I must say that what she says makes some sense. I’m ready to be flamed, but if we are going to be consistent originalsts, can we really claim that the framers envisioned that corporations would be protected by the first amendment?
That said, all of us probably need to read those 19th century decisions before passing judgment.
Yea. You’re right.
I have often wondered about “rights” claimed by corporations which are state chartered entities and not “born”.
There's also something in there about "religion" ~ which is definitionally a "group sort of thing", Armies, Navies, etc.
Even defense contractors were named in the Constitution!
Problem is Sotomayor comes from a very insular community that cuts itself off from the mainstream of American history, tradition and thought. We have rarely had a more narrow-minded and bigoted Justice.
I don’t disagree on her point, but I’m not sure it falls under her purview.
Corporate socialism has been a long time in the works.
I didn't think so.
They wouldn't envision this, simply because they wouldn't have imagined that campaign contributions would one day be deemed political speech. Back then, "political speech" involved actual words, uttered or written, on topics of political import.
I agree.
I agree. We should put more thought into whether "corporations" should be regarded as having all the "rights" -- and all the restrictions -- of a "person".
Sotomayer should also be wary that what she wants to change for capitalist corporations (businesses, etc.) should apply to socialist corporations (nonprofits, etc.). Unions such as the NEA would thus be treated as one person -- with all the rights and restraints applicable to one individual person.
Yet corporations do not, indeed cannot, speak. But human individuals who operate the corporation, and are protected by the 1st Amendment, can.
Are corporate stockholders and managers to be denied their 1st Amendment rights due to their association with a corporation?
Leftists attack eeeeevil corporations as though they are living, breathing creatures. Yet their operations are guided and controlled by people. Those same people make the decision to express their political opinions, using corporate resources (which they own) and the corporate name (which they own) and they should be prohibited from doing so?
This seems to me to be a thinly-veiled political muzzle on stockholders and corporate managers at the same time labor unions are being granted vast blocks of power, wealth and influence by this administration.
I agree with you. Corporations/organizations are not people, and should not have the rights that people have. They should not, for example, be allowed to give money to political candidates or parties (the way unions do).
I don't know how it ever came to be that rights are in tandem. They're not.
Rights are afforded to individuals, not groups.
Yeah, I think I’d rather see corporations not as people than animals as people (see Sunstein).
At least the idea is not crazy.
You should really go read what the conservative’s arguments were in regards to Soto’s ridiculous assertions. It was compelling. Most ‘corporations’ are not big conglomerates. They are your local salon or dry cleaner. One person. She was way out of her league that day and it showed big time. I listened to some of it on CSPAN late one night. Obama’s gov. lawyer was a real idiot too. Of course, when asked about the undue influence of unions...Soto and Obama’s minion lawyer didn’t want to limit their ‘free speech’.
This woman is to the left of Ginsberg and a dangerous fool. So was Obama’s lawyer(can’t remember her name right now.
“I’m ready to be flamed”
Burn in hell!!!!
I think the rule should be that if you pay taxes or are governed by laws, you get a say. Corporation or not. Dems think corporate profits are bad, but obscene profits for the entertainment industry and lawyers are fine.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Doesn't say corps of course but doesn't say people either.
Good sign for Sotomayor I think.
“I must say that what she says makes some sense. I’m ready to be flamed, but if we are going to be consistent originalsts,”
Good logic, IMHO, the Constitution says “We the People” and “the right of the people” not we the corporate people. The Constitution does not give one group multiple voices where the average person has but one.
They can hire a good looking blond lobbyist like the rest of us to sleep with our Senators and gain influence.
It is one of the reasons that I say that we are now an Oligarchy.
>. I’m ready to be flamed, but if we are going to be consistent originalsts, can we really claim that the framers envisioned that corporations would be protected by the first amendment?
Explain why anything the could possibly enjoy the First Amendment should be deprived of it.
I agree with you, I actually like what she is saying, shockingly enough.