Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

[derby378]

Source: Wall Street Journal

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.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

[alsame]

1. YES!!! K&R.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BREMPRO]

326. corporate wing of the freeper trolls can't handle reasoned argument...

and the uncovering of a secret: Corporations were never officially determined to be considered "personhoods" with the same rights as individuals. Simply a clerical error. Reports of freeper heads exploding on the news that Sotomayor is running intellectual rings around the shallow and naive arguments of the conservatives on the court. Duck!

[alsame]

362. LOL, I never even got to see the replies before the TS. Funny how

my one word response caused exploding heads.

[county worker]

2. Right on judge!

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..

I totally agree!

[liberalmike27]

291. I'm Not Sure if This is True

But they had a guest on one of the last night's line up on MSNBC, that they, the 1888 SC decided to not review the issue of corporate personhood, or put it off, and then the clerk recorded that they had reviewed it and that they had given them personhood. I'm not sure where he got his information, or if I misinterpreted what he said, but it sounded a lot like it was a mistake made by the recording clerk, that they allowed to stand.

If that is so, then they never had it.

I personally know it is absurd, and could not possibly be anything that the founders intended. But then, that is always so much more subjective than most pretend, since the whole court is about judicial activism.

But getting corporations out of the political game, getting rid of lobbyists' money, would go a long, long way toward reforming our biggest problem, the corrupting influence of bribing our Senators, in particular, to do the bidding of huge entities like corporations, which is almost always in contrast to what is good for real people. Pollution curbs are a good example. Less pollution, is good for people, and bad for corporations, as they make more money. Pay issues is another problem.

Look to Max Baucus and his 3 million, such a meager sum between us and health care, in comparison to the Billions they will make if his health care bribe is allowed to work, and he is allowed to destroy the public option, and to pass his terrible bill supposedly negotiated with the three republicans to get their votes, but not even achieving that aim.

[ProudDad]

296. You are correct

In fact one of the justices said from the bench on the record that they were NOT deliberating the question of "corporate personhood" at all...

It was a clerk of the court, who also happened to be an ex-director of one of the major railroads, who inserted the fiction into the non-binding head note (summary) of the case.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood /

It's an evil disgusting fiction...

[cosmicone]

3. This is great

The original case -- Santa Clara County vs Union Pacific Railroad has destroyed America by giving corporations the same rights as individual human beings.

This will give people the power back by reducing corporate influence.

[No Elephants]

295. Thanks for the case cite. I don't think the SCOTUS did that in the Union Pacific case.

I confess my eyesight and my impatience did not permit to scour the entire, very boring opinion. However, I saw nothing about that in the SCOTUS opinion, other than to say that the point had been raised in the briefs and the lower courts. However, the syllabus or summary at the beginning--which is NOT part of the offical opinion, says that the Court decided it. I hope Justice Sotomayor or some SCOTUS law clerk notices that soon.

[lark]

319. Don't get too excited

This is just one SCOTUS view, the aholes put in by the Repugs do not agree, want corporations to be unfettered, and will almost certainly do away with campaign finance reform - or at least that portion that pertains to corporations. Wonder how they will try to finesse this so only "their" corporations are unfettered but Unions have different requirements. I'm sure that is part of their agenda, just wonder how they will word it. It will absolutely prove that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas lied when they said they did not believe in judicial activism. Overturning 100 years of precedent is nothing other than that.

[JDPriestly]

358. The seeds for revolutions in American thought are often planted in

minority dissents of Supreme Court decisions. Don't lose heart. This is a beginning.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

370. At last we have some intelligent in the Supreme Court

[drm604]

4. Good for her.

I doubt that she'll convince them, but I'm happy to see her trying.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. That's encouraging!

[DaLittle Kitty]

191. Lets Pray For Her To Have The Utmost Skill In Her Powers Of PERSUASION!

Nice try but WE are likely screwed and will soon have the final gates that restrain complete Corporate Rule in this country removed!

[rucognizant]

233. Kitty....

Glas 1/2 empty much?

[No Elephants]

247. She needs to persuade Ginsburg, Breyer, both of whom were also appointed by

Democrats and Stevens, all of whom lean left, and one more. Kennedy sometimes swings over. BUT, she put Scalia between a rock and a hard place, though, by using an argument based in his fake "original intent" rationales.

The Court does not have to overrule the entire personhood doctrine, which could wreak havoc. It would simply say corporations don't have rights under the Constitution of the United States. Then we can work on our state legislatures.

[lark]

327. Kennedy - blech

He's in favor or removing the campaign finance restraints. He will vote with his usual buddies and Kitty was right, we are getting screwed, and there's really nothing we can do. The only way this won't happen is for one of the Repugs to go against their usual way and vote for something that diminishes rather than enhances corporations. Unless the Employee Freedom of Choice bill passes, and unions grow, this will have a net effect of turning the country even more right wing because of heavy propaganda.

[JDPriestly]

363. Scalia, in particular, is in a very tough place.

Scalia insists that he is interpreting the Constitution according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Since there weren't many corporations of the immensity of the corporations of today at the time the Constitution was written and since much of the prevailing opinion at the time had a negative view of the idea of corporations, he will be hard-pressed to justify siding with corporations on this issue. I'm sure he will try really hard, but I don't see how he can do it.

Jefferson on corporations:

I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

letter to George Logan, Nov. 12, 16, 1816

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticf...

[FiveGoodMen]

308. You're probably right.

Still, credit where credit is due.

[KatyaR]

6. WOW--right out of the gate!

You go, girl!

[wroberts189]

90. Indeed and a very strong start. nt

[KansDem]

7. Perhaps this statement lays the foundation for a challenge...

But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.

But then, I'm not a lawyer...

[Pirate Smile]

11. I bet Justice Ginsburg is sooo happy. She really wanted another woman on the court and

now that she has one, they seem very much in sync.

[derby378]

15. That's pretty much in keeping with Chief Justice Marshall's take

This is going to be GOOD.

[NewJeffCT]

93. What would he know about original intent, though?

[No Elephants]

321. According to Republicans Chief Justice Marshall either knew squat about oiriginal intent

or knowingly ignored it. They said his landmaark case, Marbury v. Madison, was never the intent of the Framers. That's a crock, of course, but they do insist.

[sybylla]

50. Ah ha, nicely played Justice Ginsburg.

I bet conservative heads are spinning. How on earth do you defend the position of corporations in this society as being equal to a person?

[DaLittle Kitty]

352. MORE Appropriately... A person Being Equal To A CORPORATION? That Is The POINT!

Currently, more so than EVER before... It IS CORPORATIONS ... NOT us that RUN our government, concoct the policies that "govern" us and THEM and always to THEIR FAVOR! HEalth Care errr oopss I mean Health INSURANCE Reform being the pre-eminent example! If you haven't figured that out then you are totally out to lunch! THIS DOMINANCE over little ole us by CORPORATIONS occurs through the venerable??? CORPORATE Lobbyist campaign Contribution...

Preferably bundled in accumulations of 100 and PERSONAL Checks/Contributions or more times the MAX of $2,400 DOLLARS per contributor per election cycle! THIS IS ... WHY... we Are being fu*ked by Corporate America ! andddd..... again....

The Judges (Supreme Court on down...) are appointed by WHO? The "elected" officials that were ELECTED via those $CORPORATE $CAMPAIGN $CONTRIBUTIONS via those CORPORATE LOBBYISTS!

[DaLittle Kitty]

355. THINK Again About WHY The Legal Structure of A Corporation Came About? To Protect The "persons" Who

comprise "The Corporation!" So in effect... "How then can a Corporation have the same rights as a "person" when the STRUCTURE legally that makes up a Corporation is specifically designed to Legally SEPARATE the PERSONS of The Corporation from legal liability! It JUST IS NOT FU*KING LOGICAL ... by ANY measure!

[JDPriestly]

365. Excellent point.

[truedelphi]

393. +1 n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

79. Wow! That is TRUE! A corporation is NOT endowed by its creator with inalienable rights.

What a provocative statement!!!

A corporation has been "endowed" with rights via human beings!!!

If ANYTHING would tear the corporacrats from the theocrats, THAT statement would do so because: the corporacrats BELIEVE that only the rich/powerful MEN control "inalienable rights" and FULLY INVEST in their own power to control the same. Meanwhile the theocrats believe a 'creater' named GOD gives those 'inalienable rights',...unless, of course, the theocrats also believe women and children and minorities are denied those rights UNLESS ONLY "God's chosen" white men (per those men's association with God) say they can have such rights *heh*.

I wonder if some of those self-proclaimed "preachers of God" who recently passed away went straight to hell for breaking the 1st commandment about being prohibited from prioritizing or placing other gods BEFORE the one and only God Almighty (e.g. they placed THEMSELVES as 'gods' before "GOD")?

I gotta' say, I SURE AS HELL HOPE SO!!!!

[No Elephants]

254. There is no such thing as an "inalienable right." Just ask the Jews whom

Germany arrested, or the Japanese American citizens that the U.S. interned or anyone who got tortured or murdered anywhere.

Ginsburg's point is not that anyone has inalienable rights. It's that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution intended it to apply to natural born people, not legally created "people" like corporations or limited liability companies.

[AntiFascist]

371. Infringing on those inalienable rights...

could and always should later be judged to be wrong, at the very least.

[moonbatmax]

92. That statement may be debatable...

depending on how a corporation's "creator" is defined.

I don't know what all the law has to say about the creation of a corporation,
but if by "its creator" one could reasonable refer to its founder(s),
and/or whatever entity grants it recognition as a corporate entity,
I see no reason any of those could not grant it at least some certain
"inalienable rights," outside of any legal limitations on their power to do so.

In other words, a corporation may very well BE "endowed by its creator"
with whatever rights said creator is permitted to grant.

IANAL, but that looks like some pretty tricky legal ground.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

98. Let us put it simply: corporations DID NOT EXIST when our country was founded.

So, those entities DO NOT QUALIFY as being the HUMAN BEINGS to which the constitution and all its founding documents referred.

If that is debatable to you, join the corporacrats who want to be the dictators-in-charge over this nation.

[customerserviceguy]

112. At the time of our country's founding

A lot of entities that you and I would recognize as persons were not seen as such.

As an atheist, I hold that whole "we're special because we're in God's image and likeness" thing in deep suspicion.

Chances are, it won't make any difference what Sotomayor does in this case, she's just replacing the dissenting vote that Justice Souter would have excercised.

[No Elephants]

257. It will make a difference, no matter how the case turns out. She has created an opening to start

thinking differently about something that happened in 1886, but perhaps should never have happened.

Dissenting opinions get cited by lawyers and courts favoring a change in the law. They are not binding, but they can be persuasive.

Of course, a SCOTUS majority opinion would change things instantly and citing a dissenting opinion would not, but she has stuck a wedge in the doorway that may well lead to a sane result, sooner or much later.


"The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

[No Elephants]

262. Joint stock companies were corporations or enough like them. They

funded most of the settlement of this nation (after the original settlement 50,000 years earlier, of course). BUT, they were not then considered "people." Ginsburg's point is not religious. She is making the point that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend the Constitution to apply to anything but natural born persons, as opposed to purely "legal persons" that are created courtesy of a statute or court case, like corporations.

[happyslug]

284. Actually the Joint Stock Companies all failed

Massachusetts and Virginia, the first two Joint Stock Companies were made Royal Colonies to try to save them (The Joint Stock Companies wanted to quick a return on investment to truly run a Colony). The most successful colonies were founded by Individuals (William Penn as to Pennsylvania, Lord Baltimore as to Maryland, Oglethorpe as to Georgia for example). New York was founded by the Dutch East Indies Company, became a Dutch Colony and then the Colony "owned" by the Duke of York (Later King James II). The Duke of York Divided his Colony, giving part to William Penn who in turn gave part of it to two friends who forms North and South New Jersey (Later merged into one Colony).

My point was Joint Stock Companies, the predecessors to Corporations ALL FAILED, it was Government run Colonies OR Family/Single owner colonies that succeeded.

[No Elephants]

286. I never said they were financially successful, though, only that they existed.

My post was in response to this line in sick and tired's post:


"Let us put it simply: corporations DID NOT EXIST when our country was founded."


Being flat broke or bankrupt does not mean you don't exist. That is as true of businesses as it is of human beings.


Point is, the Framers did know about corporations and neither declared them persons nor specified in the Constitution that corporations or businesses of any kind that they gave Constitutional rights to joint stock companies or corporations or businesses of any kind.

Their financial success or failure pretty much has no relevance, at least not to this thread.

BTW, do you also post as sick and tired? You said


"My point was Joint Stock Companies, the predecessors to Corporations ALL FAILED, it was Government run Colonies OR Family/Single owner colonies that succeeded."

However, it was sick and tired to whom I was responding..

[Localist]

389. Joint stock companies were government run companies... what do you mean?

Joint stock companies were private businesses that were chartered by the state, afforded exclusive privileges and limited liability, just like the way the world works now:

e.g. FORD, GM and Chrysler are chartered by the state, must maintain its corporate form per state standards, are given undue advantage over all other formsof business, and have exclusive privilege to exploit the vast majority of automotive intellectual property at the expense of the people.

It's just as Adam Smith said:

"Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account that joint stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege, and frequently have not succeeded with one. Without an exclusive privilege they have commonly mismanaged the trade. With an exclusive privilege they have both mismanaged and confined it. "

Sound familiar?

The only thing that our "modern" ( hah! *cry* ) state-chartered companies have going for them is that their vast wealth of intellectual property, afforded to them by their status as "persons", prevents independent entrepreneurs from ever entering into the market. The solution is and has alwabs been more freedom for individuals, less freedom for fascists: whether they are the kind who take us hostage via "legal fictions" or illegal firearms.

[Beer on a stick]

144. Quite simply, yes, they did.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountabilit...

[tabatha]

156. See #155.

[BREMPRO]

164. great link to the history of corporate "personhood"- a clerical mistake...exploited

"One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood," thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a "natural person."

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional "personhood." Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these "rights," corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law. "

[No Elephants]

264. From which source are you quoting?

[BREMPRO]

274. this one:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountabilit...

[No Elephants]

322. Thank you.

[ArcticFox]

200. careful there

Corporations have existed a very long time. Not in their current form of course, but they have existed. I believe for hundreds of years.

[susanna]

206. They have, indeed. However...

...the U.S. Supreme Court's extremely misguided granting of a quasi-human status at the turn of the century was ridiculous in most every way.

As a human, one can't play without a conscience, soul, or ability to be incarcerated for crimes on one's watch.

Corporations have zero of those attributes. Logic should prevail.

[No Elephants]

325. Please see Reply 295.

[provis99]

260. corporations did exist at the founding

the British East India Company, or the Hudson's Bay Company, for example. But the Founders did not recognize these companies as persons; they would have thought it insane that corporations had any constitutional rights.

[No Elephants]

329. Hudson's Bay was a corporation. British East India was a joint stock company.

Don't ask me what the difference is, though, cause I'll be dipped if I know.

[cliffordu]

313. "I'll take Hudson's Bay Company for 200, Alex."

[Pharaoh]

119. you have got to be kidding?

you must be a lawyer

[defendandprotect]

124. The Founders feared capital . . . probably as much as they feared CHURCH . . .

And, a "people's" government doesn't suggest a corporate government --

Further, corporations are not human -- people are --

corporations don't have conscience, don't breathe, don't require food,

shelter, clothing, health care -- public education nor a clean environment.

Corporations have one need -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[No Elephants]

253. I wish that were so, but I don't think it was.

[mbperrin]

299. Thomas Jefferson count as one of the founders?

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_... (Quotation)

[No Elephants]

315. That does not contradict what I said though.

I was responding to a statement by defendandprotect that the founders feared capital (or money, wealth, etc).

In the quote you provided, Jefferson is not saying he fears capital. To the contrary, he is saying he fears that banks might take his capital away from him.

Jefferson, as a gentleman farmer and slave owner, was a wealthy man and liked that way so much that he did not free his slaves even though he knew it was evil--and some of them seem to have been his own children. However, he did free his slaves in his will. That tells me he was willing to do evil to his own offspring so as not to cramp his own lifestyle.

That is not a man who fears capital.

He did run up debts, but that was because he loved his lifestyle and building Monticello, not because he feared capital.

[mbperrin]

336. Are you arguing that capital and corporations are the same thing?

Looking for clarity here.

[defendandprotect]

342. Believe he was commenting on the ability to use ...

the dollar bill as power -

like slavery, he wasn't above using it --

but he recognized its evil as well.

It used to be easier to pull up stuff on this from internet --

I don't think I have anything saved --

but if I have time, I'll try to pull up some of the stuff I've seen over time

and start the conversation anew.

[defendandprotect]

341. Thank you -- there's a lot of other stuff on it --

if I can find it --

[defendandprotect]

338. Yes, founders feared the power of capital . . .

Somewhere along the line I'll try to find something about that for you --

Presumably, from the start, things have always been schizophrenic -- !!

"all are equal" -- except slaves -- women, Native Americans, people without property -- !!

Compromise on slavery --

[Beer on a stick]

142. Therein lies the rub: the DOI is NOT a governing legal document.

Only the United States Constitution applies here.

[No Elephants]

306. True, but

Ginsburg is not quoting the DOI as legal authority.

Ginsburg is making a point about the original intent of the Constitution by showing that the Framers did not consider corporations (or joint stock companies or any other purely legal or business entity) to be a person. So, references in the Constitution to the rights of individuals were never intended to include corporations (or towns, etc.)

It would be like looking at a blog I write to see how I use a certain word all the time to figure out what I intended to say when I put that same word into a legally binding contract. the fact that my blog is not legally binding doesn't matter because you are using it only as a guide to interpreting the contract.

[tabatha]

154. I thought the essence of free market capitalisim

was that if a corporation was not sustainable, then it should fail.
Hence it does not have inalienable rights.

[susanna]

207. And we have a winner. n/t

[No Elephants]

331. No one does. Please see Reply 254.

[defendandprotect]

343. True . . . there is the precedent of prior laws government corporations ...

including that they be folded when their work was accomplished --

and/or if they were not performing justly according to the regulations.

[susanna]

205. IANAL indeed.

Hairsplitting argument vis a vis the "creator."

Corporations have no conscience. They lack the ability to kill or be killed in defense of the country they are supposed to "serve," unlike the human beings who have done so tirelessly since the dawn of this country.

So, if YANAL, then just do the logic thing. The truth will set you free.

[Autonomy]

214. creator = God

It's not a semantic statement -- it's transcendant -- and anything created by people cannot be equivalent. Humans cannot imbue "inalienable" rights; such a thing must come from a Higher Authority.

[ProudDad]

298. "Creator" not = "god"

Creator = weak bond accumulation of materials into the current configuration...

no "god" needed...

Corporations = evil psychopaths is true though...

---------------

A LEGAL "PERSON"

In the mid-1800s the corporation emerged as a legal "person." Imbued with a "personality" of pure self-interest, the next 100 years saw the corporation's rise to dominance. The corporation created unprecedented wealth but at what cost? The remorseless rationale of "externalities" (as Milton Friedman explains, the unintended consequences of a transaction between two parties on a third) is responsible for countless cases of illness, death, poverty, pollution, exploitation and lies.
THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

[Autonomy]

367. Creator definitely = God

The Enlightenment era Framers, working in a context of several hundred years of building on the common law, and ~150 years of English cutting edge philosophy, "discovered" what we might today call "Natural Law", a type of found law that is the nexus of law and political philosophy, in which (not in regard to corporations), they posited that "every Man is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." By Creator (notice the capitalization), they meant God.

[derby378]

369. Even if using a deistic or nontheistic framework, I would tend to agree

Through evolution and natural selection, humankind arises. The very notion of a "corporation" would not exist without humankind. Shall the inherent rights of men and women be trumped by a mere economic construct? I think not.

[Autonomy]

372. Even deists of the Enlightenment era

would have considered atheism irrelevant to the proposition of unalienable rights, if you take atheism as merely the disbelief in an anthropomorphic deity. However, if you believe in total randomness, then you cannot believe in unalienable rights (assuming you understand the term).

Here's a website that explains my previous post at length:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardsti...

[ProudDad]

375. Not true

for long term sustainability and survival the concept of "unalienable rights" is a requirement...

Nothing religious, no god myths are necessary...

[Autonomy]

377. Religion and myths were not part of the discussion

until you mentioned them. The God in this discussion is a necessary assumption for the found law model of unalienable rights.

[ProudDad]

374. I'm talking about reality

not "Deist myths"...

[Autonomy]

378. The reality the enlightenment thinkers posited

necessitated a Creator to imbue human beings with a form of rights that are not granted by Men, and thus cannot be taken away by Men.

[ProudDad]

384. But that's the basic fallacy

The whole myth of a "Creator" was created by man...

so if one assumes that "rights" are granted to people by any one of a number of mythical, man-created, super-beings then one is building a house on sand...

It would be better that mutual respect be the recognition factor of human (and other creature's) rights than to attribute it to some god-myth that can be crumbled when a "stronger" god-myth comes along...

That's the BASIS of Secular Humanism and it's why all of these phony religious excuses must finally crumble to be replaced by a common consensus of the basic rights of everyone...

Anything less is intellectual laziness...

[Autonomy]

386. It would be better...

is intellectual laziness. Appeals to "how things should be" are a fallacy, and such a system crumbles at the first hint of stress. No, the system of unalienable rights needs to be based on a principle that cannot be touched by human frailties.

There are plenty of humanistic consensuses out there: the International Declaration of Human Rights, for one. No one follows it, the US included. The model needs to be able to withstand being broken. That is, regardless of how many times people fail the moral system, one can still believe in the moral system. That is not the case with systems such as humanistic rights. They are based on consensus, which INEVITABLY fails as soon as one party stands to gain by breaking it, and once failed is no longer consensus, and when no longer consensus, no longer exists.

[ProudDad]

300. Duplicate

(original got caught in a clog in the internet tubes)

[Zhade]

357. Um, bullshit. Given the lack of evidence for any gods, our rights ONLY come from us!

NT!

[eomer]

215. Inalienable rights are not granted.

If they were granted then they would have not existed just before the act of granting; if it is possible for them not to exist then they are not inalienable.

Clearly corporations do not have rights that are inalienable. The rights of corporations are granted to them and can be eliminated just as easily as they are granted.

[No Elephants]

333. That was not the point of Ginsburg's quoting the DOI. Also, please see Reply 295.

[eomer]

349. Please note which post I was replying to - #92.

I was responding to a particular point in the post I replied to, #92. Quoting:

I don't know what all the law has to say about the creation of a corporation,
but if by "its creator" one could reasonable refer to its founder(s),
and/or whatever entity grants it recognition as a corporate entity,
I see no reason any of those could not grant it at least some certain
"inalienable rights," outside of any legal limitations on their power to do so.

[Enthusiast]

225. But 'said creator' is only a human being,

not a supreme being so is therefore has no authority to dispense rights to non-living things.

[zbdent]

229. aw, now you're going to hurt the RWers' feelings ...

when they are told that corporations' creators are NOT supreme beings ...

[Enthusiast]

236. Good nt

[No Elephants]

251. Her point is, the Constitution was never intended to give rights to anyone but

people because businesses were not considered people until 1886.

It's not all that tricky.

[Canuckistanian]

145. Now, the court has to define the term "creator"

This should be interesting.

[No Elephants]

335. No, the Court does not need to define Creator. Ginsburg alluded to the DOI

only to show that the Framers of the COTUS did not consider corporations to be persons and did not intend to give them Constituional rights. The DOI says all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. For Ginsburg's purposes, the focus is on "men," not on Creator.

The Court cannot possibly define Creator or it would violate the Establishment Clause of the COTUS.

[LiberalFighter]

170. Neither was God or Jesus.

[robinlynne]

8. Right on. This is not A case. This is THE case..nothing more important happening in this country..

[CreekDog]

25. I'm glad to hear this, but unless Kennedy goes for it, it won't be enough

and Kennedy has been *Terrible* since O'Connor left.

[defendandprotect]

130. Rumored Kennedy went with W decision in hopes of getting Chief Justice position . . .

He's a bouncing ball and they're may even be money involved????

[No Elephants]

337. Maybe a wise Latina can work on him whatever magic O'Connor must have

been working on him.

[frebrd]

30. Exactly! Just about everything that's wrong in the country........

proceeds from this issue: corporate interference in elections and the resulting corporate interference in our legislative process.

[defendandprotect]

131. Maybe enough of the country understands that now? Campaign finance BRIBERY . . ?????

[WatchWhatISay]

49. Seems ridiculous that the press has convinced us, that Roe vs Wade shoudl be the litmus test

all these years. This is one of the two true litmus tests:
-is a corporation a person?
-does money = free speech?

[defendandprotect]

132. So true -- and . . .

My answer is no and no --

Unless the court wants to say that free speech only exists for those who can buy it?

[bluesmail]

84. I agree! Will they even wait for the decision before turning

to a back-up plan? Sane people would think so but we're dealing with KooKooKorporations. All that power. Little people, pshaw. It's historically uber important. What if they don't get their way?

[MrsCorleone]

97. Absolutely. This is THE case of this century. Yet, so few "news" outlets have even mentioned it.

No wonder the peeps are so hopelessly ill-informed.

[RoccoR5955]

128. You are absolutely correct, madam! n/t

[defendandprotect]

129. Supreme Court should be televised . . they wouldn't get away with the right wing crap if they were .

[avaistheone1]

203. One would think in this day and age the Supreme Court would most surely be televised.

Once I read that one of more of the justices said they would be too distracted by the cameras.
That is a poor excuse in my opinion. The Supremes should be professional ans skilled enough to do their jobs cameras or no cameras.

[defendandprotect]

204. Agree -- but they've been fighting it for years now --

[No Elephants]

339. Bull puckey. The Justices would never notice small, well place stationary cameras.

It's the camera operator who moves around and sticks his or her camera in your face that is a problem.

[defendandprotect]

344. Agree -- C-span continues to push on this ... offer them some encouragement . . .

maybe?

Their e-mail is . . .

[e-mail]

[wtbymark]

9. Awesome

we need 2 more just like her

[Vincardog]

27. No we need 4 more just like her

[defendandprotect]

133. Yes . . .

[Orangepeel]

10. Good for her. But I wish I could be optomistic. The decision will still be 5-4 on the wrong side.

From the same article:

"On today's court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court's conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election," Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week."

[mascarax]

38. How can a "Corporation" have knowledge?

Is a Corporation a living being now - with a brain?
I must've missed something.

[Igel]

163. Why not?

They're assigned motives, aren't they?

We anthropomorphize them greatly, and forget that they're groups of people. They may have decentralized authority and morality, but they're still, ultimately, people--and the problems are the same that any kind of large organization acquires.

We also tend to forget that Greenpeace, the Democratic Party national HQ, the AFL-CIO, and Harvard University are corporations. Different types of corporation, to be sure, but they are all sprung from a common source (with apologies to Sir William Jones).

[earcandle]

199. Corporations fulfill a greater purpose, they employ masses, but

they need to be on purpose with goods and services that
actually forward the action and produce goods and services
that fill the needs of the public interest, without any focus
on greed, bonuses, etc.  

If they think they are only here to produce profits without
any responsibility of what they produce, then they are less
than persons.

If they are willing to be regulated as a person who acts
responsibility in accord with societal interests then they
can exist.

Otherwise, I think they need to go away and make room for a
more robust and helpful economy. 

[Zorra]

391. "A corporation is a legal entity separate from the persons

who own it or the persons who manage or operate it.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations

[dana_b]

302. don't know

It seems to me that the people running these corporations already have the right to donate to whomever they want to so why should they get to donate TWICE - once as an independent individual and once through their corporation.

[robinlynne]

353. so true, in fact if a corporation "thinks" something, it is in fact a person thinking it. and I be

believe OUR campaign contributions are LIMITED, are they not?
In other words, the supremes will be giving more rights to corporations, rights belonging to we the people, than we have!!!

[JDPriestly]

51. Justice Kennedy, it is not the corporations that have the knowledge,

it is the PEOPLE, the HUMAN BEINGS in the corporations that have the knowledge. They have the right to influence elections to the same extent that every other citizen in the U.S. has that right. But why should corporations in addition to the individuals who work for them and own them have the right to influence?

I think that, when the legal history on this is made public, even if only through a Sotomayor dissent or even concurrence, changes in the views of many Americans will change.

[Ikonoklast]

172. Exactly.Put the articles of incorporation, and the stock certificates on the witness stand.

If they can, by themselves, answer a direct question, then by golly, give them rights.

[earcandle]

188. Brilliant!

[susanna]

210. self-delete; missing a definition

[aquart]

297. Justice Kennedy.

How much do I hate that his name is Kennedy. That one of the filthy five should bear that name...

[BelgianMadCow]

227. "seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process"

really now. An organization with $$$ as goal is a good influence on the democratic process?

That is ridiculous on it's face.

[damntexdem]

12. A wise Latina, indeed!

A wise woman.

A wise justice.

[meow2u3]

364. Solomon, eat your heart out!!

A wise human being, indeed. Muchas gracias, Justicia Sotomayor.

[indimuse]

YES!

KNR!

[jemelanson]

13. Yes! It 's about time.

[Zynx]

14. I'm waiting for the Obama haters to apologize for the things they said about Sotomayor.

She will be an excellent justice. The critics just blasted her because they believe everything Obama does must be some kind of sell-out.

[suzie]

61. +1

[AllyCat]

148. The Obama haters will hate him at their own expense

There will never be an apology no matter how much they know they are wrong.

But we can love her competence just the same! Go Sotomayor!!

[martymar64]

16. HOLY SHIT!

Union Pacific v Santa Clara County is the linchpin of the entire concept of corporate personhood. If it can be reversed then it's a whole new ballgame vis a vis corporations.

[tclambert]

235. The corporate personhood part wasn't actually in the decision,

just in notes that sort of prefaced the decision. So it's unclear to me how to reverse corporate personhood.

[ProudDad]

303. Just recognize that the fiction of corporate personhood

never existed in the first place!

Stop ruling on the basis of that convenient (for the evil corporate capitalist bastards) lie.

Justice Sotomayor may be firing the first salvo that will eventually puncture that fiction. She's said the "unsayable" -- the emperor has no clothes.

May Obama get many more appointments...

----------------

Of course, the next one might just get a whole different grilling. Those stupid asshole republicans and democrats were so fixated on Roe v Wade and other irrelevancies that they totally missed the ball on the linchpin of the entire evil corporate capitalist Ponzi scheme laughingly called an "economy"

----------------

For its replacement, I suggest you visit some of Dr. Herman Daly's fine work on Steady State economies:

http://www.npg.org/forum_series/steadystate.html
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/daly.html
http://dieoff.org/page88.htm

[martymar64]

368. Exactly!

It's a big step in the right direction that a Supreme Court Justice is recognizing the key issue.

[Localist]

383. "Corporate capitalist" is a contradiction of terms

"Capitalism" and "corporatism" have always been mutually exlusive concepts. The only place where this confusion persists is among the academic instutitons who willfully refuse to see outside of their own dark age paradigm (they being corporations themselves dare dare not imagine, lest their students might ever imagine a world without corporations at the helm.)

You can go back as far as to read Adam Smith's commentary on it in The Wealth of Nations, book 5, chapter 1, part 3, article 1, where he argues for the free market and against the prevailing form of business at their time: (and unfortunately as of the last 100 years, of our own time....) corporations.

Capitalism itself was never a system, in fact, it was never even referred to as "capitalism" until the rise of communism/socialism more than a century later. Despite what the church of academia would have you believe, Adam Smith was not founding any new system, he, like darwin, newton and galileo was simply recording his observations: that people will use whatever is not immediately required for ancillary gain. That's "capitalism" for ya. Any state where what is not immediately consumed is otherwise used.

The whole debate between capitalism (remember, NOT corporatism) and communism is over who should determine what to do with whatever isn't immediately consumed, i.e. excess (capital), individuals themselves (i.e. naturally born persons) or certain councils/soviets of so called "experts" (corporations).

[ProudDad]

385. If anything, "corporate capitalism" is a redundency...

Also, "capitalism" is organized crime, a criminal enterprise designed to rob working people of the fruits of their labor in order to support a class of human leeches...

"Capitalism" is an academic excuse for greed.

[Localist]

388. If only you knew how much this strategically twisted definition of capitalism limits your mind...

You only know of corporatism, which they have magically convinced you is capitalism... which means you'll never really understand the nature of either.

Just as Sotomayor herself said--echoing what's been tragically obvious among classical liberals for centuries now--corporations are legal fictions; creatures of law, i.e. creatures of the state, i.e. socialist constructs.

For all our miseries, our children are given only two options, to choose between blaming "big business" or blaming "big government"--this is known as the left versus right paradigm, the line they draw to divide us--while the problem has prevailed since even before the days of emperor Constantine: the collusion between and merging of commerce and state.

time to wake up bro...

[NewJeffCT]

328. We would need one of Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas or Alito

to step down before we could even begin to think of reversing the idea of corporate personhood. However, it's great that Sotomayor put that out there!

[No Elephants]

348. Step down or die.

[martymar64]

373. planting the seed

A sustained Democratic Administration of two or more terms (Obama's Democratic successor) could see some of them replaced eventually.

[NewJeffCT]

381. Even that might be tough

Thomas, Roberts and Alito are all pretty young, in relative terms, and could all be on the court another 20-25 years.

[ixion]

17. w00t! nice to hear some good news

[destes]

101. nice indeed................very satisfying

a little light in the darkness. not the glare

[bemildred]

18. Yes! nt

[Auggie]

19. One big recommendation

[proud patriot]

20. big grin

[UpInArms]

21. be still my heart!

OMG!

A real live thinking sentient being on the USSC???

:faint:

[denverbill]

22. Overturn the 19th century judicial activists! Corporations are NOT people! n/t

[wroberts189]

91. +1

[No Elephants]

351. It was not the SCOTUS Justices!

For each case that the SCOTUS decides someone, probably a law clerk, prepares a summary or syllabus. This is not official. It is not legal precedent. It is provided only for convenience.

To prove that a corporation is a person, people cite the SCOTUS case of Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad. However, the syllabus of that case is the only thing that says corporations are people. The opinion says no such thing. On that subject, the opinion says only that the issue was raised by the lawyers and also in the lower courts

I cannot imagine how this has gone on this long.

[noiretextatique]

23. thanks for standing up to those activist judges, justice sotomayor

no wonder the rw hates her

[eleny]

24. kr

[thereismore]

26. Thom Hartmann will be all over this. Way to go, Justice Sotomayor!!! nt

[avaistheone1]

202. This is one of Thom's major focuses. Thom's shows regarding the insanity of corporate personhood

are fantastic.

[bvar22]

28. This is good news indeed.

[Gman2]

29. You go, Wise Latina. Letum go after Acorn, We'll beat ass.

[derby378]

31. For those who are new to the discussion...

I heartily recommend that you watch this movie:

http://www.thecorporation.com /

[Ruby the Liberal]

74. I totally missed this release.

Thanks! This is one of my favorite topics. Appreciate the link!

[TommyO]

239. The Google translator translation is humorous

Wherever you burn books, burn it in the end people.

[AllyCat]

149. Nice sig line derby! The photos are great, but that quote is great

My German is not good, but I get it.

[tabatha]

158. Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.

[AllyCat]

184. Then I translated it correctly. Thanks for that!

[Julius Civitatus]

32. RIGHT ON!!!!

Very good. Nice start!

[bertman]

33. Nice work, Justice Sotomayor. Recommend. nt

[Grinchie]

34. Wow!

I'm speechless.

[tnlurker]

35. Big K and R here.

[Rozlee]

36. If those corporations want personhood, I want to see their birth certificates

the long forms.

[mascarax]

Exactly! And none of this "born in Hawaii" nonsense either!

We want the truth!

[DeSwiss]

122. Oh yeah.

- That's a good one!

[CAcyclist]

310. And if they are persons, then shouldn't they die a natural death

say at 95?

If corporate personhood stands, make them real persons - shouldering all the responsibilities and suffering all the pain real persons suffer.

[Soylent Brice]

37. AWE. SOME.

K&R

[pscot]

39. A Daniel come to judgement

It's a miracle. A judge who's willing to toss a spanner into the works.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Pro-abortion too

"This pregnancy is a result of corporate rapaciousness, we can terminate it."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

379. "Pro-Abortion"?

[Libertas1776]

41. She certainly

was the right pick. I wish the other geriatrics on the bench would agree with her.

[peace frog]

231. Right pick indeed

and this is an auspicious beginning. A second centrist SC pick for Obama, and we will have a balanced court. Dare we hope for a third? Please, please make it so!

[ProudDad]

305. We'll need more than that.

Stevens is quite old -- he's the only "real liberal" on the court -- appointed by Nixon...

We need Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy gone!!!

Hell, a real "centrist" court would be a vast improvement over this corporate-centric, bat-shit crazy right-wing outfit that exists now.

Of course, if another real "centrist" court happened to occur it would only be the 2nd time in USAmerican history. The only other non-corporate, non-right-wing status-quo supporting court was the Warren Court. The Court (like the electoral college, the Senate, first to the post, etc) was designed to protect the highest classes against the mob.

The "founding fathers" had more fear of the common person than they did of Church or Corporation.

[peace frog]

345. Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy won't be 'gone' anytime soon

so yes, a couple of liberals added to the SC would be outstanding. Whether Obama could get them approved is another matter.

[Triana]

42. EXCELLENT! Now THAT is JUSTICE.

It's nice to know SOMEONE on that damned court has a CLUE what it is!

[Wizard777]

43. I love her style. Lets start at the beginning. Constructionism like construction.

The mistakes are usually at the base. So if your tower is leaning you check the base. Not the top. I guess she truly is a wise person.

I didn't support her nomination. But I absolutely look forward to her making me regret that many many more times in the future.

[dhpgetsit]

44. This is extremely important in our fight to stop the march toward Fascism in America!

The concept of Corporate Personhood is an affront to democracy and freedom.

[Hekate]

45. Y E S ! You know, we may need popcorn for this new Court!

mmmm, extra buttery

Hekate

[derby378]

258. Allow me

[JDPriestly]

46. Wow! A thinking individual for a change.

Declaring that corporations enjoy most of the rights of real human beings was one of the most audacious acts in our legal history.

[sybylla]

47. Oh, yes. Thank you Madam Justice!

It's about time someone held that great stinking decision under a few judicial noses.

[kleec]

48. I'm smiling

Nice to hear some words of sanity coming from the Supreme Court.

[NikolaC]

52. She Rocks!

I just hope that Justice Sotomayor will be able to get through to one of those numb nuts on the other side, Kennedy maybe?

[Uncle Joe]

53. Kicked and recommended for Sotomayor's extreme wisdom.

As for Justice Kennedy, corporations also have major conflicts of interest coupled with their super resources. No doubt Exxon knows much about the environment, this certainly doesn't make them a responsible steward or messenger of a critical issue that could or would pose adverse conditions against their narrow bottom line.

"On today's court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court's conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election," Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week."b

[Ruby the Liberal]

64. Corporations aren't capable of thought or knowledge,

the people who WORK for them are.

I would challenge Justice Kennedy to have a "corporation" called as a witness to the argument. Not an employee or contractor (lawyer) of/for the corporation, the corporation ITSELF. Then they can have an imaginary Q&A about it all.

[Ikonoklast]

67. If corporations have the same rights as individuals under the Constitution,

how would it not be in direct contradiction of the Thirteenth Amendment for one corporation to buy, sell, or own another corporation?

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. Bingo. And they are not held accountable for their actions,

have never been required to register for a draft, can't vote (yet can use deep pockets to influence elections)...

The argument is beyond stupid and I can't believe Kennedy spewed that inane defense about 'knowledge'.

Ugh.

[Doctor_J]

88. And corporations can live forever

there is so much wrong with them having the same rights as we do.

[defendandprotect]

134. Interesting point . . .

It certainly isn't breeding or natural reproduction!

[Occulus]

220. Definitely not natural reproduction

They tear off their arms and legs to make kids.

[Blasphemer]

54. K&R! Thank you Justice Sotomayor!... nt

[Dr Fate]

55. I'm glad I supported Obama! n/t

n/t

[cmd]

56. I ought to be able to recommend this 100 times

WOW! I love Sonia.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. My favorite news of the week.

Sotomayor cuts to the heart of the problem!

[Swede Atlanta]

58. OMG...She "gets it"

I have said for years that the biggest mistake we ever made was to give busineses (corporations, partnerships, etc.) recognition as having essentially the same constitutional rights as natural persons.

I don't read anywhere in the constitution anything that suggests the founding fathers (since the Rs get an erection talking about "original intent") intended to give rights to anything other than natural persons, i.e. living, breathing humans.

The fact we have given these legal fictions that only exist because we agree by law to recognize they exist and give them certain protections, etc. is the problem.

If we significantly pared back the extent to which they are afforded the same rights as real people we would go a long way to putting the monster back in the can.

But trust me....if we think the fight over healthcare is bad, if this ever happened the busineses would hire mercenaries to fight the U.S. military and anyone who came in the way of their profits.

[Wizard777]

59. What is the purpose of allowing any entity to participate in an election they cannot vote in?

As for Kennedy. Can't these corporations avail the government of their wealth of knowledge by lobbying and securing contracts? How does voting for Joe Schmoe imbue the government with the knowledge of how to stop global warming or even beginning to know how to build new planets to support life. Because even if we do overcome global warming this planet is still doomed by aging Star, our Sun. We only have about 5 billion years to figure out how to find or create a new place to live. So how does voting for Joe Schmoe bring this about? What if Joe Schmoe believes God will save us from the sun and just wants to be the hand in the till for his corporate overlords that believe huge mountains of money will protect them from an enlarging Sun? Is Kennedy willing to gamble all known life on that? I sure hope not.

[Igel]

165. Take your logic to its conclusion.

Can unions vote in an election? Can political action committees?

For that matter, can your local Democratic Party?

Of course not. The people that make up these groups can vote (or maybe not), but the entities themselves can't. Yet they organize, they channel money and produce commercials. That's participating in an election, at least to the same extent that having WeOwnU, Inc., participate by producing a movie or funding its broadcast would be participation.

So we have to find another distinction. That's been tried, various times. However the concern is that if WeOwnU, Inc., can't produce a movie, why should Big Name Press, Inc., be able to publish a book--whether by the candidate they like or against a candidate they loathe? And if it's the case that they can't, why, suddenly, is the New York Times, Inc., or CBS News, suddenly so much more special than a publishing house? Or a blog, for that matter?

[Autonomy]

217. Because that's what they do

Publishing companies publish books, movie companies make movies. Widget companies make widgets, not documentaries. There are all kinds of distinctions out there already -- PACs, 527s, etc. -- who have various laws regarding their speech and money, but asking us to believe a Widget Corp suddenly became sincerely interested in documentary filmmaking during an election, and that the topic of the film happens to be one of the candidates, and is therefore not distinguisable from a publishing company, is... LMAO.

Exactly where the line is drawn, IDK, but I do know this is far past it.

[Wizard777]

277. That certainly is food for thought.

Off the top of my head I have to say that without elections there is no need for the Democratic or Republican party to exist. The same with the the other political corporations you mentioned. Without elections there is still reasons for AIG and the other corporations to exist. I think the differentiation is purpose of unity. I would also look to the founders for intent. What corporations contributed to the election of George Washington? When was the first corporate contribution made?

But I have to say that Sotomayor is not afraid to go deep in her contemplations. I really like that. Because matters appearing before SCOTUS are far from superficial.

[ProudDad]

309. They should NOT be allowed to influence elections with their money

either...

No corporate money, no union money, no political party money!!!

Elections should be publicly financed...

We must demand that the People's Airwaves be turned over for real debates at no cost to qualified candidates...

Outlaw ALL political commercials!!!

We must have IRV or other fair voting methods...

(Proportional representation would be nice, but not likely anytime soon)...


Of course, we have to overturn the fiction that an "organization" of humans has human rights...

We'll never have a democracy until we do!

[dbonds]

60. Best news all day.

[Ikonoklast]

62. It's about time Santa Clara was re-visited, and the clerk's notes shown not to be part of the ruling

Awesome.

[Jackpine Radical]

72. Exactly. Corporate personhood was the invention of some presumptuous legal clerk.

It was never in the ruling.

[defendandprotect]

136. And, we have had laws throughout history which counter that "invention" . . .

legal regulations on corporations -- how they were to be raised -- fulfill their

responsibilities -- and how they would be folded when no longer needed.

Additionally, they were to be closely monitored -- and if they failed to perform

according to conditions government set, they were to be denied renewal.

[Occulus]

218. J.C. Bancroft Davis

Himself formerly the president of a small railroad company, according to the wiki and things I've read before other than that.

Funny how that works, isn't it? He couldn't possibly have had a motive for this bit of legal chicanery....

[wryter2000]

63. OMG

Just

[anonymous171]

65. I hope she is a very very persuasive person. nt

[Piewhacket]

66. Well well, my first surprize. Sotomayer understands that

corporations do not have hearts, or souls, they do not
breath, if you prick them they do not bleed,

and they never die a natural death, a stake must be
driven through their anus, which is their only
cognizable body part.

why they are not PERSONS at all, they are VAMPIRES
that live by sucking the blood of men.

they must be caged for the good of all.

[The Hope Mobile]

68. Big K & R!!!!!! You go girl! nt

[harmonicon]

69. fuck yeah (nt)

[Greyskye]

71. Outstanding!

I've been wanting this ruling reversed ever since I understood it decades ago.

[nuxvomica]

73. I hope she reads them the 14th Amendment

Here's section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A corporation cannot be "born" or "naturalized". I don't think the language could be any plainer, especially in the context of something called "reality". While a justice may think corporations can make a useful contribution to political discourse, that is a personal opinion and citing the 14th to support it is the most extreme example of judicial activism.

[defendandprotect]

346. Neither "born" nor "naturalized" . . . !!

[Mr. Sparkle]

75. At last, a voice of reason on the court ! n/t

[firehorse]

76. Glad to read this news.

Tired of corporations as sociopaths.

[mike_c]

77. OMFG-- just hearing those thoughts entertained by a SC justice...

...makes my heart warm!

[Hepburn]

78. Oh, yeah, Justice Sonia!

Go for it...!!!!

[Xicano]

80. Thanks for posting this. K&R!

Here's a thought. If corporations are equal to people, then, wouldn't it be fare to say that if a corporation was threatening someone's life (like through toxic pollutants), that person would have the right to use deadly force back against that corporation (not the people of that corporation, just the inanimate object itself) like they would against anyone else if they were threatening their life?

Of course in reality that's absurd. But that's the point, granting corporations human rights inherently gives corporations more rights than people. Which of course is why they did it.

In any third world country we'd refer to it as a coup.

[orpupilofnature57]

81. Judge Sotomayor ,Thank You

[aquart]

82. Just that it came out of her mouth heartens me. YES!

We got a live one!

[Solly Mack]

83. K&R

[marmar]

85. I like her more and more.......

nt

[Doctor_J]

86. Whoa. Many on our side were saying she's a corporatist

this is great news

[wroberts189]

87. Oh some good news for a change ..way to go on the pick Obama ..way to go. KNR nt

[DeSwiss]

89. HELL YES!!! K&R!!!!!!!

- If corporations are persons then let them fight the wars......

[jgraz]

94. I want to have her baby

Damn, we just got Soutered in the other direction!

[XanaDUer]

95. Damn I want to marry that woman!

nt.

[arcane1]

96. Hell Fuck Yes!

No wonder they opposed her!

[laughingliberal]

99. Good for Her!

Now if she could bring Kennedy along with her we might have a shot at a decent country for workers again...

[BrainGlutton]

100. Has it occurred to anyone how disruptive it would be to our economic system . . . .

. . . if corporations lost their status as "legal persons"?

Hate to be a downer, but I'm a lawyer and I now how much of established business law depends on that principle.

LOTS of kinds of organizations and entities are "artificial persons" under the law -- foundations, churches, civic associations. In most cases it's just a convenient way of owning and disposing of property in the organization's name.

[jeff30997]

102. As legal persons...

Corporations are sociopaths at best.

[Xicano]

105. So we just allow an oligarchy to continue to corrupt our government

because it may disrupt our economic system? Seems to me they managed to not just disrupt our economic system, but, hijack it and almost destroy it for the rest of us.

Corporate legal person status is a cancer and the longer we wait to cut it out, the more damage its going to cause.

[JerseygirlCT]

114. I'm reading the above as the "corporate personhood is too big to fail"

argument...

[Xicano]

125. Exactly! That's right on the nail head JerseygirlCT. +1

Too bad JerseygirlCT and all the rest of us working/poor folks weren't considered "too big to fail". Hopefully we'll live to see that day.

[Igel]

168. Two phrases.

"Stare decisis" and "settled law."

These were big deals. It was essential that settled law remain settled. Stare decisis must rule. It's crucial, essential, all civilization would end, one would think, if these principles were not upheld. It's a principle, dammit, and no judge should be confirmed that does not admit such fundamental facts. They want to up-end 30-year-old precedents? No f**king way!

Oh. What's that? Stare decisis? Settled law?

Eh. We like where Sotomayor's thinking takes us. Screw our previous rhetoric--there's no principle involved, no fundamental anything. What, people actually took us seriously? The idiots. We sure tricked them. Aren't we supposed to speak power to truth?

So next time a politician says that stare decisis is important, that there is such a thing as settled law, we can scoff. "Fool."

[JerseygirlCT]

376. Dred Scott. Plessy vs. Ferguson...

In general, stare decisis is a good principle.

Sometimes, however, truly bad decisions need to be overturned.

Falling for a rigid outlook wherein it's either always or never is likely to end up badly.

[Mithreal]

139. Our economic system? What about our political system?

Screw that, need to save the corporations and other artificial persons.

I am sure you and other lawyers would learn to adapt.

[scarletwoman]

143. Our "economic system" sucks. It NEEDS to be disrupted.

Unless you think the ever-widening gap between the top 1% and the bottom 90% is a good thing -- and I do not.

Our economic system funnels wealth upward to the few, to the detriment and impoverishment of the many. Our economic system breeds fraud and corruption and exploitation and war, and misery for the majority of earth's inhabitants.

Please, by all means, disrupt it!

sw

[IndianaGreen]

159. Don't cry for corporations

As it now stands, corporations have more rights and privileges than people do. If you really want to be a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution (whatever that means), the Framers did not envision corporations when they wrote the Constitution.

[tabatha]

162. Corporations are disruptive to our economic system

they are responsible for the greatest movement of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
Have you not seen the recent disruption of our economic system?

They need to fail and not be bailed out by the taxpayers - i.e. for supposed free market principles to apply.
As "persons" they are protected from their own mistakes - they should not have unalienable rights.

[rhett o rick]

185. Musolini agreed with you. CorpAmerica uber alles. nt

I know I am mixing fascists.

[rucky]

252. Can't there be limits?

Keep the ownership and limited liability aspects, and chuck the rest?

[redqueen]

270. It's the right thing to do.

If it's disruptive, so be it.

[fascisthunter]

275. to whose economic system... what good is it

when it causes more destruction and pain than anything the majority will ever benefit from? When you say our, you speak of an exclusive bunch at the top, because it will efeect them the most, not us.

[ProudDad]

312. In what way, exactly?

The only thing that "incorporation" grants is limited liability.

I ran a sole proprietorship and partnerships for years and never had any trouble with "owning and disposing of property in the organization's name." Of course, I was liable for my work and its consequences, just like real people.

Other than almost total protection against being held accountable for their actions, what operational portion of a corporation would be hampered by withdrawal of this fiction that they've only been afforded for a few decades.

And other than a consumerist society built on debt as money, endless wars and environmental pollution, collapse of the "real" economy" and bailouts for the super-rich...

Monopolies and price fixing and health "insurance" (instead of Health Care)...

A Congress bought-and-sold by corporate "interests"...

a society that's so stressed that over 50% of the population has to take some sort of pill to make it through the day...

What the Fuck have corporations given us?

[robinlynne]

354. Why would it be disruptive?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

380. Ending slavery was extremely disruptive to the agrarian economy of the south.

I guess they shouldn't have ended it.

[Turborama]

103. Woohoo! Sounds like she's hitting the ground runnning!

& R

[femrap]

104. k and r

WOW! I love this woman!!!! How wonderful!

[sofa king]

106. No sh.... Well, I'll be....

I'll paint myself purple if that shows up in an opinion. It's really a bet against the Wall Street Journal, which is rarely correct in its guesses.

[kestrel91316]

107. WOOT! WOOT! WOOT! - Holy cow, dare we hope?"??

[Mithreal]

108. K&R especially if this leads to positive change.

Hope we all are willing to do something if this decision goes the wrong way.

[Xicano]

109. Just thought I'd post this short youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP4H6tVBdmc

[SpiralHawk]

110. Go Soto Go.

The k and the r.

[Bozita]

111. Jaw-dropping good news!

[JerseygirlCT]

113. You go girl! nt

[Vattel]

115. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the corporations will win this one.

It will be interesting to see if the originalists on the Court address Sotomayor's point. My guess is that they will argue that the right to free speech of natural persons would be violated by restricting corporate political spending. And no doubt they will rely heavily on precedent to justify their decision.

[defendandprotect]

137. "Natural persons" don't buy free speech . . .

Precedent -- long time precedent -- puts many restrictions and controls on the

raising of corporations and mandating their folding if they are no longer necessary --

and if they do not perform according to regulations.

Plus anti-trust laws -- not that we've seen them applied recently!!!

Our present experiences would also be appropriate to mention given their "too big to fail"

status -- and the forced bail out by the taxpayers --

Where does it say in the Constitution that taxpayers will bail out capitalism?

[ProudDad]

314. Of course they'll "win" this one!

That was not in question.

We've got a corporatist bat-shit crazy right wing supreme court...

Roberts, Alito, Scalia and his toady Thomas -- corporate...Federalist Society assholes...

Kennedy, Briar -- corporate tools...

Sotomayor, Ginnsberg, Stevens -- the only "proto-humans" on the court...

That makes the decision 6 to 3

and we'll be in DEEP SHIT for a number of years.

If you think our elections are skewed now -- just wait until the floodgates are opened...

[David Zephyr]

116. Go Sonia!

I love this wise Latina! Now let's get more like her!

[ananda]

117. Thank you, Justice Sotomayor!

Challenge the corporate right!

[Pharaoh]

118. Woo hoo!!!

[Lint Head]

120. End corporate rights! Now! Yeah!!!!

That is the damn root of financial and health care problems today. Corporate rights as a person was determined when people still believed in slavery.

When slavery ended corporations still enslaved people psychologically and financially.
My own father was enslaved by the textile industry, an industry that was at the forefront of child slave labor in this country. They now enslave people in other countries.

There is a good reason my name is proudly 'Lint Head'.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mbperrin]

121. Thank you, Justice Sotomayor!

If this keeps up, there could be an outbreak of humanity on the court!

[defendandprotect]

123. OH, YES .. . You Dear Sweet Sotomayer --- !!!

LOVE IT --

[annabanana]

126. I'm liking this...

I'll admit, I wasn't sure what we had gotten in Sotomeyer, since her record is really right down the middle.

This is encouraging.

[Suji to Seoul]

127. Very encouraging.

I like this.

[NNadir]

135. I really expect great things from her. I really do. It's hard to say, because

a justice is changed simply by being a justice, I think, but I find her to my liking thus far.

[MrsCorleone]

138. Quick FYI regarding this case: Ted Olson, arguing for corp free speech, is the same bastard who

brought us all, with devastating consequences, Bush v. Gore.

[OwnedByFerrets]

140. Only prob I have with this headline is that it was NEVER law

otherwise WTG!!!!!

[2Design]

146. Terrific - I always felt it was wrong to give corporations personhood w/o the consequences of person

They can not be punished like a person or any of the other consequences of being an evil person and corporations have become souless because they don't have a conscious

[HCE SuiGeneris]

147. Big thumbs up for Justice Sotomayor

Nothing could be better for the people of this nation than stripping corporate entities of their 'person-hood'.

[DallasNE]

150. This Is Some Of That "Wise Latina" On Display

She had to scrap her way up the ladder and she learned some lessons along the way that those with a less difficult path never experienced. That was always the context of her "wise Latina" statement that others attemped to twist into something else. You go girl!

[Overseas]

151. K&R! Yes please! //nt

[mvd]

152. That is big

Hooray for Sonia! All those 19th century rulings did was made it harder for the government to give corporations the regulation they need.

[BREMPRO]

153. *****WOW!!****** SO...Roberts, by his extra judicial activism

of asking this case to be re-argued to question (push for) whether corporations as individuals have free speech and should have the right for unlimited campaign contributions neglected (arrogantly) to consider that the original whole concept of corporations status as a person with individual rights could be called into question! And, It's a precedent that should be argued and I bet could be overturned. Touche Judge Sotamayer!! I'm impressed. The whole corporate fascist house of card could crumble on the case because Roberts pushed too far.

[BattyDem]

182. Imagine how Roberts felt when he heard her say that

[BREMPRO]

190. DOH! I'd give anything to have seen the blood rush out of his face.

he opened the gate- she walzed right in!

[Happyhippychick]

155. A big "you GO wise Latina" from me to our new national treasure

[tilsammans]

157. YAY!!!

You go, girl!

[grantcart]

160. And this is why they don't want a "wise Latina" on the court

Now don't they look stupid.

[unkachuck]

161. K&R.....she's good, very good....thank you President Obama....

....can you imagine what beautiful country this would be with 8 more Justices like her?

[ProudDad]

316. Only need 4 (n/t)

[Vidar]

166. Recommended for a marvelous opening salvo

[pleah]

167. K& R

[Lost-in-FL]

169. Wise Latina strikes back!

[jasi2006]

171. The conservatives on the court really don't believe in corporation

personhood...but they will say they do for obvious reasons. The ultra-RW Justices would defy their alleged religious beliefs to support corporate personhood.

[Enthusiast]

226. Yeah, where is the

'strict constructionist' position they always claim to take?

[PuppyBismark]

173. If corporations are persons, which sex are they and which can marry which?

What does the defense of marriage act have to say about two corporations marrying? Can two Gay corporations marry? How about two football teams?

Just asking?

[BrklynLiberal]

174. WOW! That is great news!!!

[Kweli4Real]

175. I'm loving her ...,

But I have to go read the transcript.

[tonekat]

176. Wow! Now this is what I want to see!

Glad to see this addressed.

[autorank]

177. Well, huge kudos. k*r This judge is intellectually honest. Rokken!!!!

[BattyDem]

178. I LOVE this woman already!!!

[Merlot]

179. Oh Yes, OH YES! Thank you Justice Sotomayor!

Finally, something to cheer about. Oh, and imagine the discomfort of the "justices" who are bought off by the corporations. Heh heh heh... I'll bet they're squirming in their seats.

[liquid diamond]

180. That's a relief. I was hoping she wouldn't be a turncoat.

I can't wait to read her opinions. As junior justice she should be writing for the majority, right?

[earcandle]

181. God Bless America! Gopod, be with us. Aristotle wake the fuck up.

[azul]

183. Way to start the debate! Yea!

A ruling now to grant corporations almost full control of elections may spark grassroots actions to kill corporate person-hoods. Perhaps some state initiative legislation will pass making the status of corporations clearly non-persons. Then the court may take up challenges in a person-hood issue case. A constitutional amendment to fix the demented 14th amendment interpretation seems highly unlikely what with corporate media hogging the narrative.

Corporations are running an unsustainable economy off a cliff, destroying people and the planet in the process. You want them to continue on like we approve of it all? We can't all be that stupid.

[earcandle]

187. Well said! I totally agree with you.

[Bette Noir]

186. Thom Hartmann will be pleased.

[avaistheone1]

211. Indeed Thom will be!. This is one of Thom's major hot buttons.

[gtar100]

189. K&R

[dccrossman]

192. Actual transcript of the oral arguments

For those of you with the patience and desire to read the legalese:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_t... .pdf

See page 33, line 18, for the relevant quote mentioned in the WSJ article.

It was not quite as definitive an indication of her direction as the article suggests, in my opinion. Though I would hope that that is her inclination.

[NJCher]

243. link doesn't work

Cher

[dccrossman]

261. Corrected link to oral arguments

Link screws up because it includes square brackets...

Copy and paste the information below to piece the link together.

Replace the words "Open Square Bracket" with the character.

www.supremecourtus.gov
/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-205
Open Square Bracket
Reargued].pdf

[dccrossman]

263. Working link

Forgot I could just use bit.ly:

http://bit.ly/smU8j

[lordsummerisle]

193. K&R n/t

[BurtWorm]

194. Finally some good Obama news!

I was beginning to wonder.

[nemo137]

195. promising.

I've been arguing this for years. Even my crazy-ass libertarian father thinks the corporate personhood is poisonous.

[burrowowl]

196. I am pleasantly SURPRISED!

Go Sotomayor!

[sakabatou]

197. End corporate personhood!

[slay]

198. Wow! I have complained about that Corporate personhood shit for years!

Good for her! Very cool!

[Libertas1776]

201. I said this before and I'll say it again...

I really hope her opinion will represent the majority in this decision...of which the very future of our Democratic Republic hangs on, and not another lone, "Harlan's dissent" that won't be rectified for almost half a freaking century.

[NBachers]

208. The Horror!! The Horror!!

We're doomed, I tell you, Doomed!

I told you what that wacko cookoo female would do to our Supreme Court!

[GrilledCheeses]

212. YESSSSSSSS. nt

[drmjg]

213. I am waiting for this speech from AIG...


I am a Corporation. Hath not a Corporation eyes? Hath not a Corporation hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, 
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Democrat is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If 
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the 
rest, we will resemble you in that.

(I am truly sorry, Bill)

[No Elephants]

241. He hated lawyers, but he might have made an exception for this.

[ProudDad]

317. That's because (the Queen's) corporate lawyers

ripped him off for royalties

[tiptoe]

216. K & R!

[StreetKnowledge]

219. "Wise Latina" eh RW Bozos?

Looks like Sonia "Wise Latina" Sotomayor has a bone to pick with you guys. Watch your backs......

[caseymoz]

223. K & R. Finally a voice of sanity about this.

And I hope it isn't too late. Scalia, Aleto, Roberts and Thomas are guaranteed to vote in favor of unlimited Corporate access to political speech. Of course, this means all five other judges will have to vote against this.

This case could make or break the US for the entire 21st Century. If this passes, it will be 5-4. I'm tempted to hope that a conservative justice dies between now and then.

[d_b]

224. Kick for the wise latina

[nvme]

228. Not that anyone will read this but

Does a corporation have a right to vote? Bear arms? serve in the military? Does it have Life? does it think for itself? Can it Laugh? Does it bleed?
can it smell does it possess any of the 5 senses? Can it be aware of itself? If yes, it may be qualified under"personhood"

[dotymed]

230. K&R

[Joanne98]

232. WOW! Thanks. GREAT NEWS!

[and-justice-for-all]

234. Corporations hijacked that ruling...

they absolutely SHOULD NOT be treated as flesh and blood people!! corporations are NOT PEOPLE!!

Kick their ass Sotomayor.

[Peace Patriot]

237. WOW! nt

[dipsydoodle]

238. I recall reading

that much of this issue has to do with patent law back in 1930's.

Negating the original law would have a huge effect.

[Pryderi]

240. GOLEM!

[tclambert]

242. What troubles me is that corporations have rights superior to human beings.

"No soul to save, no body to incarcerate." They literally get away with murder, or at least manslaughter, all the time. How many people die every year from defective products, contaminated products, or toxic waste releases? All you can do is sue them, and maybe get a little money, if, if, if you can afford lawyers enough to combat their in-house law firms. And if you do win, the corporation can't go to jail. And it doesn't have a conscience to feel bad about doing wrong. It only calculates the cost of occasionally getting caught, and factors that in to the cost of doing business.

"It's not personal. It's just business."

[No Elephants]

244. K & R She kicked Scalia right in his originalist nads.

And she spent a lot of her career as a corporate lawyer and pro-corporate judge, too! That scared me, but I am happy to say I was WRONG!

"I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white man who hasn't lived that life,"

you betcha, Madame Justice Sonya!

[HamdenRice]

245. But, but, but,... Certain DUers assured me Sotomayor was a conservative corporatist

and had to be because Obama is the same as Bush.

[vaberella]

246. That's what I was told too. It would seem none of them posted here. n/t

[ProudDad]

323. I'm posting here

When it comes to an unquestioned faith in the corporate capitalist dominance of our society and money buys elections ... Obama is the SAME as bush...

I'm certain that Sotomayor and Obama NEVER had a conversation about corporate personhood or Obama would have run from her as quickly as he could...

But, luckily, the process was so loaded with irrelevant bullshit (thank you, republicans), personality instead of substantive debate of judicial temperament or philosophy and...

She had no record of her actual views on this issue in her record since so many assume it's "settled law"...

She snuck through the filters. They just assumed that since she was a corporate lawyer that she would also be unable to overcome the propaganda...

as did I - mea culpa...

Very refreshing to hear a thinking human on that court of pro-corporate automatons.

But...

The wars continue. The wars get $1 TRILLION + per year!
No Health Care Reform -- just a give-away to insurance CORPORATIONS and drug CORPORATIONS...
Patriot act, wire-taps, torturers not punished...business as usual
Blackwater still employed...(as XE - how clever)
Shoveling trillions at the banks -- no change in regulation called for nor enacted...

Where's the "Change"???


One lucid statement by one (inadequately vetted) Justice doth not Change make...

[No Elephants]

292. Don't know if you are referring to me. If you are, though, "You lie."

Originally, I had posted that she was pro-corporation (and pro-law and order). I gave as my reasons oth her work experience in prosecution and as a corporate lawyer and, even more significantly, her decisions as a judge in lower courts. Those are soiid reasons.

I never said she was conservative or she had to be conservative because Obama is the same as Bush. In fact, I've never said that Obama is the same as Bush. I have pointed out on some occasions. when he takes the same position(s) that Bush took, but that is different from saying he is just the same as ush.

And, if you read the thread, you would have seen that I acknowledged that I originally worried about how she might rule in the SCOTUS because of her prior work experience and decisions, but, said apparently I was wrong.

But I won't hold it against you if you don't let facts get in your way.

[HamdenRice]

311. You seem very defensive.

I had a number of posts in mind, but it sounds like you feel the need to backpedal from whatever you wrote at the time.

[wicket]

248. EXCELLENT!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

249. Didn't see that one coming, now, did you, Corporate America?

[NinetySix]

250. Is this true, or just a wild, ecstatic fantasy?

I had no high hopes for Sotomayor... until now!

Maybe, just maybe things will actually start to improve now that we have Sonia on our side!

[Tim01]

255. Thats AWSOME! nt

[Festivito]

256. Incredible, timely, ... wow. /nt

[TheDebbieDee]

259. QUESTION EVERYTHING! You go Justice Sotomayor!

[GliderGuider]

265. Wow. Talk about putting the cat among the pigeons!

Way to go!

[tekisui]

266. Great to hear!!!

[mn9driver]

267. Kennedy is the swing vote in this case

He has always indicated that he opposes most restrictions on corporate "speech", but he has surprised court watchers before. Sadly, Sotomayor will probably be on the wrong side of another 5-4 split decision.

[Dora]

268. What a fantastic way to start the day! nt

[Postman]

269. Maybe she read Thom Hartmann's book "Unequal Protection"...

Wall Street Journal article doesn't point out that the clerk of the court in the 1886 case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote in the head notes that corporations are persons - something that the court DID NOT DECIDE.

This guy rewrote history.

Corporations are not people. The founders of this nation would reject the notion of corporate personhood.

[closeupready]

271. Go Judge Sotomayor! Go, go!

Major K&R

[Mari333]

272. BIG K nR

[fascisthunter]

273. she just pushed a serious issue into the spot light

one the power that be, will try to ignore, but can't! All their power depends on this one issue. Let's all go in for the kill and try to spread this issue as far and wide as we can.

[AlphaCentauri]

276. Oops! She is part of the Reconquista

She will help to Reconquest the country for the people

[lkjasfulkj]

278. good

...

[debbierlus]

279. The whole premise of corporations as persons is insulting and ludicrous

And, completely illogical.

[Lorien]

280. The "Corporate form" has rights it "should be afforded?"

I don't want to draw too much from one comment," says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it "doesn't give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded."

[veganlush]

281. I was worried about the pick at first, but this is a good sign

...that Obama has gotten it right again

[AlbertCat]

282. offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

Oh NOOOOO!!! A court with common sense?


Well, it seems a Latina woman IS wiser than a 100 years of old white men. Huh!

[derby378]

283. I really hope either Keith or Rachel has some words about this tonight

If you hear Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, etc. discuss this, please let us all know. Some of us have a hard time catching their broadcasts at work.

[disndat]

285. Unfortunately, Sotomayor replaced Souter

not one of the 5 on the other side of the spectrum.

[valerief]

287. You go, girl! nt

[Plucketeer]

288. Just plain "WOW!"

Imagine a "justice" with empathy!

[Wizard777]

289. Should the US conduct their elections like the Corporations conduct theirs?

To participate in Corporate elections you must own stock. You get one vote for each share. I think Sotomayor should put that to the corporations. Shouldn't the US conduct their elections like corporations conduct theirs? If you do not have a vote. You cannot participate. So any entity that cannot vote in our elections cannot participate. Just like the corporations do it. Wouldn't that provide an equal protection of law in conducting elections? Us being unable to participate in their elections and them being unable to participate in our elections is yet another unfair disadvantage Corporations have.

[Cronus Protagonist]

290. yay!

We need six more decent judges now.

[ProudDad]

293. I'm stunned

and amazed.

I pray she has the persuasive powers to get the Court to someday see this truth...

There was NEVER a court case that decided that corporations were "people" in the first place but rather a "gentleman's agreement" among courts and the corporate capitalist masters to create that fiction.

All other cases grew out of that undecided fiction.

Corporations are NOT people -- they are psychopaths!

[BREMPRO]

294. lets make the argument- common sense- corporations are NOT persons

the ruling in pacific railroad vs. state of CA was misinterpreted and exploited by corporate entities and turned our country into a corporate dominated, litigious mess. Sotomayor gets to the heart of the matter and turns the Judaical activism by Roberts on its head- so Judge, lets look at this issue- are corporations flesh and blood people with the rights of individuals? Just because we've given them this right for a hundred years because of a clerical mistake, doesn't mean it's true. lets look at this. Lets look real hard. I'm appointed for life and i'm going to ask these types of questions until we get a reasonable and legal answer.

I'm loving this first shot across the conservative courts bow!!

[ProudDad]

301. Corporation = psychopath...

A LEGAL "PERSON"

In the mid-1800s the corporation emerged as a legal "person." Imbued with a "personality" of pure self-interest, the next 100 years saw the corporation's rise to dominance. The corporation created unprecedented wealth but at what cost? The remorseless rationale of "externalities" (as Milton Friedman explains, the unintended consequences of a transaction between two parties on a third) is responsible for countless cases of illness, death, poverty, pollution, exploitation and lies.
THE PATHOLOGY OF COMMERCE: CASE HISTORIES

To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

[BREMPRO]

304. clinically psychopathic entities run our lives and need to be disbanded if they act against

the public interest.

"Psychologist Dr. Robert Hare runs down a checklist of psychopathic traits and there is a close match:

The corporation is irresponsible because in an attempt to satisfy the corporate goal, everybody else is put at risk.

Corporations try to manipulate everything, including public opinion.

Corporations are grandiose, always insisting that "we're number one, we're the best."

Corporations refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and are unable to feel remorse.

And the key to reversing the control of this psychopathic institution is to understand the nature of the beast."


Congress still has the legal authority to disband corporations if they act badly and against public interest. They haven't used that authority for a century. Public financing of elections is the answer. With publically financed and regulated elections there would be no more need to cowtow to the corporate beast.

[CAcyclist]

307. I was soooo hoping for this argument

It's the only thing that makes sense and will, in fact, have to occur in the future - this is an inevitable ruling.

Making a corporation a person actually creates a super-person, which is what the challenged rule was assuming in modifying "first amendment rights" for corporations to level the field. Better and more elegant to attack the underlying premise of personhood for corporations.

[vaberella]

318. I wonder what that clown Jonathan Turley has to say about her intellectual capacity now. n/t

[bc3000]

332. Turley was honest... it sounds like you want a partisan yes man.

[vaberella]

361. "a partisan yes man" What the hell is that?

Note all the people who like her while he sat there saying she was an unimpressive pick and has no intellectual clout. The man is a dolt who insulted her intellectual abilities as though he holds some award on knowing who or what is intellectual. He s a buffoon. As for partisan...far from it. I just don't waste my time on petty arrogant jerks. And Turley is one several times over. Sotomayor is proving him wrong and showing where she stands and this is what she's done in the past and will always do.

[BREMPRO]

320. interesting article on the history of corporate charters and the revocation movement

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28088.html

"The revocation movement’s account of history has been laid out in many places; one is Taking Care of Business, a 1993 pamphlet by activists Richard Grossman and Frank Adams. The tract notes that in the early 19th century, enterprises took many forms, from limited partnerships to unincorporated associations to cooperatives. “Legislatures also chartered profit-making corporations to build turnpikes, canals and bridges,” the authors write. “By the beginning of the 1800s, only two hundred such charters had been granted…. Citizens governed corporations by detailing rules and operating conditions not just in the charters but also in state constitutions and state laws.”

The pamphlet does not explain why a business would tolerate such restrictions, if all it need do to avoid them was not incorporate. The answer, of course, is that incorporation bestowed certain advantages. In those days, historian Robert Hessen notes in his 1979 book In Defense of the Corporation, corporate charters often included special privileges, such as “a legally enforced monopoly, exemption from taxation, release of employees from militia and jury duty, power to exercise eminent domain, and authorization to hold lotteries as a means of raising capital.” Others received direct subsidies from the government.

Those benefits were awarded only to particular corporations. Another perk was conferred on just about all of them: The corporate form limited shareholders’ liability for the corporation’s debts, decreasing the risk of investment and allowing greater concentrations of capital. This is what Ambrose Bierce had in mind when he defined a corporation as “an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.” There are those who argue that this practice could only exist with state intervention—that is, through incorporation laws. There are others, such as Hessen, who argue not only that it could emerge as a matter of contract, but that it has so emerged, and that incorporation today is merely a convenient legal shortcut. (This is separate from the issue of limited liability for harms caused to third parties, a legal doctrine that is somewhat harder to defend.)"

[lark]

324. Go Sonya

I knew she was deep in sheeps clothing during the hearings. OK, I didn't know, but I had a strong feeling that she was a lot more progressive than she showed and I was absolutely ecstatic to hear her standing up for common sense and against the corporatist. Unfortunately, the corporatist still have the numbers, so it will be shocking if she wins.

Something needs to happen to one of the right wing activists pretending to be impartial judges so Obama can appoint a REAL difference maker. Replacing Souter and another liberal with liberal judges only keeps the status quo for now.

[pinto]

330. "that was the court's error to start with"

[jonestonesusa]

334. BIG K & R!!

We can only hope that this notion of corporate personhood is revisited and revoked, especially since corporations have no personal financial liability but do have free speech rights! It's high time to reconsider this absurdity.

Go, Judge Sotomayor!

[diane in sf]

340. Let's hope this opinion can prevail and stop or modify the move by bush lackey Roberts

to remove campaign spending limits on corporations.

[ooglymoogly]

347. What an astonishingly wonderful surprise.

An actual honest person addition to the supreme court. Thrilled beyond expectations.

[AlecBGreen]

350. gracias!

[DesertDiamond]

356. OMG!!!! Sotomayor rules!!!

[Zorra]

359. The recognition of corporate personhood is the quintessential example of legislating from the bench.

The imminent overturning of campaign finance reform laws by the 5 fascist justices on the SCOTUS ranks right up there too. It's legislating from the bench, pure and simple - they seek to overturn not only legal precedent but legislation as well.

A primary reason that the 5 fascists who were on the SCOTUS in 2000 appointed Bu*h to the presidency was to insure that corporations would remain in control of the government. By doing so, they basically assured that fascists would remain in control of the SCOTUS for decades. Subsequently, the fascists could insure that no pro-democracy, anti-corporate legislation would stand, and all relevant decisions could be rendered according to the needs and dictates of their corporate masters.

They could insure that corporate personhood would remain the unconstitutional "law of the land", as well as protecting corporations from campaign finance reforms that could severely limit their ability to buy politicians to do their bidding.

Justice Sotomayor totally rocks, and with any luck, something will happen that will leave one or two of the SCOTUS seats currently occupied by fascist traitors open during the Obama administration and Obama can fill these seats. Then the Supreme Court could finally become a genuine pro-democracy entity that objectively interprets the Constitution again.

This would literally be one of the best things, if not the absolute best thing, that could happen to our country. It might be the only way we can be saved from the crushing corporate oligarchy that has overthrown our democracy.

[DaLittle Kitty]

387. You Are SOOO Correct... THIS WOULD BE Thje Key To Returning Govt. To The People Where It Belongs!

However it will be a cold day in hell if this comes through me thinks....

[ProudDad]

360. And for another method to fight the evil...

Republic Windows CEO charged in plot to loot company

After Republic Windows and Doors abruptly shuttered its North Side plant last winter, some of the 200 union workers who lost their jobs peacefully refused to leave for several days, demanding wages they'd earned and becoming a national symbol of the economic crisis.

On Thursday Cook County prosecutors made a startling allegation: The sudden plant closing was all part of a monthslong plot by the head of Republic Windows to loot the business, steal key manufacturing equipment and set up a new operation in Iowa.

After a judge hit former company CEO Richard Gillman with a whopping $10 million bail, he was led away to Cook County Jail while wearing a pin-striped suit, white collared-shirt and a dazed expression on his face.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/republic-win...

Militant Unionism!!!

[Eyes_wide_ open]

366. Best news I've heard

since the election! K & R

[EFerrari]

382. Andale, hermanita!

[earth mom]

390. Fingers crossed, but I'm not holding my breath.

There have been way too many disappointments to count.

[yurbud]

392. kick--Sotomayor is a definite feather in Obama's cap

[Overseas]

394. Still thrilled. Kicking again. //nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

395. simply raising this issue on the Supreme Court is a major step forward!!