The 'wise latina' is already hard at work.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
To: Admiral_Zeon
BUSH'S FAULT -- for taking Spectre over Toomey, etc.
How's that RINO legacy working out for you, you China-loving globalist shill?
36 posted on
09/17/2009 2:25:39 PM PDT by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Admiral_Zeon
Well, she’s right in that we have to get back to the roots and build out — say for example with the meanings of “natural born citizen”, “may not infringe”, and “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
38 posted on
09/17/2009 2:26:29 PM PDT by
bvw
To: Admiral_Zeon
And her chair isn’t even warm yet!
41 posted on
09/17/2009 2:28:26 PM PDT by
Califreak
(If it's Astroturf, why are you trying to mow it?(sign seen at a town hall meeting))
To: Admiral_Zeon
She is, and it is a brilliant insight. Corporations are “artificial persons” created by law. It used to be very hard to form a corporation and in most places needed a charter issued by the state legislature. It has changed over time. Without saying what is right or wrong here, it is good that she is questioning the roots of the problem.
I have long thought “commercial” speech needed some common sense limits that I do not think are always there.
parsy, who is not scared by this.
44 posted on
09/17/2009 2:29:38 PM PDT by
parsifal
(Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
To: Admiral_Zeon
This isn’t really about whether or not corporations can make statements. It is about whether or not corporations can make campaign contributions.
45 posted on
09/17/2009 2:30:04 PM PDT by
SeeSharp
To: Admiral_Zeon
A couple of things come to mind:
1. Roe v. Wade cannot be reconsidered because it is established precedent, and the SC does not reconsider without new legal issues according to supporters.
2. A nod to the Republicans that voted for her insisting “she is NOT a radical.”
hh
53 posted on
09/17/2009 2:32:49 PM PDT by
hoosier hick
(Note to RINOs: We need a choice, not an echo....Barry Goldwater)
To: Admiral_Zeon
If the idea of a corporation as such is not an individual, does it then not have to pay income tax. I think the original idea of corporations, in the US, was to give the government something to make laws against. Without the corporation, what happens to stock schemes and such. The individuals who receive earnings would no longer be hit with double taxation.
54 posted on
09/17/2009 2:33:07 PM PDT by
wbarmy
(Hard core, extremist, and right-wing is a little too mild for my tastes.)
To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
"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.
65 posted on
09/17/2009 2:51:27 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
To: Admiral_Zeon
The 'wise latina' is already hard at work."Wise latinas." That must be, like, a mexican nickname for termites?
66 posted on
09/17/2009 2:51:35 PM PDT by
hinckley buzzard
(truth--the liberal's kryptonite.)
To: Admiral_Zeon
It's almost a given that she'll support Sunsteins’s idea (I think it was him) to grant individual legal rights to snakes, rats, and other demoncrat-like animals.
70 posted on
09/17/2009 2:53:54 PM PDT by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
To: Admiral_Zeon
Does this mean the NEA will be dismantelled, outlawed ???
To: Admiral_Zeon
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. :)
81 posted on
09/17/2009 3:00:24 PM PDT by
Tzimisce
(No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
To: Admiral_Zeon
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.
83 posted on
09/17/2009 3:03:06 PM PDT by
denydenydeny
("I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist"-Dr House)
To: Admiral_Zeon
Whatever applies to Corporations must also apply to Unions.
86 posted on
09/17/2009 3:07:32 PM PDT by
Mariner
To: Admiral_Zeon
I’ll bet the other Justices shake their heads in private over this woman’s lack of intellect.
To: Admiral_Zeon
How do you say stare decisis in Spanish?
To: Admiral_Zeon
Maybe time for some wise honkies to march on DC again.
96 posted on
09/17/2009 3:20:43 PM PDT by
OwenKellogg
(At the march!)
To: Admiral_Zeon
Sheesh. How much more “activist” can you get? This woman is way out of her depth.
97 posted on
09/17/2009 3:23:57 PM PDT by
livius
To: Admiral_Zeon
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.
99 posted on
09/17/2009 3:26:15 PM PDT by
penelopesire
("The only CHANGE you will get with the Democrats is the CHANGE left in your pocket")
To: Admiral_Zeon; Salamander; Markos33; GSP.FAN; Fichori; Slings and Arrows; cpforlife.org
"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.)
100 posted on
09/17/2009 3:27:33 PM PDT by
shibumi
(" ..... then we will fight in the shade.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson