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 previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-305 next last
To: Palin Republic
Rights are negative, not positive. You have the right to assemble, but not the right to force others into your assembly.

That sounds like a positive and a negative to me. I thought it was Obama who believed in negative rights.

281 posted on 09/18/2009 5:33:50 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

America stands alone as an experiment in individual rights.

Contrasting against the dark tide of collectivist history.

You are confusing human Rights with collectivist mysticism.

I don’t want the Supreme Court looking at your Viking Herb Woman myths or whatever.

All they need to know is Common Law, the Declaration, and the Constitution.

Leave the foreign precedents back in the miserable past, far away from our glorious, individual-freedom based Republic!


282 posted on 09/18/2009 5:35:42 PM PDT by Palin Republic (Palin - Bachmann 2012 : Girl Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Elections - Congressional Power to Regulate

Section 4. Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.


283 posted on 09/18/2009 6:17:05 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

The purpose of Sonia Sotomayor is to make David Souter look good.


284 posted on 09/18/2009 9:49:09 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Hmm, I suggest you re-read the Constitution. It clearly says “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I think that pretty much covers the ball park.

You aren't talking about some esoteric right in the sky created by judges for evil corporations, but rather you are talking about MY RIGHTS, and MY NEIGHBORS RIGHTS, and among those are the RIGHT TO FREELY ASSEMBLE, to get together for barbeques, to create a corporation, to seek rezoning, etc. There's just all sorts of things here ~ millions of things ~ we can even have a buyers club made up of the young mothers.



Just who are you addressing about the 10th Amendment? Me? I suggest you READ the Constitution before you suggest I re-read it. You are referring to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States. The 10th of 10 amendments to the original Constitution, these 10 amendments make up the Bill of Rights. If you intend to go into the world and discuss what the Founding Fathers wrote you had better be more precise other than your little "Hmmmmm" rant. I know what the Constitution is and what its intent is. It is so simple and pure but it needs good, moral and honorable men to make it work. It is a gun put to the head of government with a half pulled trigger. It was written to be the hairline divider between anarchy and tyranny. The Founders did not even consider your barbeques, corporations, rezoning or young mothers buyers clubs. They risked everything for freedom, it is a word that does not mean a lot anymore because it has been watered down by cowards and phonies who hide behind what the word really means, really conveys. The Founding Fathers and the original Patriots truly did risk death and died for Freedom. It was a RADICAL concept then, it is an even more radical concept today, most do not get it. I am a strict adherent to the original writing of the Constitution, intent means nothing to me, the document is as clear as a bell. I made a comment that there are no rights granted to corporations in the Constitution. I also stated that while I am no fool, I truly hope that the awesome responsibility of defending the Constitution would cause Sotomayer to become a strict adherent to the actual writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you need, I can write this in crayon for you so you may understand my position better. Don't Tread on Me
285 posted on 09/19/2009 1:11:07 AM PDT by coon2000 (Give me Liberty or give me death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

“There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with...”

This comment is truly telling. She lacks the basic confidence to either make the argument or not. It either is or is not an argument. She doesn’t present it. Why?

Peter Principle at work, that’s why. She’s neither earned her positions on previous courts or this one. She’s a product of affirmative action and the liberal gestapo.

She’s not capable of matching wits on this Supreme Court, so she just “suggests”, that way it can be denied. She doesn’t own it. This denotes weakness.


286 posted on 09/19/2009 1:46:55 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admiral_Zeon

“There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with...”

This comment is truly telling. She lacks the basic confidence to either make the argument or not. It either is or is not an argument. She doesn’t present it. Why?

Peter Principle at work, that’s why. She’s neither earned her positions on previous courts nor this one. She’s a product of affirmative action and the liberal gestapo.

She’s not capable of matching wits on this Supreme Court, so she just “suggests”, that way it can be denied. She doesn’t own it. This denotes weakness.


287 posted on 09/19/2009 1:47:27 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
George Washington spent about 7 years attending to the business of an ARMY that was formed extralegally (from the British point of view). That ARMY lived on barbeque ~ so you can't say Washington didn't know what was up with the right of free association.

It is inconceivable that the Founders would have neglected the right of people to group together to overthrow a tyranny, or conduct a barbeque.

The Tenth Amendment says the people have ALL the rights not retained by the States or delegated to the authority of the federal government.

288 posted on 09/19/2009 4:13:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Are you going to tell me that the Constitution allows for the government to deny due process to a corporation? Are you going to tell me that the Constitution allows for the government to confiscate private property of a corporation? Are you going tell me that the Constitution allows for the government to ban companies from owning guns? I know Obama -- and Sotomayor would tell me that. The government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporation. I asked you earlier in this thread to find me that authority delegated by the Constitution to the government and you have yet to do that.

Section 4. Clause 1. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

No. Regulating time and place is of course not the same thing as regulating speech.

As I said, the government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporations.

289 posted on 09/19/2009 7:55:08 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
I am a strict adherent to the original writing of the Constitution, intent means nothing to me, the document is as clear as a bell. I made a comment that there are no rights granted to corporations in the Constitution.

The government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporations.

290 posted on 09/19/2009 7:59:57 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I still have absolutely no idea why you have burdened me with your bizarre incoherent rhetoric. Unless you respond to why you are addressing me in an intelligent manner concerning this, consider the matter closed.


291 posted on 09/19/2009 9:39:21 AM PDT by coon2000 (Give me Liberty or give me death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Yes. You are agreeing with me right? Or am I missing something?


292 posted on 09/19/2009 9:53:46 AM PDT by coon2000 (Give me Liberty or give me death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
You said "corporations were not guaranteed anything in the Constitution" and I have replied that the people of the United States, individually, or in groups, retain all the rights ~ including the right to create corporations ~ not delegated to the federal government or retained by the states.

Corporations and all that goes with them are certainly mentioned inferentially in the Constitution. PLUS, certain corporate structures are referred to in the Constitution.

E.g. other nations, invaders, states ~ it's not like the Founders didn't know about corporations.

My responses were that you were wrong.

293 posted on 09/19/2009 10:24:04 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
No. Regulating time and place is of course not the same thing as regulating speech.

It looks as if you overlooked the word "manner".

As I said, the government has no constitutional power to limit campaign contributions by corporations.

The same Supreme Court that said the Corporations are "persons" also ruled that congress can prohibit corporations from making donations to candidates for election to Federal offices.

You seem to claim that corporations should be free to contribute as much money as they want to elections because they have the same free speech rights as you. Is that right?

And since you also seem to have the opinion that there should be no limits to the amount they contribute, would you be in favor of allowing King Saud (or a corporation wholly owned by the Saudi Royal Family) contributing a billion dollars to the re-election of Obama?

Would you have a problem with that?

294 posted on 09/19/2009 10:32:42 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

you are arguing with yourself. I will send you 100 billion dollars when you can show me the article,or amendment that grants protections to a corporation. Accept the Constitution literally and quit worrying what you think it infers.


295 posted on 09/19/2009 11:25:03 AM PDT by coon2000 (Give me Liberty or give me death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
I took it literally. You are trying to deny me rights that may not clearly enunciate themselves, but the 10th Amendment is pretty clear that I have them.

Stringing together the right to contract, the right to associate, the right to speak, the right to have the government set standards for money, the right to vote, the right to subpoena, etc. all taken together mean I can engage in joining, adhering to, or purchase an interest in corporations AND THERE'S NOTHING BUSYBODIES LIKE YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME!!!

296 posted on 09/19/2009 1:40:35 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I am not and have never tried to deny you any rights. I am still totally confused about why you are accusing me of all of these right denying actions. You can have sex with an underaged monkey beneath the Arch in St. Louis if you want, the Constitution is clear in the fact that the Federal Government does not have the power to stop you. But the 10th Amendment of that same Constitution states that if Missouri want to throw your psychotic moronic ass in a rubber room for the rest of your life, then that is entirely up to the state of Missouri. I have a friend who works at Yerkes, if you want perhaps we can try this experiment out. I think a rubber room would be good for you.


297 posted on 09/19/2009 11:07:14 PM PDT by coon2000 (Give me Liberty or give me death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
Perhaps you didn't understand the 10th ~ it has THREE PARTS. The first part are rights assigned to the federal government. The second part are rights retained by the states. The third part are rights retained by the people.

The federales are limited. The states are limited of their own volition. You and I are limited only to the extent that the federal government or the state have been assigned or retained a right.

It's an interesting use of the word "right".

So whatever Missouri wants to do they will have to pass a law in that state to do it. Otherwise, it's not against the law.

298 posted on 09/20/2009 5:54:58 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
On the other hand, she could have simply screwed up by musing out loud, trying to find a way to protect McCain-Feingold.

That's it in a nutshell.
299 posted on 09/20/2009 6:20:41 AM PDT by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

If a corporation cannot speak, how can they be subpoenaed by Congress to testify?
The fact is, corporations do have rights, or they cannot exist from a practical point of view.


300 posted on 09/20/2009 6:25:52 AM PDT by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-305 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