Oh Sonia, Sonia, don't toy with me!
"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."..
Reached for comment at his private manor, concerned citizen Charles Montgomery Burns was not amused:
"I don't want to draw too much from one comment," says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 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.""
Well, I mean, really.
[via dakinikat]
- koan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Who the hell says
"it should be afforded"?
Todd Gaziano
That's who.
Well
that sounds promising (Sotomayor not Burns) BUT.
As Harry Truman said ' watch his [her] feet not his [her] mouth'
Or something like that.
Let's see ...
On the one hand we have Gaziano of Heritage saying "doesn't give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded."
Then we hear the constant rightwing buzz of "originalism".
Has anyone asked the "originalists" how the "corporate form" ties in with the ideas of the Founding Fathers? Or were these judges "making stuff up".
So yeah, about fricking time someone made this point. Two cheers for Sonia Sotomayor and let's hope for three.
------------------------------------------------------
Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove THEY did it.
Well the math still doesn't look good
Unfortunately there are 5 right-wingers on the court without her vote.
Tdraicer
i'm cautiously optimistic on this
ultimately, she may just be raising the issue and will eventually agree not to disturb corporate personhood after all, but just the fact that she's raising the issue is heartening.
Be funny
if she turned out to be a radical left wing justice. If so, good for her. Hahahaha.
Remember, while odds are we don't get one of the conservative justices replaced, it's always possible - Roberts, in particular, is not a healthy man and might have to resign to take care of his health.
She Researches All Her Cases
It's not ideological, it's logical. The case history on corporate personhood sucks. It was never argued. It derives from a comment by a Justice before arguments were presented in an 1886 case [Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)] and there is no justification or history to support it.
That case should never have been relied on as a precedent, but it was, for all of the cases that followed.
The issue should be argued and opinions documented to justify the conclusion, something that hasn't been done to date.
Justice Sotomayor is very meticulous in her preparation, it's a trademark.
Really
Really, how truly elitist that sounds. **gag** "afforded"? Really, dude?
I'm glad to see her even saying this. One of our fears had always been that she was possibly a corporatist sympathizer. And, BTW, it's not always just about the numbers on the court; it's about how convincing any one judge can be. I mean, look how Scalia changed the court just by his presence (for the worse, if I even have to say it). It's often about how well any one justice can cut to the quick of a case. That said, I do agree the court is more polarized than ever and less apt to swing.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...