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 ...
>. 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?
Explain why anything the could possibly enjoy the First Amendment should be deprived of it.
Corporate America has signed onto liberalism anyway with Gay Pride Month observance and the global warming myth.
OK, I'm not a legal type person. I guess I don't understand the issue of free speech if an individual is representing a corporation. If a Lawyer is representing a corporation, they are going to self shut down on any individual opinion anyway, free speech doesn't come into it at all.
I don't understand.
How does this infringe on free speech?
You and the Marxists do make that argument. I, on the other hand, note that it is the very foundation of virtue.
I agree. This is a very nice surprise.
The idea that any entity besides individual people has rights has no basis in objective reality.
It is a legal fiction, based on a cluster of metaphors that are not appropriate for Equal Protection consideration.
Expect the Wall St. Money Power to go berserk and throw a fit over this.
Most of “corporate America” is composed of small businesses. Nope, they haven’t signed onto AGW at all. Nor do they celebrate Gay Day.
I agree with you, I actually like what she is saying, shockingly enough.
I agree 100% neither unions nor corporations should have individual rights, and neither should be able to make political donations of any kind.
The typical CANAL COMPANY not only had limited liability it had MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY and could collect taxes.
Many of the early canal companies still exist. Their states may have had governmental bankruptcies on account of the failure of those companies to foster the commerce everyone expected, but the companies themselves continued to exist.
One of them in the vicinity of Crawfordsville, Indiana RENTS LAND to individuals who build houses and other buildings on it. These properties are exempt from all local property taxes. They exist separate and apart from the city, town, township and county government system of the state. A good deal all around if you want to avoid property taxes ~ and BTW, those rents are very low.
The canal company laws pretty much paralleled their European models ~ and so on all the way back to Hammurabi's time.
BTW, many of the immunities normally included in the chartering of a canal company were NOT provided to the railroads hence the need for a series of trips to and from the various state courts and the Supreme Court. If a clerk annotated a ruling with a reference to "this and that" it was probably nothing more than an extract of nearly the same "this and that" already contained in a state enabling act for a canal company.
No, that would only matter for unions.
Thank God we still have a 5 - 4 Supreme Court firewall, but we are one vote away from chaos, one vote away from the scumbags having all they need to finally bury decent, traditional America. It's scary.
This thread is getting scary.
You would have to cancel the right to assemble first.
Take this up with the Chicoms eh!
Ending corporate sovereignty is also a long-standing POPULIST goal. It’s one place where they agree with the Progressives.
I think they are right about this issue.
Too bad the GOP failed to lead and let the Democrats scoop them on the out-of-control Corporatism problem. Just like we let them take the lead on health care reform.
Somebody give Steele a copy of Triangulation For Dummies.
Clinton declared that the “Era of big government is over” and beat us good.
Bush should have declared the “Era of corporate oligarchy is over.” That would have taken the wind out of the Dem’s sails, big time!
Oh well, at least we can look forward to liberal (and conservative) heads exploding if So-So turns out to be a crypto-originalist.
“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.”
Good response.
>> [Sotomayor] 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.”
Humans and corporations have both unique and shared characteristics. But to suggest the corporation is imbued with human characteristics is inaccurate.
There was not stopping this one. Not so with Justice Souter, or Justice Stevens or any GOP appointee that turned out to be a complete piece of crap.
One vote away from declaring the Constitution unconstitutional.
It’s a legal fiction (meaning a legal concept or construction) for a particular purpose, and I agree that she distorts the issue by saying that it has human characteristics.
The giant corporations that give to Democrats and liberal causes are the ones I am talking about. Small businesses don’t have as much disposable income and aren’t as likely to see a return on their investment.
Our mainstream media is owned by big corporations like GE and Disney.
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.