[Admiral_Zeon]

The 'wise latina' is already hard at work.

[SandWMan]

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

[dinoparty]

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.

[Marty62]

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

[matt1234]

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

[muawiyah]

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!

[Bulldawg Fan]

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

[Williams]

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?

[GeronL]

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

No, she’s a moderate... really!!

The Senate should all be shot.

[untenured]

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.

[GeronL]

Her new nickname is So-So

[paul in cape]

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.

[BlueNgold]

Can we apply that same logic, then, equally to the Unions?

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[Williams]

“But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Duh

[Carry_Okie]

The 'wise latina' is already hard at work.

There was no 19th Century ruling, the "precedent" giving corporations 14th Amendment "equal protection" was a headnote written by a Marxist court clerk in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad. She is on absolutely solid legal grounds here.

[jessduntno]

I wonder what she makes of the little known phrase “Corporate Entity”

[the anti-liberal]

As much as I hate to agree with anything this "wise latina" says, corporations have vastly more capital and resources than any one individual yet individuals have few means of countering that advantage when it comes to voting, petitioning government, etc - unless they organize and pool resources.

On the other hand, she wants to undermine the ability of corporations to operate in a climate increasingly hostile to corporations and profit earners generally. This fits very well with 0's contempt for wealth and wealth creation.

[FlyVet]

Tell her a corporation is a “collective”. It’s made up of workers, management, CEO, board of directors...a whole bunch of people with individual rights. Does this collectivist have a problem with the collective?

[Buckeye McFrog]

don’t underestimate the significance of this....stripping away the protections of legal personhood from corporations has been high on the Radical Wish List for many years now

[grey_whiskers]

If the "Wise Latina" wants to throw out stare decisis, let's start with Roe v. Wade and then go on from there.

Wanna play, Sonia?

Cheers!