It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law


online.wsj.com

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."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
As a conservative, I actually agree with this statement. The Republican party would say this is wrong that corporations should have the power of a person to influence government. Ironically, conservatives, in general, have managed to make the majority believe that individuals acting through the proxy of another individual, or in this case a corporation, have no liability for the actions of said proxy. As the proxy is an individual and action is taken against the individual proxy and not the person hiding behind the proxy.

What say you?

online.wsj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Star and Flag,
As a conservative I also agree with this, the world must be upside down today or something.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Definatley not a Sotomayor fan, however I agree and applaud her stance on thiss. This should just go remind us that even the SCOTUS isn't exempt from the rampant cronyism, corruption and lobbyist shennanigans.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Corporate personhood is legal mumbo jumbo and utter rubbish designed to offer the same constitutional protectons afforded actual living breathing human beings.

The Supreme Court decision often cited in cases involving corporate personhood Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad was decided by a court reporter that happened to be a former President of a Railway Company.

The first words of the constitution are We the PEOPLE...

The current decision before the court would allow unlimited donations of money to political candidates protected as free speech.


From Wiki

Decision

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision issued by Justice ruled on the matter of fences -- in that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assesment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it wasn't allowed to collect in the first place.[12]

The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.[13]
[edit] Significance

As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.[14] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."

Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."


This is as important as campaign finance reform IMHO. Of course the corporations want to be able to completely control our political system with money seen as protected speech.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Let's throw out some names:
John Roberts, Samuel Alito

Elections have consequences.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I'm a conservative and I wholeheartedly agree with Justice Sotomayor on this! I hope she pursues it like a starving junk yard dog going after a bone!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Wow, I'm surprised so many conservatives agree with this. I thought I was the fringe person in my party on this issue.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
umm... WOW. I bet if she'd have said such things during her confirmation hearings the Democrats would've been butt-walking out of their seats.
Here's to hoping she takes this farther, but always be weary of alterior motives for saying such things.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I agree 100%.. really there is no reason a corporation should be afforded human status.. of course, this ruling will impact the corporate world drastically.... I don't think a formal ruling will be made, but its interesting to see that she made that comment.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Wow, I'm surprised so many conservatives agree with this. I thought I was the fringe person in my party on this issue.


I consider myself extreme far right (that's what they tell me anyways) and I agree with her.. I think the notion Reps must support massive business is from Reaganism .. its a Neocon principle .. not a true Conservative principle.. mega Corporatism doesn't benefit anyone, I don't believe any party should support it.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
As a liberal I too totally agree with this in fact I think it's one of the greatest sources of corruption in our times. It's nice to agree with the conservatives for a change too.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Well anybody that has eyes to see knows by now that actually giving the person hood to corporations was the biggest mistake against the people of the nation we know what private interest is doing in Washington, what campaign money and financing is doing to our for the people elected officials and against the tax payer.

While I like what Soto mayor is implying I doubt that something will be done to fix a darn thing, as private interest now runs our government.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Soda Mayor is disgusting.

She should go play in the street.

Obama will eventually have to be held responsible for all his mistakes.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by THX-1138
Soda Mayor is disgusting.

She should go play in the street.

Obama will eventually have to be held responsible for all his mistakes.


Good to see some thoughtful discussions.


Isn't there a TOC that you cannot purposefully misrepresent someones name as to belittle it?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
As a liberal I agree...

In the 18th and early 19th centuries in both Europe and here corporations were viewed with a great deal of suspicion and for the most part governments limited the scope and life of their charters believing quite accurately as the 20th and early 21st centuries have so far proven that corporations are little more than ways for their investors to avoid responsilbity for their behavior.

The older I get the more anti-corporate I become and believe that they should go back to the old way of viewing corporations and keep them on a tight leash.

For the most part small businesses supply choice and corporations reduce it.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join