Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

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.

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

Your use of the word "manner" as it appears in Section 4. Clause 1 contradicts the BOR.

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?

Corporations can't speak, people speak. You seem to think the government can limit the free speech of individuals simply because they claim to speak in the name of a corporation. Apparently (since you never answered my questions) you think the government can deny people the right to bare arms, the right to due process and whatever else is in the BOR all simply because they are associating with a corporation at that time they wish to speak, bare arms have due process...etc.

That is a statist point of view. That is an unconstitutional point of view. That is simply -- wrong.

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?

King Saud's inalienable rights are not protected in this country by the Constitution. Laws that would restrict King Sauds free speech rights are NOT unconstitutional.

King Saud's inalienable rights are not protected in this country by the Constitution. Laws that would restrict King Sauds free speech rights are NOT unconstitutional.

Then would you be willing to support a law that any corporation that is owned partially or wholly by foreigners or foreign governments or entities of foreign governments would be prohibited from attempting to influence the elections by making monetary contributions?

Or are you still of the opinion that any corporation is entitled to the same constitutional rights that you as an American Citizen born and raised in this country are entitled to?

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.