Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

Wall Street Journal ^ | 17 Sep 2009 | Jess Bravin

[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.

[Tzimisce]

We’re going to make them pay fat taxes, while taking their stuff and trampling their rights.

Meanwhile: special interest groups, community activists, Union thugs and other left wing groups can spend and contribute as much as they want often tax free.

What a country. :)

[muawiyah]

501C3 ~ and many are NOT corporations. Some are "chapters", and some are simply "groups" that can demonstrate that they qualify for nonprofit status.

If you want some education on the matter check out USPS "nonprofit" rules ~ they are clear, concise, and more informative than the IRS rules.

The difference is USPS is trying to sell you on qualifying and IRS is attempting to trip you up so you commit tax fraud and can be sent to prison.

All sarcasm aside, USPS rules are shorter and clearer. Virtually all 501C3's of thesame category would qualify for discounted postage for bulk mailings ~ on the other hand, a lot of the IRS rules are INCOMPREHENSIBLE BY NORMAL PEOPLE.

[denydenydeny]

I would say that this argument lays the groundwork for the essential abrogation of the First Amendment. The Constitution does not distinguish between individual speech and “corporate speech” for good reason: in a world where “corporate speech” is constrained, it’s the government that defines what is corporate and what isn’t and can therefore limit virtually any speech through interpretation.

We won’t hear a peep from the ACLU though.

[TruthBeforeAll]

These liberals just can’t grasp that rights don’t come from government. All the supreme court did was reaffirm that a corporation has the same rights as an individual. This woman is obviously very childish in her judicial thought processes. Just frightening.

[Carry_Okie]

That said, the idea that an Entity has no inherent right to expose it’s views is unsustainable,

Correct, it is inherent to free association. I'm all for dumping corporate "equal protection" though.

[Mariner]

Whatever applies to Corporations must also apply to Unions.

[Theo]

I agree with you. Corporations/organizations are not people, and should not have the rights that people have. They should not, for example, be allowed to give money to political candidates or parties (the way unions do).

[Talisker]

There was no 19th Century ruling, the "precedent" giving corporations 14th Amendment "equal protection" was a headnote written by a Marxist court clerk in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad. She is on absolutely solid legal grounds here.

Indeed, and your link to the 14th Amendment is dead-on. The issue she's actually addressing is the corporate shield of non-responsibility, which has zero support in the original (pre-14th) Constitution.

It's breathtaking that she should even acknowledge the existence of this elephant of all elephants that is not only in the living room, but that has crushed the entire house beneath it. Unfortunately, liberals are utterly dependent upon their corporate shields - without it they would be destroyed. So I don't see this going anywhere. Nevertheless, it's a way big surprise from her.

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

[Labyrinthos]

No, you are making the error of believing that corporations are not "groups".

Corporations are not groups. In the eyes of the law, a corporation is a single "person." The corporation may be owned by a single shareholder or many shareholders; and the ownership may be represented by a single share of stock or multiple shares of stock. But the corporation itself is a single "person." The real question then is whether a corporation was a "person" in the eyes of the law at the time of the enactment of the Bill of Rights and if so, whether the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended the corporate person to enjoy freedom of speech under the First Amendment. .

[NVDave]

Bingo. I was thinking the exact same thing. The sword she’s swinging has two edges and a hell of a backswing.

[A_Former_Democrat]

I’ll bet the other Justices shake their heads in private over this woman’s lack of intellect.

[AAABEST]

No flames here, because I agree with you.

I don't know how it ever came to be that rights are in tandem. They're not.

Rights are afforded to individuals, not groups.

[Free Vulcan]

Fascinating. History turns on a heel, and the worst part is Marxists know it and regularly use it to their advantage.

[padre35]

Eh, I’m not invested in that either way, Corporations no doubt have too much influence in DC as it is, and before the whining begins, WalMart and several other megacompanies are supporting Socialized Healthcare, however they should have access, the same access as a small business does.

[Verginius Rufus]

How do you say stare decisis in Spanish?

[OwenKellogg]

Maybe time for some wise honkies to march on DC again.

[livius]

Sheesh. How much more “activist” can you get? This woman is way out of her depth.

[truthfreedom]

Yeah, I think I’d rather see corporations not as people than animals as people (see Sunstein).

At least the idea is not crazy.

[penelopesire]

I listened to some of it on CSPAN late one night last week. Scalia and Roberts destroyed her arguments with their follow ups...lol. I was kind of surprised that she was being so annoying in the first place (being new and all). I bet they can’t stand her...LOL. They also destroyed Obama’s mental midget gov. attorney(can’t remember her name). We should all thank God for Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito.

[shibumi]

"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." "


There is a problem in exposing one's logic to public scrutiny. People tend to examine that logic, and extrapolate from it.

For example: If there is a problem in imbuing non-human entities with human characteristics (which is not necessarily the case in the legal treatment of corporations, which are clearly made up of humans) then it opens the door to examine the treatment of other, more obviously non-human entities, such as trees, animals and wet patches of dirt, fecund with obscure fauna, under the law.

In using this line of reasoning, the door is opened for questioning the court's treatment of the aforementioned entities as if they are possessed of human "rights".

In a like (and even more direct manner) the argument could be made that corporate entities of a "non-profit" sort (which contribute nothing to the economic well-being of the nation) such as Operation PUSH, ACORN, La Raza, as well as labor unions (UAW, USW, SEIU, etc.) cannot be imbued with human characteristics and therefore have no right to free speech, or participation in political activity of any kind..

Finally, if all that is required for equal treatment under the law is the demonstration of "human characteristics" then Sotomayor's ruling on abortion cases (which have been sparse so far) should be interesting.

I see here a n00b judge, ready to be hoisted on her own petard. (God willing.)