
I can see corporate governance, namely protection of the interests of all involved with a company, is under threat.
In the UK - an international financial bolt-hole - there are moves right now to allow less clarity over public records of business directors - such as using different spellings of director names, not declaring associated connections and so on - 'errors' which are presently against the law. Those who want this do not want accountability which good governance requires. This will dilute the reputation UK corporate law.
Thanks, Andrew.
Your comment reminds me that I should have mentioned in this piece that SB 21 would also severely limit the kinds of information an aggrieved shareholder can request from the corporation.
Oh dear. That's not good at all.
No information, no disputes. How marvelous (not).
It just gets worse by the day!
Have you seen this? Seems quite fishy:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/2025/03/06/ctv-national-news-a-suspicious-spike-in-tesla-sales-in-canada/
Yes. It seems suspect. Alas, Canadian governmental officials appear to have no appetite to get to the bottom of it.
The more fundamental problem is the existence of the subsidies in the first place, in Canada, here, and in so many other western countries. It might be different if EVs were truly a solution to global warming, but they are not. Billions of dollars uselessly flushed away with nothing achieved.
This is bad news for justice, Delaware’s Court of Chancery, corporations, etc., and it may also not be good for all but one Tesla shareholder. What makes the stock price go up or down doesn't yet seem to corelate to fundamentals, but the fundamentals if Musk wins on appeal, is Musk gets a big piece of a bigger pie and everybody else gets diluted. Stock price Bro.
I completely agree. I know several investors who are short Tesla and are hoping Musk gets the 302 million shares.
When a man, who thinks he is a woman, dresses so and gets elected to Congress, I would say something is rotten in Delaware!
I don't have a problem with it. Some people, thankfully relatively few, are born feeling that their sex does not reflect their true nature. When, as adults, after careful consideration, they decide to change sexes, notwithstanding all the huge difficulties associated with doing so, I respect that. Evidently you do not. I feel sorry for you.
You might want to check the assumptions you have made for this essay. They don't hold up under scrutiny. The larger assumptions are at least as problematic but aren't directly relevant to the essay.
Might you be more specific? Such as identifying the assumptions you think are incorrect, and explaining why you believe they are incorrect?
Which assumptions?