[Admiral_Zeon]

The 'wise latina' is already hard at work.

[grey_whiskers]

BUSH'S FAULT -- for taking Spectre over Toomey, etc.

How's that RINO legacy working out for you, you China-loving globalist shill?

[bvw]

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”.

[Califreak]

And her chair isn’t even warm yet!

[parsifal]

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.

[SeeSharp]

This isn’t really about whether or not corporations can make statements. It is about whether or not corporations can make campaign contributions.

[hoosier hick]

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

[wbarmy]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

"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.

[hinckley buzzard]

The 'wise latina' is already hard at work.

"Wise latinas." That must be, like, a mexican nickname for termites?

[SuperLuminal]

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.

[Tennessee Nana]

Does this mean the NEA will be dismantelled, outlawed ???

[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. :)

[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.

[Mariner]

Whatever applies to Corporations must also apply to Unions.

[A_Former_Democrat]

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

[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.

[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.)