#Sotomayor pushs court to revisit Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
5158 Dead, 291 since 1/20/09
corporations/
Quietly, Sotomayor turns on corporations
By John Byrne
Published: September 18, 2009
Updated 1 hour ago
[Zeppnote: if Sotomayor can influence the court to revisit SC v. SP, the
ramifications are immense. This was probably the most damaging -- and
inexplicable -- Court decision in US history, treating corporations as
people with rights]
Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s newly installed Supreme Court Justice,
has a few words for corporations seeking protection under law.
You’re not people.
During arguments in a recent campaign-finance case — that may upend
campaign finance law to allow more spending by corporations — Sotomayor
suggested that the core underpinning of protecting corporations’ rights
was flawed.
Judges “created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as
persons,” she said, the Wall Street Journal noted Friday. “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.”
Corporations were first afforded the rights of persons under United
States law in the 1800s, allowing them wide protections under federal
code. Development of the law mushroomed as corporations — which were
originally chartered by and in single states — began to grow larger and
cross state lines. Eventually, courts ruled that states didn’t have the
right to revoke contracts made by the corporations themselves. They also
ruled that states didn’t have the unhindered right to revoke corporate
charters.
Corporate personhood emerged from the 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa
Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
The interpretation of law giving corporations individual rights is
salient in the campaign finance debate because corporations with “human
rights” under law also have a right to free speech. Those seeking to gut
campaign finance regulations use this argument when positing that the
ability for firms to spend lavishly on political campaigns is tantamount
to their right to free speech.
Sotomayor’s comment, while limited in scope, could mark a shift in
judicial thought on the bench. Supreme Court Justice Roberts, installed
by President George W. Bush, was seen by critics and fans alike as a
strong defender of corporate rights.
“Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large
influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this
was one of [her] first questions,” Douglas Kendall, president of the
Constitutional Accountability Center, was quoted in the Journal as saying.
On the other side of the fence, the pro-corporate Heritage Foundation
said they found Sotomayor’s remark problematic.
“I don’t want to draw too much from one comment,” Todd Gaziano, director
of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage
Foundation, said. 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.”
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/18/quietly-sotomayor-turns-on-
>corporations/
>
>
>Quietly, Sotomayor turns on corporations
>
>By John Byrne
>
>Published: September 18, 2009
>Updated 1 hour ago
>
>[Zeppnote: if Sotomayor can influence the court to revisit SC v. SP, the
>ramifications are immense. This was probably the most damaging -- and
>inexplicable -- Court decision in US history, treating corporations as
>people with rights]
<ROTFL> as if the junior judge on the court is going to have that
kind of influence.
It aint gonna happen.
>afforded.�
Matt
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:25:53 -0500, "5158 Dead, 291 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/18/quietly-sotomayor-turns-on-
> >corporations/
>
> >Quietly, Sotomayor turns on corporations
>
> >By John Byrne
>
> >Published: September 18, 2009
> >Updated 1 hour ago
>
> >[Zeppnote: if Sotomayor can influence the court to revisit SC v. SP, the
> >ramifications are immense. This was probably the most damaging -- and
> >inexplicable -- Court decision in US history, treating corporations as
> >people with rights]
>
> <ROTFL> as if the junior judge on the court is going to have that
> kind of influence.
>
> It aint gonna happen.
Really. I suggest you look at Harry Blackmun's career, specifically
Roe
v Wade. He had been on the bench for less than 3 years before
authoring that
opinion. So, while I doubt it would happen overnight, there is
certainly
precedent for major changes under a new justice.
Matt
Joe Steel
news:4uc7b5l8l4v94tgjn...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:25:53 -0500, "5158 Dead, 291 since 1/20/09"
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/18/quietly-sotomayor-turns-on-
>>corporations/
>>
>>
>>Quietly, Sotomayor turns on corporations
>>
>>By John Byrne
>>
>>Published: September 18, 2009
>>Updated 1 hour ago
>>
>>[Zeppnote: if Sotomayor can influence the court to revisit SC v. SP,
>>the ramifications are immense. This was probably the most damaging --
>>and inexplicable -- Court decision in US history, treating
>>corporations as people with rights]
>
> <ROTFL> as if the junior judge on the court is going to have that
> kind of influence.
>
> It aint gonna happen.
>
What do you know about the influence of judges?
--
Building a better American by hammering the right.
The Joe Steel Blog
http://thejoesteelblog.blogspot.com/
Phlip
> ramifications are immense. This was probably the most damaging -- and
> inexplicable -- Court decision in US history, treating corporations as
> people with rights]
Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.
Corporatism is the legal fiction that property is a person.
5182 Dead, 315 since 1/20/09
A bit wordy for a bumper sticker, but an excellent couplet, nonetheless.
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." (Anatole France from The Red Lily, 1894)
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread." (Anatole France from The Red Lily, 1894)
Kevin Cunningham
There are 8 juniors and one senior. Been that way since the
constitution was passed.
Moron.
Matt
Technically, they are called 'associate' justices. Not juniors.
Matt
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:16:20 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
>>> [Zeppnote: if Sotomayor can influence the court to revisit SC v. SP,
>>> the ramifications are immense. �This was probably the most damaging --
>>> and inexplicable -- Court decision in US history, treating corporations
>>> as people with rights]
>>
>> Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.
>>
>> Corporatism is the legal fiction that property is a person.
>
>A bit wordy for a bumper sticker, but an excellent couplet, nonetheless.
>
>
A bit on the silly side too since corporations are very long way from
being on the same legal ground as a person... and nobody even makes
that claim other than far left loons like David Jamieson (Zepp)...
I suspect Zepp's hatred for corporations stems from him being fired
for drunkenness by some corporation.
Phlip
>
> > Corporatism is the legal fiction that property is a person.
>
> A bit wordy for a bumper sticker, but an excellent couplet, nonetheless.
T'was a T-shirt, worn by a guy in our Labor Day church cookout.
5182 Dead, 315 since 1/20/09
The only actual power a Chief Justice has that the Associate Justices
don't have is to sit pro tem in the Senate in cases of impeachment. He
isn't the "boss judge" or any other idiotic nonsense Canyon might have
popped up with. With the exception of Slappy, he can't tell any other
one of the justices how to decide any case.
>
> Matt
5182 Dead, 315 since 1/20/09
Well, I'm going to grab it for my email sig. In terms of bilateral
antagonistic symmetry, Yossiarian would be in awe.
Phlip
>
> >> > Corporatism is the legal fiction that property is a person.
> Well, I'm going to grab it for my email sig. In terms of bilateral
> antagonistic symmetry, Yossiarian would be in awe.
Ah, but the first one is water under the bridge. Whereas the second
one, incredibly, is STILL a matter of debate.
It goes with the economic fiction that "free markets work perfectly
when all players make smart decisions applying self-interest".
Debunked again and again, at incredible (literal) cost, and yet it's
STILL debated as if the argument had two valid sides.
5182 Dead, 315 since 1/20/09
>> >> > Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.
>>
>> >> > Corporatism is the legal fiction that property is a person.
>
>> Well, I'm going to grab it for my email sig. In terms of bilateral
>> antagonistic symmetry, Yossiarian would be in awe.
>
> Ah, but the first one is water under the bridge. Whereas the second one,
> incredibly, is STILL a matter of debate.
It's that very absurdity that makes it work so well.
>
> It goes with the economic fiction that "free markets work perfectly when
> all players make smart decisions applying self-interest". Debunked again
> and again, at incredible (literal) cost, and yet it's STILL debated as
> if the argument had two valid sides.
There ARE two sides: the people, and the individuals who want to rob them
blind.
There's two sides on bank robbery, too.
Steve
Why would anyone want to rob YOU Jamieson? You have nothing of value.
--
Lost your job?
Don't blame me, I voted Republican.
Steve
So I guess you all admit that Sotomayor probably isn't going to get
the other judges to mess around with a 120 year old SCOTUS decision...
Matt
As mentioned earlier, there is no reason to assume that. Blackmun did
exactly what you are saying. I'm not saying she will, or will not, but
there
is certainly precedent for it.
Matt
5182 Dead, 315 since 1/20/09
> As mentioned earlier, there is no reason to assume that. Blackmun did
> exactly what you are saying. I'm not saying she will, or will not, but
> there
> is certainly precedent for it.
>
> Matt
Voir Dire is respected by the Court, but not sacrosanct, and Tony Scalia,
at least, has said on occasion that he has no use for it at all. Of
course, Scaly is nuts, and you have to take that into account.
Weirdness: the WaHoPo has a lead story claiming the Court ruled, striking
down 527s, but there's no mention of it anywhere else: not the NY or LA
Times, not the Guardian, or the Sac Bee. And I went looking, because
I've never heard of the Court handing down a decision on a Saturday
morning.
I don't know what's going on there.
But this story just came over the AP wire:
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler, Associated Press
Writer – Fri Sep 18, 2:23 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Independent advocacy groups will be able to spend more money
to try to influence federal elections under a decision Friday from a
federal appeals court that overturned rules limiting nonprofits' campaign
spending.
Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with
Emily's List, a nonprofit that backs women Democratic candidates who
support abortion rights, that the regulations limited free speech rights.
The Federal Election Commission enacted the rules in 2005, after concerns
were raised about the amount of unlimited "soft money" contributions used
to fund attacks in the 2004 election.
The FEC said nonprofits would have to pay for political activities
involving federal candidates using limited "hard money" contributions.
Individuals are only allowed to donate up to $5,000 annually to a
nonprofit that indicates it plans to use the money to support or oppose a
federal candidate.
"The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the
right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their
views about policy issues and candidates for public office," the court
ruling said. The First Amendment also "safeguards the right of citizens
to band together and pool their resources as an unincorporated group or
nonprofit organization in order to express their views about policy
issues and candidates for public office."
The opinion was written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was nominated in
2006 by President George W. Bush after working as his aide in the White
House, and supported by Judge Karen Henderson, nominated by President
Ronald Reagan. Janice Rogers Brown, also a Bush nominee, agreed with the
conclusion but wrote a separate opinion that criticized the majority for
its sweeping interpretation of First Amendment issues.
FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram said the agency was studying the opinion
and had not decided whether to appeal.
Richard L. Hasen, a professor specializing in election law at Loyola Law
School in Los Angeles, said the opinion follows the lead in recent years
of the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly struck down campaign finance
limits as unconstitutional.
"It's going to make it easier for people — and I would say eventually
corporations and unions — to give money to political committees to spend
on elections," Hasen said. He said the opinion would put political
parties at a disadvantage because they are still bound by the fundraising
limits.
The ruling comes two weeks after the Supreme Court signaled that it may
let corporations and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates
in time for next year's elections. The high court's inclination emerged
during questioning by justices during oral argument in a case that began
with a dispute over whether a conservative group's 90-minute movie that
harshly criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton during last year's presidential
campaign should be regulated as a campaign ad or treated like any other
movie that doesn't face campaign regulations.
The court came back two weeks early from its summer vacation to hear
broader arguments over the limits on campaign spending by corporations
and unions.
Larry Noble, former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission,
said he is worried that the courts are going to leave a campaign finance
system "so full of holes that it will be basically ineffective."
"Overall the courts are pulling back on the campaign finance laws, and
after all the dust settles we'll have to see what the system looks like,"
Noble said. "The question is: Will Congress do anything about it?"
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:37 -0700, Matt wrote:
>
>> As mentioned earlier, there is no reason to assume that. Blackmun did
>> exactly what you are saying. I'm not saying she will, or will not, but
>> there
>> is certainly precedent for it.
>>
>> Matt
>
>Voir Dire is respected by the Court, but not sacrosanct, and Tony Scalia,
>at least, has said on occasion that he has no use for it at all. Of
>course, Scaly is nuts, and you have to take that into account.
>
>Weirdness: the WaHoPo has a lead story claiming the Court ruled, striking
>down 527s, but there's no mention of it anywhere else: not the NY or LA
>Times, not the Guardian, or the Sac Bee. And I went looking, because
>I've never heard of the Court handing down a decision on a Saturday
>morning.
>
>I don't know what's going on there.
Good Lord, is that a surprise top you, Jamieson? Most people have
been predicting that result.. and by the way, <LOL> it was
yesterday...
--
Steve
Actually, Matt, there's absolutely no precedent for someone new on the
Supreme Court getting the other judges to mess around with a 120 year
old SCOTUS decision...
--
Matt
The obvious examples to show you otherwise would be Blackmun, Thurgood
Marshall, and, of course, Roe v Wade, all of which prominently
featured associate
justices.
Steve, you are acting like an eight year old. You've been shown there
is adequate
background for an associate to bring up old case law, old cases, or
even old established
court rulings. Why do you continue to whine about it? Move on.
Matt
Steve
So go ahead and list the 120 year old decisions that were
overturned...
>Steve, you are acting like an eight year old. You've been shown there
>is adequate
>background for an associate to bring up old case law, old cases, or
>even old established
>court rulings. Why do you continue to whine about it? Move on.
Irony anyone?
>Matt
Matt
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:45:10 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
Oh, excuse me small child. There are NO decisions that are EXACTLY
120 years old that were overturned. You are SOOOOO right, little one.
Go take a nap now, the adults have to talk a bit.
Matt
Steve
<LOL> Actually, there are no old SCOTUS decisions at all that were
overturned as a result of a new judge convincing the rest of the
judges..
Matt
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:13:29 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
>
>
>
>
No, small child, there are not. You are right as you always are. And
the
ones I showed you, well, those don't matter, because those only apply
to adults.
I thought you'd grown up, Steve. I freely admit my mistake. I won't do
it
again.
Matt
Steve
<LOL> So Matt bails without giving any examples of any old SCOTUS
decisions at all that were overturned as a result of a new judge
convincing the rest of the judges..
Just as I knew he would.