Supreme Court too invested to look at Corporate America.

The Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts; that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts. Hmm. . . . Sounds like . . . every commercial on television, doesn't it?” - Bill Hicks

The Supreme Court is unable to intervene on a case that is suing several large corporations because too many justices have investments in the companies being sued:

The Supreme Court tossed itself off a big case Monday.
The court couldn't take up an apartheid dispute involving some of the nation's largest companies because too many of the justices had investments or other ties with those corporate giants. It appeared to be the first time in at least a
quarter-century that the justices' financial holdings prevented them from taking
a case. The result is that a lawsuit will go forward accusing dozens of
corporations of violating international law by assisting South Africa's former
apartheid government. The companies and the Bush administration had asked the
court to intervene, arguing that the lawsuit was damaging international
relations, threatening to hurt South Africa's economic development and punishing
the companies using a fuzzy legal concept. Four of the nine justices sat out
the court's consideration of the case. Federal law calls for at least six to
hear any case.

The case will go on in a lower court, but I find it ironic that justices might have to rule on cases where they have a financial interest in the case. Eh, whats a little aparthied amongst friends?