Replies

I think Sotomayor may actually be thinking like an originalist here. Since corporations are creatures of statutory law, their rights to speech and other liberties are likewise created under the same statutes that grant them rights as "persons". Therefore as long as their existence as persons is statutory, their rights as persons hinge upon a legislative grant of the liberties guaranteed to individual persons under the Constitution.

IOW they have, as corporations, no constitutional rights not expressly granted to them by the legislatures that grant them status as "persons".

This is not to say that individuals who own corporations give up any constitutional rights by incorporating their businesses, but their businesses have no unalienable rights which legislatures are not free to take away.

Corporations are "persons" only at the whim of legislatures and hence their rights as persons are also subject to the whims of the legislatures which grant them personhood.

I think you could be right. Also, you never know, lifetime appointments can sometimes change people fundamentally. I am not a fool but I can hope that perhaps she will see the awesome responsibility that she has been granted and become an originalist. After all, some of the founders were originally on the side of the crown.

John, I don't remember your specialty before the Supreme Court.

I am very interested in your take on this matter.

Taken with a short term view, Sotomayer is a left wing kook.

With a longer view, she may have a point worth arguing over.

Going back a few thousand years, which we do, she becomes very kook-like.

Most of the time, when we use the word “corporation”, folks think of GE, Ford, P&G — some large business.

The corporations that concern me are those assemblies of people who have sought protection from personal liability by incorporating. Free Republic is an LLC, I believe. Churches are incorporated. I imagine that many citizen groups are, too.

I see these assemblies of persons as fitting the provision in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution having “the right to peaceably assemble and petition”.

However, I see some Sotomayor ruling against “corporations” also applying to “assemblies” of persons. She and the media would talk it up as “keeping big business out of politics”, but the trojan horse would be the denial of assemblies designed to speak with one voice.

In terms of big business meddling in politics, I’ve no way to distinguish between Procter&Gamble and George Soros, a rich man enriched by big business, using his personal wealth to advertise and organize in favor of his political viewpoints.

So, in the long run, we’re left with the marketplace of ideas. It’s probably best just to allow a free fire zone while requiring the strictest reporting of all money/barter/gifting spent in any way to advance any item or person up for a vote. At least those interested can follow the money.

I think Sotomayor may actually be thinking like an originalist here.

Please don't use the word "originalist" and the name Sotomayor in the same sentence.

Look at the full context of her statements. It's a free speech case. Sotomayor is hinting that she believes individuals who freely associate with other individuals in a group(in this case a corporation) can have their free speech rights denied. Sotomayor is setting up a strawman fallacy. It's not about corporations having rights. Its about individuals having the right of free association and free speech.

This is not to say that individuals who own corporations give up any constitutional rights by incorporating their businesses...

You want to bet that is exactly what she believes.