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 ...
That sounds like a positive and a negative to me. I thought it was Obama who believed in negative rights.
America stands alone as an experiment in individual rights.
Contrasting against the dark tide of collectivist history.
You are confusing human Rights with collectivist mysticism.
I don’t want the Supreme Court looking at your Viking Herb Woman myths or whatever.
All they need to know is Common Law, the Declaration, and the Constitution.
Leave the foreign precedents back in the miserable past, far away from our glorious, individual-freedom based Republic!
Elections - Congressional Power to Regulate
Section 4. Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.
The purpose of Sonia Sotomayor is to make David Souter look good.
“There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with...”
This comment is truly telling. She lacks the basic confidence to either make the argument or not. It either is or is not an argument. She doesn’t present it. Why?
Peter Principle at work, that’s why. She’s neither earned her positions on previous courts or this one. She’s a product of affirmative action and the liberal gestapo.
She’s not capable of matching wits on this Supreme Court, so she just “suggests”, that way it can be denied. She doesn’t own it. This denotes weakness.
“There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with...”
This comment is truly telling. She lacks the basic confidence to either make the argument or not. It either is or is not an argument. She doesn’t present it. Why?
Peter Principle at work, that’s why. She’s neither earned her positions on previous courts nor this one. She’s a product of affirmative action and the liberal gestapo.
She’s not capable of matching wits on this Supreme Court, so she just “suggests”, that way it can be denied. She doesn’t own it. This denotes weakness.
It is inconceivable that the Founders would have neglected the right of people to group together to overthrow a tyranny, or conduct a barbeque.
The Tenth Amendment says the people have ALL the rights not retained by the States or delegated to the authority of the federal government.
Section 4. Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.
No. Regulating time and place is of course not the same thing as regulating speech.
As I said, the government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporations.
The government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporations.
I still have absolutely no idea why you have burdened me with your bizarre incoherent rhetoric. Unless you respond to why you are addressing me in an intelligent manner concerning this, consider the matter closed.
Yes. You are agreeing with me right? Or am I missing something?
Corporations and all that goes with them are certainly mentioned inferentially in the Constitution. PLUS, certain corporate structures are referred to in the Constitution.
E.g. other nations, invaders, states ~ it's not like the Founders didn't know about corporations.
My responses were that you were wrong.
It looks as if you overlooked the word "manner".
As I said, the government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporations.
The same Supreme Court that said the Corporations are "persons" also ruled that congress can prohibit corporations from making donations to candidates for election to Federal offices.
You seem to claim that corporations should be free to contribute as much money as they want to elections because they have the same free speech rights as you. Is that right?
And since you also seem to have the opinion that there should be no limits to the amount they contribute, would you be in favor of allowing King Saud (or a corporation wholly owned by the Saudi Royal Family) contributing a billion dollars to the re-election of Obama?
Would you have a problem with that?
you are arguing with yourself. I will send you 100 billion dollars when you can show me the article,or amendment that grants protections to a corporation. Accept the Constitution literally and quit worrying what you think it infers.
Stringing together the right to contract, the right to associate, the right to speak, the right to have the government set standards for money, the right to vote, the right to subpoena, etc. all taken together mean I can engage in joining, adhering to, or purchase an interest in corporations AND THERE'S NOTHING BUSYBODIES LIKE YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME!!!
I am not and have never tried to deny you any rights. I am still totally confused about why you are accusing me of all of these right denying actions. You can have sex with an underaged monkey beneath the Arch in St. Louis if you want, the Constitution is clear in the fact that the Federal Government does not have the power to stop you. But the 10th Amendment of that same Constitution states that if Missouri want to throw your psychotic moronic ass in a rubber room for the rest of your life, then that is entirely up to the state of Missouri. I have a friend who works at Yerkes, if you want perhaps we can try this experiment out. I think a rubber room would be good for you.
The federales are limited. The states are limited of their own volition. You and I are limited only to the extent that the federal government or the state have been assigned or retained a right.
It's an interesting use of the word "right".
So whatever Missouri wants to do they will have to pass a law in that state to do it. Otherwise, it's not against the law.
If a corporation cannot speak, how can they be subpoenaed by Congress to testify?
The fact is, corporations do have rights, or they cannot exist from a practical point of view.
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.