This is for all of you that pre-emptively pissed and moaned about Obama appointing Sotomayor

[cali]

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law Article Comments

By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.

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.


Sonia Sotomayor
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... a creature of state law with human characteristics."

After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.

"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 first questions," said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.

<snip>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html

[spanone]

1. she's gonna do us all proud.

[cali]

2. which wasn't hard for anyone who actually did some basic research

on her to see, but the bitching and moaning about how Obama had appointed this centrist or right leaning judge was just bull headed ignorance from people more wedded to ideology than facts.

[musiclawyer]

3. One day there will be a liberal majority again on SCOTUS and..

that day is when someone should bring a case to overturn ( dispose of) the Santa Clara County case which was wrong and had inordinate influence on multiple levels.

[omega minimo]

4. This is goodbye, bitterness

[Hekate]

5. Sometimes you just want a wise Latina on your side. Y E S !

Something tells me that we may need popcorn for watching this Court.

:popcorn: mmm, extra buttery

Hekate

[saracat]

6. Well, the only issue many of us were concerned about, inccluding

Gloria Feldt, was her position on choice.No one ever thought she would be terrible on any other issue. After all, the bogeyman that was always thrown at us was SCOTUS and choice. And we still have now real evidence where she is on that issue except for "settled law " statements on Roe which Roberts and others who have reinforced stringent anti-abortion laws have also stated.

[cali]

9. baloney. there were plenty of posts here that claimed she was

centrist or corporatist or even right wing. And she'll be a solid pro-choice vote as well.

[DevonRex]

25. Oh, but their stories will change and the goalposts will be moved.

:rofl:

Great post and thank you so very much for posting it. :hi:

[Davis_X_Machina]

30. As recently as ten days ago...

...when the Court was hearing the reargument of Citizens United, I was told in no uncertain terms that Sotomayor was a reliable vote to overturn restrictions on corporations' campaign contributions, since she was just another tool of our corporatist overlords.

People forget quickly here.

But that's not unique.

[saracat]

31. I guess i didn't read anything about the others, I had no belief she would be

anything but solid on MOST issues. I guess I missed the rest of the upraor. It happens.Even the MSM mostly centered on choice. I still don't know what to expect. Time will tell. I hope you are correct.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. That's reading an awful lot

into a question or two asked during oral arguments.

Very often, Justices ask questions that end up being exactly in opposition to how they ultimately rule in any given case. So, the old game of trying to divine a Justice's judicial or political philosophy by virtue of parsing his or her questions during oral arguments is just that - a game.

I sometimes think the Justices throw in those questions just to make the attorney jump, and not because it's reflective of anything they either espouse or disbelieve. Just for the hell of it.

They are only people, don't forget....................................................

[redqueen]

8. Oh please let corporate personhood finally end...

it never should have been given in the first place.

[TxRider]

10. At the risk of sounding cliche.. You go girl!

A corporation is not a person.

The bill of rights does not apply to corporation. It applies to individuals.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. Excellent challenge point - I love that she brought that up.

Do us all proud, Justice Sotomayor and force a vote to reverse it! :D

[DefenseLawyer]

12. Oral argument means absolutely nothing.

Lets see how she votes. Having done oral argument in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals many times, I can't tell you how many times I have had the judges ask me friendly softball questions and rip the AUSA a new one, only to crush my hopes and dreams in a unanimous, unpublished, cursory ass-kicking of an opinion. Lets see how she votes, and how she votes over the long haul.

[Ilsa]

13. It was wonderful! I've heard Thom Hartmann speak of her on this issue

twice now. He spoke even more today about how it all came about that corporations were given legal personhood.

I hope she goes after this. It's about time.

[librechik]

14. this is what I have been praying for! Sonia, you blessed blessed nitpicker!

I have been praying that Our Lady Justice, whose strict and encyclopedic view of the law is superb, would take a look at the current phoney definition of personhood and say wait a second--that's not a precedent, that's a footnote written by a clerk! Corporations aren't "persons"!!!!

Please, make it so!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I haven't been here that long...

...I can't imagine anyone opposing her.

Please, what's the backstory here about pissing and moaning?

[librechik]

16. a lot of liberals here wished that Sonia was a real liberal rather than a centrist

There was quite a debate.

All I care about is that she follows the law, rather than the nepotistic sold out decisions we
have been getting lately, from Scalia and Thomas and Edwards...

[cali]

18. Edwards? There is no one named Edwards on the SC

You might want to actually inform yourself as to who sits on the Court.

[librechik]

27. Sorry--senior moment--I meant Roberts

Wishful thinking!

[cali]

17. here's an example

"Is this really what you want on the bench? Isn't this just a latina version of Thomas? All indications are that this woman is going to be as disappointing to her boosters as David Souter was to his. There is a point when a blind-eye must not be used any longer and this administration has reached that point in my mind.

Sotomayor is no Harriet Meyers, but their is strong evidence emerging that she might well be the missing sister of Scalia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5817244

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Well that's just silly...

...if she were a latina Thomas the RW would have been salivating to carry her to the bench themselves.

Sometimes your enemies are the best witnesses for your virtues.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. The poster you linked to was evicted from DU.

Perhaps you should have chosen a different example.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=239874

Thanks for the laugh.

[BlooInBloo]

20. You're absolutely right...

You haven't been here that long. :P

Long story short, a lot of DUers bitch and moan about literally anything Obama does.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. nevermind our enemies...

...we'll never survive our friends.

[BlooInBloo]

28. :)

[BlooInBloo]

19. BlooInBloo adds his "fuck you" to the oh-so-concerned.

[jgraz]

33. Otherwise known as active participants in democracy

Though it's always nice to be reminded of how you view independent thinkers.

[BlooInBloo]

34. Just the ones who are wrong, and don't acknowledge it...

Thus giving no hope for better performance in the future.

[jgraz]

35. I think the concern was justified -- and is far from alleviated by one comment

Though I did love the comment. If she turns out to be a fire-breathing progressive, I'll be the first one celebrating how wrong I was.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Heh. Tell me now, ahead of time, how many good comments it takes.

[jgraz]

38. Exactly zero. It takes actual written opinions on actual case law.

Once we see those from her, we'll start to have a sense of where she really stands.

[damntexdem]

21. The wise Latina speaks out -- and maybe people will listen.

Glad to say that I didn't moan, not even piss, about her appointment.

Imagine: even though I'm an older guy, I didn't even piss. ;-)

[TexasObserver]

23. What about those who preemptively thought she was an awesome choice?!

I hope she's successful.

Corporate personhood has to be redefined so that it reflects the reality that corporations are not persons and cannot be treated as such beyond LIABILITY ISSUES. The purpose of the corporate structure is to allow one to limit their exposure to financial risk, NOT to allow one to shape political races through propaganda.

[opihimoimoi]

26. Reason and Sanity make a small gain to lessen societies pain

[Milk]

29. These gotcha threads are amusing

I'm sure it can cut both ways no matter the subject or person involved.

[Fumesucker]

37. Once bitten, twice shy..

There is a long list of stuff supported by Democratic politicians that has come back to bite liberals on the ass.

Determining how a judge might rule based on their questioning is roughly as scientific as examining goat entrails to foresee the tide of battle in a war.

I for one intend to question anything I feel like questioning and if I'm wrong sometimes then so be it, I'm merely mortal.

[Libertas1776]

39. I really hope her opinion

will represent the majority in this decision...of which the very future of our Democratic Republic hangs on, and not another lone, "Harlan's dissent" that won't be rectified for almost half a freaking century.