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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-305 next last
The 'wise latina' is already hard at work.
1 posted on 09/17/2009 2:09:38 PM PDT by Admiral_Zeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

Of course I guess it doesn’t matter that these corporations are made up of individual people...who want to express their political opinions.


2 posted on 09/17/2009 2:11:14 PM PDT by SandWMan ( A riot ist an ugly sing, und, I sink it's about time zat ve had vone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

I must say that what she says makes some sense. I’m ready to be flamed, but if we are going to be consistent originalsts, can we really claim that the framers envisioned that corporations would be protected by the first amendment?

That said, all of us probably need to read those 19th century decisions before passing judgment.


3 posted on 09/17/2009 2:12:43 PM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

Wow...wait till she-w**** gets hold of the Constitution written by those ol White Guys.


4 posted on 09/17/2009 2:12:50 PM PDT by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

So what is she saying? Individuals have free speech rights but collections of individuals do not? Seems like a dangerous proposition.


5 posted on 09/17/2009 2:13:21 PM PDT by matt1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon
She really ought to think twice about her concerns on "corporations" because ALL Progressives operate from behind corporations, particularly those who work for large Foundations.

Prior to the decisions Sonja is worrying about when rich people died their assets were parceled out among their heirs ~ not handed over to Communist apparatchiks to misuse!

6 posted on 09/17/2009 2:14:17 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

We have no idea how radical this woman is and now she is there for life. Change.....its at the Supreme Court.


7 posted on 09/17/2009 2:14:24 PM PDT by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing Murtha and his fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

A “hint” of her philosophy? More like an atom bomb.

Of course the imbecile was just looking for a way to prop up campaign finance laws, but in teh process she revealed just how much she wants to overturn the established order.

Besides, doesn’t the campaign finance law also limit individual (human) contributions?


8 posted on 09/17/2009 2:14:27 PM PDT by Williams (It's The Policies, Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandWMan

But if you do something in the corporate name, then aren’t you speaking on behalf of the corporation, not yourself? Many corporations say things on behalf of the shareholders’ interests that they might not necessarily believe themselves, because it is their job as an officer of the corporation.


9 posted on 09/17/2009 2:14:45 PM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

Let us destroy the very foundations of freedom and capitalism and America.

No, she’s a moderate... really!!

The Senate should all be shot.


10 posted on 09/17/2009 2:14:59 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com ............. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

And if so, does that extend to Unions as well?


11 posted on 09/17/2009 2:15:08 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Interestingly some on the left hold the opposite view. Some think free speech is a collective and not an individual right.


12 posted on 09/17/2009 2:15:56 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com ............. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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."

Yeah, British judges (and Roman lawmakers too), centuries before the birth of the US. This is hard-core anti-corporate nuttiness.

13 posted on 09/17/2009 2:15:57 PM PDT by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty

Yea. You’re right.

I have often wondered about “rights” claimed by corporations which are state chartered entities and not “born”.


14 posted on 09/17/2009 2:16:25 PM PDT by GulfBreeze (Palin 2012 - For The Change You Wanted!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

lol.

Shirley you jest!


15 posted on 09/17/2009 2:16:41 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com ............. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
Yeah, the Founders assumed individuals as groups ("assemble peaceably") would be protected.

There's also something in there about "religion" ~ which is definitionally a "group sort of thing", Armies, Navies, etc.

Even defense contractors were named in the Constitution!

Problem is Sotomayor comes from a very insular community that cuts itself off from the mainstream of American history, tradition and thought. We have rarely had a more narrow-minded and bigoted Justice.

16 posted on 09/17/2009 2:16:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

Corporations are not just collections of individuals. They are separate legal entities. An individual can chhose to speak either in his own name, or in the name of an unincorporated group of people, or on behalf of a corporation. These are distinct.


17 posted on 09/17/2009 2:17:00 PM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

Her new nickname is So-So


18 posted on 09/17/2009 2:17:46 PM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com ............. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon
Corporations need to be able to both defend themselves from the extortion of the government, and be able to state the companies' position on any issue or legislation. Individuals cannot protect legitimate corporate interests.

Without free speech rights, corporations (and stockholders). are screwed.

19 posted on 09/17/2009 2:18:13 PM PDT by paul in cape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Don’t call me Shirley.

:-)


20 posted on 09/17/2009 2:18:52 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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