Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is for all of you that pre-emptively pissed and moaned about Obama appointing Sotomayor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:15 PM
Original message
This is for all of you that pre-emptively pissed and moaned about Obama appointing Sotomayor
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 05:20 PM by cali
Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law Article Comments

By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.


Sonia Sotomayor
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... a creature of state law with human characteristics."

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

"Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of first questions," said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.

<snip>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. she's gonna do us all proud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. which wasn't hard for anyone who actually did some basic research
on her to see, but the bitching and moaning about how Obama had appointed this centrist or right leaning judge was just bull headed ignorance from people more wedded to ideology than facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musiclawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. One day there will be a liberal majority again on SCOTUS and..
that day is when someone should bring a case to overturn ( dispose of) the Santa Clara County case which was wrong and had inordinate influence on multiple levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is goodbye, bitterness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sometimes you just want a wise Latina on your side. Y E S !
Something tells me that we may need popcorn for watching this Court.

:popcorn: mmm, extra buttery

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well, the only issue many of us were concerned about, inccluding
Gloria Feldt, was her position on choice.No one ever thought she would be terrible on any other issue. After all, the bogeyman that was always thrown at us was SCOTUS and choice. And we still have now real evidence where she is on that issue except for "settled law " statements on Roe which Roberts and others who have reinforced stringent anti-abortion laws have also stated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. baloney. there were plenty of posts here that claimed she was
centrist or corporatist or even right wing. And she'll be a solid pro-choice vote as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Oh, but their stories will change and the goalposts will be moved.
:rofl:

Great post and thank you so very much for posting it. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
30. As recently as ten days ago...
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 06:48 PM by Davis_X_Machina
...when the Court was hearing the reargument of Citizens United, I was told in no uncertain terms that Sotomayor was a reliable vote to overturn restrictions on corporations' campaign contributions, since she was just another tool of our corporatist overlords.

People forget quickly here.

But that's not unique.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. I guess i didn't read anything about the others, I had no belief she would be
anything but solid on MOST issues. I guess I missed the rest of the upraor. It happens.Even the MSM mostly centered on choice. I still don't know what to expect. Time will tell. I hope you are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's reading an awful lot
into a question or two asked during oral arguments.

Very often, Justices ask questions that end up being exactly in opposition to how they ultimately rule in any given case. So, the old game of trying to divine a Justice's judicial or political philosophy by virtue of parsing his or her questions during oral arguments is just that - a game.

I sometimes think the Justices throw in those questions just to make the attorney jump, and not because it's reflective of anything they either espouse or disbelieve. Just for the hell of it.

They are only people, don't forget....................................................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh please let corporate personhood finally end...
it never should have been given in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
10. At the risk of sounding cliche.. You go girl!
A corporation is not a person.

The bill of rights does not apply to corporation. It applies to individuals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. Excellent challenge point - I love that she brought that up.
Do us all proud, Justice Sotomayor and force a vote to reverse it! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. Oral argument means absolutely nothing.
Lets see how she votes. Having done oral argument in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals many times, I can't tell you how many times I have had the judges ask me friendly softball questions and rip the AUSA a new one, only to crush my hopes and dreams in a unanimous, unpublished, cursory ass-kicking of an opinion. Lets see how she votes, and how she votes over the long haul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
13. It was wonderful! I've heard Thom Hartmann speak of her on this issue
twice now. He spoke even more today about how it all came about that corporations were given legal personhood.

I hope she goes after this. It's about time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. this is what I have been praying for! Sonia, you blessed blessed nitpicker!
I have been praying that Our Lady Justice, whose strict and encyclopedic view of the law is superb, would take a look at the current phoney definition of personhood and say wait a second--that's not a precedent, that's a footnote written by a clerk! Corporations aren't "persons"!!!!

Please, make it so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. I haven't been here that long...
...I can't imagine anyone opposing her.

Please, what's the backstory here about pissing and moaning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. a lot of liberals here wished that Sonia was a real liberal rather than a centrist
There was quite a debate.

All I care about is that she follows the law, rather than the nepotistic sold out decisions we
have been getting lately, from Scalia and Thomas and Edwards...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Edwards? There is no one named Edwards on the SC
You might want to actually inform yourself as to who sits on the Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. Sorry--senior moment--I meant Roberts
Wishful thinking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. here's an example
"Is this really what you want on the bench? Isn't this just a latina version of Thomas? All indications are that this woman is going to be as disappointing to her boosters as David Souter was to his. There is a point when a blind-eye must not be used any longer and this administration has reached that point in my mind.

Sotomayor is no Harriet Meyers, but their is strong evidence emerging that she might well be the missing sister of Scalia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Well that's just silly...
...if she were a latina Thomas the RW would have been salivating to carry her to the bench themselves.

Sometimes your enemies are the best witnesses for your virtues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. The poster you linked to was evicted from DU.
Perhaps you should have chosen a different example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Thanks for the laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. You're absolutely right...
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 05:48 PM by BlooInBloo
You haven't been here that long. :P

Long story short, a lot of DUers bitch and moan about literally anything Obama does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. nevermind our enemies...
...we'll never survive our friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
19. BlooInBloo adds his "fuck you" to the oh-so-concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. Otherwise known as active participants in democracy
Though it's always nice to be reminded of how you view independent thinkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Just the ones who are wrong, and don't acknowledge it...
Thus giving no hope for better performance in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I think the concern was justified -- and is far from alleviated by one comment
Though I did love the comment. If she turns out to be a fire-breathing progressive, I'll be the first one celebrating how wrong I was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Heh. Tell me now, ahead of time, how many good comments it takes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Exactly zero. It takes actual written opinions on actual case law.
Once we see those from her, we'll start to have a sense of where she really stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. The wise Latina speaks out -- and maybe people will listen.
Glad to say that I didn't moan, not even piss, about her appointment.

Imagine: even though I'm an older guy, I didn't even piss. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. What about those who preemptively thought she was an awesome choice?!
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 05:50 PM by TexasObserver
I hope she's successful.

Corporate personhood has to be redefined so that it reflects the reality that corporations are not persons and cannot be treated as such beyond LIABILITY ISSUES. The purpose of the corporate structure is to allow one to limit their exposure to financial risk, NOT to allow one to shape political races through propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
26. Reason and Sanity make a small gain to lessen societies pain
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milk Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
29. These gotcha threads are amusing
I'm sure it can cut both ways no matter the subject or person involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
37. Once bitten, twice shy..
There is a long list of stuff supported by Democratic politicians that has come back to bite liberals on the ass.

Determining how a judge might rule based on their questioning is roughly as scientific as examining goat entrails to foresee the tide of battle in a war.

I for one intend to question anything I feel like questioning and if I'm wrong sometimes then so be it, I'm merely mortal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
39. 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC