Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law
Wall Street Journal ^ | 17 Sep 2009 | Jess Bravin

Posted on 09/17/2009 2:09:37 PM PDT by Admiral_Zeon

WASHINGTON -- In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

"Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of [her] first questions," said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: news; scotus; sotomayor; sotomayorwatch; unqualified; wallstreet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-305 next last
To: dinoparty

The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and does not say that it is to be denied any grouping of people (such as a political party, for example; or what we call now a corporation).


181 posted on 09/17/2009 7:53:23 PM PDT by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You and the Marxists do make that argument. I, on the other hand, note that it is the very foundation of virtue.

That's a nasty slap, dude. But if it takes being labelled a Marxist to assert that capital responsibility IS personal responsibility, then so be it. The downfall of the capitalist system has always been the abuse of the corporation to achieve a Marxist-style separation of the ruling elite from personal responsibility. Limited liability from responsibility is the same corruption in the political realm as it is in the business realm - and it's those same corrupt corporate capitalist elites that have always funded political Marxism, because they're the same thing. Denying this connection has been the single most powerful enablement of the Leftist cause with the useful idiots.

182 posted on 09/17/2009 8:03:51 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon
“Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons,” she said. “There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.”

Does that apply to GE, too?
How about the newspapers?
How about the Sierra club and NARAL?

They are ALL GROUPS of people, you stupid, female Latina. And the individuals in a group do NOT lose rights because they form a group.

Lobbies are good things. We join and pay people to represent us to our representatives. It is part of living in a REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy.

But that is what this female, Latina communist really hates. The republic.

183 posted on 09/17/2009 8:04:37 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (I'd rather be a teabagger than an ankle-grabber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Yes, but I think the point is why are there “rights” granted to the collective that consists you and your neighbors? You have a personal vote, a personal voice, and so on, as do your neighbors. What is this additional right that you now collectively have?


184 posted on 09/17/2009 8:06:03 PM PDT by mquinn (Obama's supporters: a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: mquinn

So, according to you, someone could move into this housing development and engage in activities which could negatively impact the other people living there and we would have no right as a collective to address the situation?


185 posted on 09/17/2009 8:11:36 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a U.S. Army Infantry Soldier whose wife is expecting twins SONS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

She was at the Orioles game tonight.


186 posted on 09/17/2009 8:12:21 PM PDT by Norman Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

“First they came for the corporations and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a corporation.”


187 posted on 09/17/2009 8:12:47 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist"-Dr House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

An awful lot of conservatives would agree with what she’s suggesting here.


188 posted on 09/17/2009 8:14:26 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

From the same fool who said that precedent was so important regarding poor 19th century decisions in the 2nd Amendment.


189 posted on 09/17/2009 8:16:03 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (We do what we have to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon
Let's spin this that Sotomayor is arguing against corporate income taxes, if she thinks that it was the "court's error" that "Judges 'created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons...'"

-PJ

190 posted on 09/17/2009 8:20:18 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Comprehensive congressional reform legislation only yields incomprehensible bills that nobody reads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Judges didn't create corporations. State enabling statutes enacted by state legislatures created the laws for creating and regulating corporations.

End of that story.

Sonja is probably the most fascistic judge we've ever had on the USSC. She's also likely the stupidest one in modern times.

191 posted on 09/17/2009 8:20:31 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
An awful lot of conservatives would agree with what she’s suggesting here.

Only those who are fooled by Sotomayor's "Judges created freedom of speech for corporations", strawman fallacy.

The right to freedom of speech and the right of freedom of association was never granted by "judges". It's inalienable.

192 posted on 09/17/2009 8:21:59 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: SandWMan; dinoparty

Indeed, take GE as an example. Not every employee likes the new cozy relationship with this Administration.


193 posted on 09/17/2009 8:25:24 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon
She's correct.

Groups, unions, organizations, corporations, etc. don't have rights, they have privileges.

We are a Republic, based on the idea that individuals our endowed by our creator with Rights.

194 posted on 09/17/2009 8:59:44 PM PDT by BGHater (Insanity is voting for Republicans and expecting Conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

I’m going to point out that indeed, “corporations” do not have rights, as only individuals can have rights, but the individuals on the corporations certainly have rights.


195 posted on 09/17/2009 9:14:13 PM PDT by RWB Patriot ("Need has never produced anything. It has only been an excuse to steal from those with ablity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze

interesting


196 posted on 09/17/2009 9:16:50 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

Anybody who thinks Sotomayor is right of Ginsberg should check their brain brain at the door. Obama surrounded himself with radical communists. Sotomayor will prove to fit right in with that crowd.

Now I say again to all Conservatives who vote 3rd party instead of Republican, is this REALLY what you want all 9 of the SCOTUS justices to be like. Because that is what you are going to get if you keep voting against the Republicans for protest. The Republicans don’t get the message, and we end up with communists on the top bench.

We have one chance. Change the GOP. And that will mean finding Conservative candidates and donating money to their campaigns so they can beat their GOP picked rivals in the primaries. The only chance we have for smaller government, is to back true conservative Republicans and support them with our dollars and our votes. Every other tactic leads to socialism.

Just my 2 centavos.


197 posted on 09/17/2009 9:17:13 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Depression Countdown: 50... 49... 48...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

The “wise Latina” apparently has a problem with private property and private ownership, as I suspect, our president does. This does not bode well.


198 posted on 09/17/2009 9:25:45 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theo; dinoparty
"Corporations/organizations are not people, and should not
have the rights that people have. They should not, for
example, be allowed to give money to political candidates
or parties"

Well then the government should stop taxing the crap out of
the 78% small business that you folks keep treating like
we were some global concern.

The congress writes the tax laws and spends us into oblivion
but you think the ones (employers) who will bear the brunt of
their cap and trade and socialized medicine should have no say in the matter.

That's called taxation without representation.

When you come around looking for a job remember why
we (business)are not here anymore. Go find work from a poor person.

199 posted on 09/17/2009 9:26:42 PM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

If she wanted to start with a bang, this is a good way. Corporations are as non-constitutional as are political parties. To make matters worse, the board of directors of corporations may not even have a personal interest or stake in the corporation themselves, but are often professional proxies, paid representatives of other corporations that own stock. Such proxies may sit on the boards of several corporations.

This often creates a disconnect between corporate operations and corporate responsibilities. A corporation is *supposed* to work in the interests of its shareholders, which can mean many things. But what if a corporation is directed by its board to do things neither advantageous to their shareholders, *or* to the corporation itself?

For his innumerable faults, Jesse Jackson had one good idea, once, that I am in agreement with, at least partially. He called it the “corporate death penalty”. In essence, it would be much like a racketeering act specific to corporations. And not just to the individual corporation, but to those responsible individuals within the corporation.

The purpose of the corporate death penalty is for when a corporation commits a pattern of criminal activities, often in defiance of the law, because the penalties are so trivial, and the profits from violating the law are so great, they cannot resist breaking the law, repeatedly.

Today, if a corporation is absolved of misdeeds, either by falling apart or being consumed by another corporation, often the misdeeds are forgotten in the fray. And those individuals responsible for those misdeeds, often proxies, go on to commit the same and similar offenses in other corporations.

http://www.theyrule.net/

Importantly, the major corporations of the US are highly “incestuous”, as far as being controlled by a very small elite cadre of proxies and major shareholders. So in effect, this small group of people are the voice of the “civil rights” of corporations in the law. Perhaps it could be described as their having “super votes”, worth far more than the individual vote of a human citizen.

And this is a great cause of concern.


200 posted on 09/17/2009 9:28:32 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-305 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson