Right out of the gate...
She was at the Orioles game tonight.
An awful lot of conservatives would agree with what she’s suggesting here.
From the same fool who said that precedent was so important regarding poor 19th century decisions in the 2nd Amendment.
-PJ
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.
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.
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.
The “wise Latina” apparently has a problem with private property and private ownership, as I suspect, our president does. This does not bode well.
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.
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.
Wow, this thread is taking some scary twists and turns. I think Sotomayor may be looking for one of those mythical liberal penumbra’s that emanate from deranged minds. The “source” says
“Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, ...”.
I don’t see anything there that says “except for ...” or that it applies only to a person acting individually. I don’t think my individual rights are forfeit when I join with others to exercise them in concert, including the money spent to exercise that right.
The “wise latina” (???) hard at work indeed.
Oh here we go...
I’m not the right guy to argue this matter, but I do believe that corporations don’t just get a voice, but at this time they get a super-voice. Their pockets are deep and their ability to squash individual concerns is real.
While I do believe corporation’s concerns are concerns on behalf of the public who own parcels of that corporation, I still think there are some valid questions of just how much power corporations have, vs Joe Citizen.
I believe folks like Carry Okie would be able to explain this far better than I can.
I’m not a big fan of SoSo, so don’t get me wrong. I’m going to oppose her constantly over the upcoming decades. Still, in this instance, there may be ‘some’ validity to her reasoning.
How much is not for me to say.
I’ve read a lot of brilliant legal analysis on this thread but the fact remains that if corporations are weakened we all are at the mercy of unions like SEIU.
As you are aware, there has been a continuous tension between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions since the ratification of our Constitution. All too often, both the Executive and the Congress have issued laws that they know will be determined for validity by the Court, and indeed have stated such during debates on the Floor of Congress or during signing by the President.
One of the most pernicious, and unconstitutional and therefore illegal 'Opinions' issued by the Court has given rise to the vast undermining of our Human Rights by Corporate Privileges. In an 1886 tax case from California, the Court Clerk used an Instruction from the bench given to the attorneys days before and prior to any presentation of evidence; to wit: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That synopsis became stare decisis for countless cases thereafter that have allowed the Corporations to infiltrate and undermine the restrictions our Founders placed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Can it be fixed? I don’t believe so, not in this government. Corporations are socialist by design and operation; they were never meant to have any influence within our constitutional governments.
Here’s a link to an interesting treatise on MultiNational Corporations: MNC’s – Beyond the Profit Motive and a site I found that has more info on the usurpation of privileges that Corporations have engineered: Corporate Personhood.
Then she must be against union donations, 527s, and so on. Except she’ll justify these entities giving campaign contributions under some ‘wise’ rationale (convoluted BS).
I wasn’t aware that the SCOTUS was “pro-active” but rather re-active...
Right out of the gate...
Sotomayor and ACORN Joined at the Hip
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/sotomayor_and_acorn_joined_at.html
Uhh - excuse me, but corporations do typically employ PEOPLE.