In the long run, we could get big things from Justice Sotomayor.
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.’
It would be really nice if, over the next 7 years of Obama, Justice Scalia or Thomas decided to move along.
Liberals never change, do they?
My very history-geekish friend believes that in the long run, the decision to grant corporations the rights of people may be the decision that ultimately doomed the human race.
And Frankie, despite the “look over there!” change of topic, speaking as a physicist who works in the aerospace industry, I have one word. GOOD.
I have been watching this case, If it is overruled then fine, we have to get the law makers to write better legislation, but it would allow a corporations to challenge on the same grounds every stupid regulation on the books that hinder companies, not to mention the freedom of association issues that have been stripped by states (California and others) that says even if I own a subchapter S corp., they will tell me who, when and where, my rights are to firing employees. But on the legal side it’s a tossup, but will be fun to watch.
I wonder what Frank’s reaction would be if China decided to build a missile base or 2 in Mexico.
Weidner: Is there a Monroe Doctrine in China?
Perhaps you have heard of Taiwan — where we dare not put a missile?
Not to mention the fact that anti – missile shields are designed to shoot down missiles fired from Russia. That is like saying we might object if they started building fallout shelters in Mexico.
Here’s a question for you: Who benefits from the removal of anti-missile shields, besides the Russians?
So, Justice Sotomayor is on the bench, what, eight minutes, and she wants to overturn the legal status of corporations included in the 14th Amendment
It’s that ol’ Latina wisdom, I guess.
Good thing Pres Obama didn’t appoint someone really liberal.
This administration may go down in history as the Hubris Administration.
There is no such thing as an anti-missile shield. The things don’t work, period. Maybe someday, but not today, not next year, and not next decade. We do not have the technology down.
Also, why would Russia be shooting nuclear missiles at Poland? They can’t want to render the place they are supposedly wanting to occupy uninhabitable for a century or more.
No, it makes perfect sense to terminate this misbegotten Cold War-era fantasy that has no mission these days. Who benefits? We do.
Oliver, don’t hold your breath on Scalia or Thomas deciding to retire. I’m sure the only way they leave during a Democratic administration is feet first. And while “The Pelican Brief” was a great movie, I don’t want to see it played out in real life, even with those people.
The 14th Amendment didn’t say anything about corporations.
overturn the legal status of corporations included in the 14th Amendment
Please do explain.
Why conservatives want to protect corporations as individuals just baffles me. They really do have a peasant mentality. Kneel before your social betters while looking for someone below you to kick.
overturn the legal status of corporations included in the 14th Amendment
It’s really interesting to see what strict-constructionist wingnuts are willing to read into the constitution when it suits them.
I say that if corporations keep human rights status, they should be subject to the same laws as people are. I would love to seem some companies on
death rowsocialized vengeance.It would be really nice if, over the next 7 years of Obama, Justice Scalia or Thomas decided to move along.
Well, I’ll tell ya what, if she keeps talking like that, they’re both gonna stroke out.
Liberals never change, do they?
Yes, that’s right, Frank. They stick to their principles. Country First, and all that.
This administration may go down in history as the Hubris Administration.
I think we’ve already had that one.
Here’s a question for you: Who benefits from the removal of anti-missile shields, besides the Russians?
The U.S. taxpayer?
if she keeps talking like that, they’re both gonna stroke out.
TFJ, sir!
Also, why would Russia be shooting nuclear missiles at Poland? They can’t want to render the place they are supposedly wanting to occupy uninhabitable for a century or more.
Especially when they are upwind.
This administration may go down in history as the Hubris Administration.
Mm-hm. Right.
Why conservatives want to protect corporations as individuals just baffles me. They really do have a peasant mentality. Kneel before your social betters while looking for someone below you to kick.
Indeed. You nailed it, Jody. Non-wingnuts are against protecting corporations as individuals, ergo, wingnuts (i.e., Republicans and conservatives, at this point) are for it. We need more Matt Taibbi.
Frank DiSalle: Liberals never change, do they?
Not spending resources on a plan that no longer seems necessary? How dare they reassess priorities and strive to be un-wasteful! Damn liberals!
Impaler: I have been watching this case, If it is overruled then fine, we have to get the law makers to write better legislation, but it would allow a corporations to challenge on the same grounds every stupid regulation on the books that hinder companies, not to mention the freedom of association issues that have been stripped by states (California and others) that says even if I own a subchapter S corp., they will tell me who, when and where, my rights are to firing employees. But on the legal side it’s a tossup, but will be fun to watch.
Periods, Imp. They’re called periods. Try ‘em sometime.
I have been watching this case…
…and few legal minds are as acute as Impaler’s, that’s for sure. S/He was president of the Harvard Law Review, you know. Or was it Yale?
From the same article:
No, S M, I mean they instinctively cut military spending and disarm in the face of bluster from the Soviet Union.
Reagan told the Russians: “You make missiles, and we’ll make more missiles,” and the Wall came down.
But I am willing to stay on topic, if you are. I can’t get over how this all happened:
Conservatives: “She’s too liberal!”
Liberals: “No, she isn’t. You’re just saying that because she’s female and Hispanic.”
She gets appointed, and her first pronouncement is to call for Amending the Constitution from the bench.
And that, my friend, never changes.
She gets appointed, and her first pronouncement is to call for Amending the Constitution from the bench.
Are you offended that she hasn’t respected your sense of seniority? Do you feel her opinion is somehow worth less by virtue of being the newbie?
Also, she did no such thing. A reinterpretation of existing language isn’t an amendment. And, by the way, it’s not at all uncommon.
Reagan told the Russians: “You make missiles, and we’ll make more missiles,” and the Wall came down.
Where to even begin.
A reinterpretation of existing language isn’t an amendment.
That statement is exactly why so many Conservatives have lost all faith in the Supreme Court. On what grounds would someone consider that the 14th Amendment might not include Corporations, when to this day, it has?
I realize the an opinion of the Supreme Court doesn’t literally amend the Constitution. But wide ranging re-interpretations can be perceived as amendments.
How would you feel if some other Supreme Court Justice opined that the 14th Amendment could be interpreted that, under certain circumstance “depriving someone of liberty by due process” could be taken to mean that there might be a legal way to make slaves of people.
Would be the sort of “opinion” you would respect coming from any justice?
In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because “we are all of opinion that it does.”
The quotation wasn’t part of the court’s opinion in the case and the case’s 14th Amendment issues weren’t part of the resolution of the case. Nevertheless, the assertion of corporate personhood became precedent. It’s a really odd quirk of Supreme Court history.
On what grounds would someone consider that the 14th Amendment might not include Corporations, when to this day, it has?
On the grounds that the amendment says “person” and not “person or corporation.” From the time the amendment was passed until 1886, the interpretation of the amendment didn’t include corporations. The apparent precedent of the Southern Pacific case is highly unusual and, after more than 100 years, still controversial.
Funny thing how these originalists defer to precedent when it suits ‘em.
How would you feel if some other Supreme Court Justice opined that the 14th Amendment could be interpreted that, under certain circumstance “depriving someone of liberty by due process” could be taken to mean that there might be a legal way to make slaves of people.
Not to quibble Frank, but I think this is a seriously poor example, for several reasons. Firstly, in a strictly legal sense it obviously contradicts the 13th amendment in every way and would be thus unconstitutional. Secondly, there would be virtually no support for it, legal or popular.
Would there be rather widespread support to deprive corporations of the rights of individuals, when they are very clearly not? I believe there would. There isn’t an amendment – or any legal text anywhere of which I’m aware, apart from case law – that grants corporations such rights.
Frank DiSalle: No, S M, I mean they instinctively cut military spending and disarm in the face of bluster from the Soviet Union.
Then you’re not understanding what actually happened and/or showing a knee-jerk bias. The article you linked to doesn’t back up what you’re saying what you’re saying:
“Shelving the plan may also build goodwill with Russia”
A side benefit of the change in policy. Not the cause of the change.
“The Obama administration’s assessment concludes that U.S. allies in Europe, including members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, face a more immediate threat from Iran’s short- and medium-range missiles and will order a shift towards the development of regional missile defenses for the Continent”
Shift was to deal with what is seen as a more immediate threat. Not to placate Russia.
when to this day, it has?
Also, the amount of time spent doing things a particular way doesn’t have a thing to do with whether it’s the best way or not.
Frank DiSalle: She gets appointed, and her first pronouncement is to call for Amending the Constitution from the bench.
Oh, please.
“There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…”
There could be. Hardly a “pronouncement” for an Amendment. If anything, it’s a call to consider the matter.
You have a tendency to see things as you want to see them, Frank.
Frank DiSalle: On what grounds would someone consider that the 14th Amendment might not include Corporations, when to this day, it has?
On what grounds would someone consider that blacks might count as more than 3/5ths of a person when, for over 100 years, they weren’t?
Things change. Things derserve to be reconsidered. Insistently proclaiming “We’ve settled that. No need to ever think about it again. We got it absolutely right the first time and correctly forsaw all implications of it.” is extremely close minded and reality-blind.
How would you feel if some other Supreme Court Justice opined that the 14th Amendment could be interpreted that, under certain circumstance “depriving someone of liberty by due process” could be taken to mean that there might be a legal way to make slaves of people.
I’d ask them to make their case, particularly if they were a judge. Let’s put it before the full panel and see what happens.
I’m not so afraid a decision will do against me that I’d declare it can’t even be discussed.
the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because “we are all of opinion that it does.”
There has never been an official legal decision by the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to corporations. The question has never been brought before the court. Did the majority of justices at the time agree with Waite? We’ll never know.
As it is, the “precendent” was essentially written by a court reporter, who recorded an off-the-cuff remark of the Chief Justice during oral arguments. Note again – no official legal opinion was ever handed-down declaring that corporations are persons. In fact, that idea was not argued during the given case, due to the the Chief’s remark.
Should that remark now carry the same weight as official, written opinions of the full-court, which include concurring opinions and dissents, not to mention oral arguments during which the issue can actually be discussed in public by the full court?
Judge Sotomayor thinks not. I think she is a very wise Latina.
On what grounds would someone consider that the 14th Amendment might not include Corporations, when to this day, it has?
The fact that laws that apply to people don’t apply to them. Same rights, same laws.
Where did you go to law school Frank? Because you know absolutely jack shit about the Constitution and the BoR.
Jaim, when you have nothing to say, just say nothing. If you knew more than I do about anything, you would be correcting me (or trying, anyway), rather than tossing gratuitous insults.
Quaker: Just because there has never a been clear cut decision that “Corporations are persons” (I say that arguendo, because I am not willing to go look for them); doesn’t mean the government doesn’t treat it as so.
For HUGE example: The Internal Revenue Service allows corporations to include all payment to all employees – from janitor to CEO – from reportable income.
The employees compensation is only taxed once — on that person’s Individual Tax Return.
If a corporation fails to pay withheld FICA and Income Tax, the officers can not be made to pay it. The officers who were directly involved in the decison to something else besides the taxes, as indicated by corporate minutes, but more often by signed checks, are the only ones to pay a penalty, which happens to be equal to the aforementioned taxes. It has been given the oh-so-imaginative name of the 100% Penalty (IRC sec 6209)
Since the Internal Revenue Code was passed in 1913, that would be roughly how long the IRS has treated corporations as entities separate and apart from the people working in them.
For the record, that Justice’s statement was in the text of a decision.
Yes, Frank, I know, that’s what I was arguing. Did you read the link you provided?
As someone who defends the Constitution and Bill of Rights and so-called original intent so vociferously, it seems you should be as just as disturbed as I am by the thought of a single justice making law.
Seems like a textbook case of judicial activism to me.
and, in case I wasn’t clear, the judge’s statement was made before oral arguments began, so it was not part of the deliberations in the case, and in fact the issue has never been before the full court.
“Jaim, when you have nothing to say, just say nothing.”
You claimed the 14th Amendment gave the rights of people to corporations.
You are a dumbfuck. It says nothing about corporations.
Again, Frank, if corporations have the same rights as people, then why aren’t they subject to the same laws?
Gee, Zython, why aren’t they ? I guess if I don’t answer the question to your liking, the idea that Corporations are treated like persons just goes away, huh?
Jaim, stop calling me names! You sound like one of those crazy people that meander around the streets, far from home and hopelessly insane, that have no concept of the real world.
Oh, wait! That IS you!
Quaker: I know you can parse a question and answer like nobody’s business, but he did say it in the body of the decision. Don’t throw in the clerk, like he overheard a bar conversation.
Was there ever a case that hinged on whether or not a corporation was a person? I don’t know.
Can you say there never wasn’t?
I’m sorry – that should be , Can you say there never was ?
Gee, Zython, why aren’t they ? I guess if I don’t answer the question to your liking, the idea that Corporations are treated like persons just goes away, huh?
No, but it would indicate you conceding that the Supreme Court made an an error the first time, and that what Sotomayor is doing is correcting said error.
Zython, no it would not. You are mistaking my lack of desire to please with the right answer, with the inability to provide one.
In fact, we have been over this ground before with that abortion fiasco. “The Law” is not a Rule Book for playing the game of life, where all the participants have to play by certain rules, or the referee calls a foul.
Chew on this for a while :
http://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/
Frank you appear to be arguing both sides of the issue here.
The court has been known to make its mistakes in the past, such as the horrible Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions. I presume you believe that Roe v. Wade was also a horrible decision, and should be overturned.
How are those decisions any different than Sotomayor suggesting that “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.” And why her suggestion “amending the Constitution from the bench?”
blacks might count as more than 3/5ths of a person
Now there’s a huge hunk of bogus rhetoric.
The representation clause does not, in my mind, mean that slaves were lesser persons.
Think of it this way: What if horses were counted for purposes of representation in Wyoming? Would that be fair?
Actually, if you give it a moment’s thought, it was the numerical balance that was being maintained, and this was an attempt at saying slaves deserved representation.
S Q: I wasn’t really intent on arguing the merits of the argument. What I was driving at was that, after all that blather about how she wasn’t really a liberal, she steps up to the plate for her first at bat, and bats lefty.
Frank DiSalle: “The Law” is not a Rule Book for playing the game of life, where all the participants have to play by certain rules, or the referee calls a foul.
Wha-huh?
The Law isn’t a group of rules that we’re all to play by? If someone breaks these rules (laws) we’ve all agreed to follow then nobody should call “Foul!”?
Frank, are you actually an anarchist?
Frank DiSalle: Now there’s a huge hunk of bogus rhetoric.
The representation clause does not, in my mind, mean that slaves were lesser persons.
I brought up the 3/5ths compromise in response to your statement that something shouldn’t be changed or even reconsidered because it’s been a particular way for a long time. (”On what grounds would someone consider that the 14th Amendment might not include Corporations, when to this day, it has?”)
Things in the Constitution have changed over the years. The institution and repeal of abolition would be the most clear example of that but there are many others, such as the 14th Amendment superseding the 3/5ths clause. As Southern Quaker just pointed out, Supreme Court decisions have been reversed and revised many times as thinking changes and/or mistakes are recognized.
To argue that things should remain a particular way just because “to this day, it has” is an empty argument on it’s face.
And that is the point I was making, in direct response to your statement. It would be nice if you would actually respond to what I said and not try to drag things off to some unrelated tangent.
SQ, this is a complicated subject, I am good either way on this. why, I believe the company had a right to air advertising of the Hillary Clinton DVD “don’t remember title”. So I believe Sotomayor will not prevail here. But, I agree with her motives, we need all Non-natural citizens out of politics.
There is a group in California getting ready for a California Constitutional amendment, that says the following; “Only a natural person [of the State of California] may donate to an individual running for local, state, or federal office.” I believe this would be supported by Sotomayor based on her argument, G_D knows, the Unions, Corporations and other non-natural entities will hate this one.
[added by Impaler]
S M : I don’t see the Law as a rule book, because in a game, you have a referee – period. There is no representation of opposing sides, and no jury of peers.
Further, I see the law this way :
Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?
Fine, imagine the events in question surrounding a shooting are the “Universe”.
The Prosecutor’s version of the story might be Circle A. The Defendant’s story might be Circle B.
The Jury hears both sides and decides which parts of each side they believe, and that is the area where the Circles A and B overlap.
Therefore, in my opinion, Justice, i.e., the Law has nothing to do with right or wrong, fair or unfair, true or untrue.
No, S M, I mean they instinctively cut military spending and disarm in the face of bluster from the Soviet Union.
The what, now?
Frank DiSalle: I don’t see the Law as a rule book
…
Therefore, in my opinion, Justice, i.e., the Law has nothing to do with right or wrong, fair or unfair, true or untrue.
I’ll have to say that that’s a view of the law, which by definition is a collection of rules which state what right and wrong, that I’ve never seen before.
I actually had a conversation once with a person who honestly, seriously could not understand why people on the other side of the world didn’t fall off into space. It was impossible to try to explain gravity to them because they just didn’t get how that basic fact of reality worked.
Don’t know why I’m suddenly reminded of that conversation….
S M Because the idea that someone might disagree makes you feel like you are drifting into space?
Settle down. The Law, more often than not, tells us what might happen to us if we commit certain acts. It rarely tells us what to do.
The Law can impose a fine if you smoke in a restaurant; it cannot require you to quit smoking.
As was explained to Zython innumerable times, abortion need not be murder, if the law says it is not murder.
And, the Law can say whatever it wants to about how Corporations are to be treated, after appropriate legislation is passed.
Frank, in other words, the law lists the rules and the penalties (likely penalties, if you insist) for breaking them.
And it can require you to quit smoking if you’re doing so in a restaurant. You may choose to ignore that requirement, but it is a still a requirement.
You are right when note the Law can say whatever it wants to about how Corporations are to be treated. And, as has been pointed out several times, there is nothing wrong with someone saying that we should revisit how they are currently being treated.
[...] think I’m in love (via O Dub)! In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative [...]
But I never said she couldn’t say it. Put the shoe on the other foot: A relatively conservative Justice has been appointed, who all through the appointment has been defended by his supporters as “not all that conservative – you oppose him because he’s Filipino”.
Then, within a few days of his appointment, he announces , “I think it’s time we revisited Roe v Wade.
What would your honest reaction be ?
The what, now?
Silly Duros, don’t you know? The Cold War never ended for Republicans, just sane people.
As was explained to Zython innumerable times, abortion need not be murder, if the law says it is not murder.
True. However, the anti-choice side continuously equates it to murder, so them pushing for, say, a fine, is dishonest at best.
Frank DiSalle: Then, within a few days of his appointment, he announces , “I think it’s time we revisited Roe v Wade.
What would your honest reaction be ?
Honestly? It would be “On what basis? Show me your reasons.” Note, that isn’t me saying it shouldn’t be revisited, only that if it is to be then the reasons for doing so should be stated so we can discuss them.
It certainly isn’t me saying “OMG! You’re an activist conservative!!! I knew it. We was lied to. Toldja this would happen!!!!!”