RE: Question: Rehnquist and Arthur Anderson - why him?
I assume you all know what you are talking about. That reasoning is BS, of course.
I understand that there is a single Chinese word for our terms "crisis" and "opportunity." So it must be with Arthur Anderson's fate. Were Arthur Anderson to disband, Arthur Anderson's employees would be out of work . . . temporarily. It is like the cloak of a dead man. The man may die yet the cloak may outlive him and find utility in keeping the cold from another (reference to Plato's Phaedo and the discussion of the fragility/immortality of the soul). Just because the employer vanishes does not mean the employees will be without work forever. The clients that Arthur Anderson serviced still have accounting needs to be satisfied. Thus, these unemployed workers may well find homes in the existing firms which will have to bulk up to handle the clients Arthur Anderson could no longer serve.
No one stepped in and provided protection to telecommunications sector employees who got hammered when that industry collapsed circa 2001 -- including yours truely. Why provide special treatment for a felonious accounting firm which contributed to the economic malaise we have experienced the last four years?
RE: Question: Rehnquist and Arthur Anderson - why him?
Quote:
Elaborate a little more here turd on why this is "good or bad". I'm not following you on this one.
It's bad, and Alsatian pretty much hit the ball out of the park.
You don't NOT prosecute because of fear of layoffs, thats preposterous.
And the reason they had Rehnquist deliver the verdict is not because he's chief justice, it's because he'll be out of there soon so everyone will remember him as the guy and none of the other justices.
RE: Question: Rehnquist and Arthur Anderson - why him?
Quote:
So basically this is similar in concept to the recent pension bailout - the feds attempting to legislate/rule what a business should do with its employees and benefits.
Question: Rehnquist and Arthur Anderson - why him?
