Oh no, she’s a complete kook. Holy crap. She must be totally embarrassing to work with. It’s almost funny. Hey, if we are going to have a liberal on the court, might as well be a total nut job.
Thank pro choice Graham for this
Sotomoron is very qualified...to provide advice in the Bronx office of ACORN. Were she a white woman, she would never have even been appointed to Traffic Court judge. I am confident her colleagues know this, and have the proper contempt for her as a result.
Of course if we follow her logic, then Unions must be stripped of their congruent status as well. After all, as a union has employee members, a corporation has shareholder. All these people are individuals. Deny one their rights and you deny all.
WAIT, WAIT, don’t rush to judgment.
1913 — Delaware Supreme Court — Made USofA into a Corporation and therefore into a “person” via this law. Changed us from a Constitutional form of Government.
IF this 1913 law is examined and changed/abolished, then WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL NATION ONCE AGAIN!
It will change the entire playing field and Constitutionalists will regain status in the Federal Government.
Would the same apply to unions, or activist groups? Would it apply to unincorporated businesses? To churches? To the ACLU? To La Raza?
It is a question worth pondering.
Why should a corporation be treated as an individual?
“progressives” is code-speak for “Communists”. Good to know this racist Soto is ready to redefine the corporate citizen as having no rights anymore. Just like she plans to do away with the rights of The People.
It is time for the Counter-Coup.
How wise, that Latina!
Corporations are made up of many different types of people, and therefore different political ideas..should they act politically as though they were of one mind? How about unions? There are many conservative minded union employees, yet their dues go to liberal ideas and causes as though they were of one mind. Interesting questions imo. And how about industry lobbyists, could these questions extend to their actions?
It seems pretty straight-forward to me. If corporations are legal creations, created by the State, then can’t the State decide what rights corporations do or don’t have?
>> [Sotomayor] 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.”
Humans and corporations have both unique and shared characteristics. But to suggest the corporation is imbued with human characteristics is inaccurate.
There was not stopping this one. Not so with Justice Souter, or Justice Stevens or any GOP appointee that turned out to be a complete piece of crap.
“liberal Constitutional Accountability”
THERE’S an oxymoron.
[Below is a review I found on Amazon.com of an excellent book on this subject by a conservative scholar from the Hoover Institute named Robert Hessen. Highly recommended]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IN DEFENSE OF THE CORPORATION (1979)
by Robert Hessen
Reviewed on February 28, 2001
by Jean-Francois Virey
“The essence of capitalism is the inviolability of individual rights, including one’s right to use or invest one’s wealth as one chooses, and one’s right to associate with others for any peaceful purpose and under any terms of association that are acceptable to all parties concerned.” - Robert Hessen
The book can be roughly subdivided into two halves. The first half is mostly an historical argument against the “concession theory” of the corporation, showing that the conception of the corporation as a “creature of the state” operating by privilege is an anachronism inherited by mistake from the feudal era. On the contrary, Hessen defends what he calls the “inherence theory”, which shows the corporation to be reducible to the individual rights of its owners.
I was particularly interested in the refutation of the attacks on the so-called “privilege” of limited liability, which can even be found in the writings of such a conservative historian as Clarence B. Carson. Hessen shows that there are two kinds of limited liability. The first one, limited financial liability, can be explained quite simply as an implied contract between the corporation and its creditors. And the second one, limited liability for torts, is shown to be perfectly reasonable as far as shareholders are concerned.
The second part of the book is a defense of the freedom of incorporation against attacks made by Ralph Nader in two books he published in the 1970s. Nader advocated the federal incorporation of “large” corporations and the turning of their right to engage in interstate commerce into a privilege which the federal government could then use as a stick to make them comply with socialist legislation.
Hessen brilliantly exposes the illogic and arbitrariness of these recommendations, and casts doubt on the value of Nader’s scholarship by demonstrating how he resorted to “phantom footnotes” (”that is, citations which prove to be unverifiable and either bogus or deceptive”) and used unreliable sources to support his claims.
Against Nader, whom he shows to be another modern disciple of Rousseau, Hessen concludes that corporations “are created and sustained by freedom of association and contract, that the source of freedom is not governmental permission but individual rights, and that these rights are not suddenly forfeited when a business grows beyond some arbitrarily defined size.”
Can this lady not think of other errors committed by the court—errors which need fixing a lot worse than this?
Driving these companies out of the country. She won’t be able to tell India or China how to run the companies and neither will tolerate interference from a smart arse self appointed judge (hehe, pun unintended) of how a company should be run.
This is precisely what I was warning about should Sotomayor be confirmed. I wrote multiple times she was an attention whore, and that the MSM was going to focus on her leaving the rest of the court cloaked in the background.
She's the prob'y. She's the new kid. She's a junior member of the SCOTUS, but the MSM are going to make her the spokesperson for American Constitutional law.
The DA Republicans helped put her there.
Perhaps she should follow court protocol and STFU!
Does that apply to GE, too?
How about the newspapers?
How about the Sierra club and NARAL?
They are ALL GROUPS of people, you stupid, female Latina. And the individuals in a group do NOT lose rights because they form a group.
Lobbies are good things. We join and pay people to represent us to our representatives. It is part of living in a REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy.
But that is what this female, Latina communist really hates. The republic.