Sotomayor: The sleeper US patriot awakens? [You ain't gonna believe this!]

[Dig]

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html
By JESS BRAVIN September 17, 2009

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.

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

"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."

For centuries, corporations have been considered beings apart from their human owners, yet sharing with them some attributes, such as the right to make contracts and own property. Originally, corporations were a relatively rare form of organization. The government granted charters to corporations, delineating their specific functions. Their powers were presumed limited to those their charter spelled out.

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible," Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1819 case. "It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it."

But as the Industrial Revolution took hold, corporations proliferated and views of their functions began to evolve.

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."

That seemingly off-hand comment reflected an "impulse to shield business activity from certain government regulation," says David Millon, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.

"A positive way to put it is that the economy is booming, American production is leading the world and the courts want to promote that," Mr. Millon says. Less charitably, "it's all about protecting corporate wealth" from taxes, regulations or other legislative initiatives.

Subsequent opinions expanded corporate rights. In 1928, the court struck down a Pennsylvania tax on transportation corporations because individual taxicab drivers were exempt. Corporations get "the same protection of equal laws that natural persons" have, Justice Pierce Butler wrote.

From the mid-20th century, though, the court has vacillated on how far corporate rights extend. In a 1973 case before a more liberal court, Justice William O. Douglas rejected the Butler opinion as "a relic" that overstepped "the narrow confines of judicial review" by second-guessing the legislature's decision to tax corporations differently than individuals.

Today, it's "just complete confusion" over which rights corporations can claim, says Prof. William Simon of Columbia Law School.

Even conservatives sometimes have been skeptical of corporate rights. Then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist dissented in 1979 from a decision voiding Massachusetts's restriction of corporate political spending on referendums. Since corporations receive special legal and tax benefits, "it might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere," he wrote.

On today's court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court's conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election," Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.

But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.

How far Justice Sotomayor pursues the theme could become clearer when the campaign-finance decision is delivered, probably by year's end.

Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19

[Dig]

Heritage Foundation is going APE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




For those of you unaware...

Heritage foundation approved

Iraq

Torture

Patriot Act

Telecom Immunity

Surge Hard and Surge Long

Military Commissions Act

etc, etc.

Anything that moves rights and wealth from the people to the central power elite, Heritage Foundation supported it.

Now they are going fricking crazy.

What this may also mean is that she believes (correctly) that the NGO's do not represent a "person" either and are also subject to scrutiny.

GOODBYE HERITAGE

AND  CFR

AND PNAC

AND AEI

AND BROOKINGS


Nya nya nya nya

nya nya nya nya

hey hey hey


GOODBYE

...you traitorous f**king NGOs!

[sociostudent]

I never thought I'd say this...thank you, Sotomayor!

[Draskinn]

Wise Latina. 

Sorry couldn't help msyelf.

[Dig]

I never thought I'd say this...thank you, Sotomayor!

If you research the Puerto Rican civil liberties movements and the CoIntelPro operations that massacred and provocateured so many of these freedom fighters, you will know that it is hard for any true American with a Puerto Rican heritage to not love the constitution.  It would almost be impossible.  But of course we all are waiting with baited breath about her opinions on the 2nd amendment.  However if she does not give a flying f**k about offending Heritage and the other BS NGO's, she may just come out and say...

"Duh! The second amendment is to protect the people from an oppressive government. How stupid are you other justices with your moronic opinions over the past 30 years?"

[stymo1]

Chalk up one for her now, but let's just wait and see what she does when it comes to our rights, and especially anything to do with the second amendment.

"Duh! The second amendment is to protect the people from an oppressive government. How stupid are you other justices with your moronic opinions over the past 30 years?"

Now if she were to say that, I would have a whole lot of crow to eat.... and I'd love every bit of it.

[Dig]

Chalk up one for her now, but let's just wait and see what she does when it comes to our rights, and especially anything to do with the second amendment.

too slow on the draw kimosabee

[sociostudent]

If you research the Puerto Rican civil liberties movements and the CoIntelPro operations that massacres so many freedom fighters, you will know that it is hard for any true American with a Puerto Rican heritage to not love the constitution.  It would almost be impossible.  But of course we all are waiting with baited breath about her opinions on the 2nd amendment.  However if she does not give a flying f**k about offending Heritage and the other BS NGO's, she may just come out and say...

"Duh! The second amendment is to protect the people from an oppressive government. How stupid are you other justices with your moronic opinions over the past 30 years?"

lol, I wish.

[donnay]

You're right I am not believing this...however, I am thrilled she is bringing attention to this or is this just a diversion? Very confusing.  

[stymo1]

too slow on the draw kimosabee

Yea, 10 seconds to slow ..
Hey, I work for a living, give me some slack.  

[Overcast]

Oh Corporations get the same rights as us?

That's not many anymore.

[Dig]

lol, I wish.

yeah, I may be a dreamer, but I have not heard an opinion like that which cuts right to the core of corruption in like forever from the supreme court. Even the BS 8-1 ruling in favor of the girl that was strip searched by her school when they were searching for a tylenol was so anti-constitutional it made me want to puke. I mean she nailed it, straight up nailed it. The only way she could have gone deeper to the eyes of satan himself is if she exposed the true root of all corruption in the US with the so called 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment makes us all slaves to the US corporation. Someone needs to WeAreChange confront her with that question. If she understands that then oh nelly, we got ourselves a true constitutionalist in the Supreme Court.  One out of Nine ain't bad!

[Dig]

You're right I am not believing this...however, I am thrilled she is bringing attention to this or is this just a diversion? Very confusing.  

Just wait until the smear campaign comes out from all the NGO's make sure to understand where the attacks are coming from and why.  Again, she has to expose the 14th to really truly be a full blown constitutionalist. Awaiting JT to chime in and give us all a well needed comprehensive post on this subject.

[sociostudent]

yeah, I may be a dreamer, but I have not heard an opinion like that which cuts right to the core of corruption in like forever from the supreme court. Even the BS 8-1 ruling in favor of the girl that was strip searched by her school when they were searching for a tylenol was so anti-constitutional it made me want to puke. I mean she nailed it, straight up nailed it. The only way she could have gone deeper to the eyes of satan himself is if she exposed the true root of all corruption in the US with the so called 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment makes us all slaves to the US corporation. Someone needs to WeAreChange confront her with that question. If she understands that then oh nelly, we got ourselves a true constitutionalist in the Supreme Court.  One out of Nine ain't bad!

lol, anyone wanna twitter her?
http://twitter.com/JusticeSotomayo

[Dig]

I think I am going tobuy a J-Lo album to show my solidarity.

[Dig]

lol, anyone wanna twitter her?
http://twitter.com/JusticeSotomayo

shit, awesome. I would wait for JT's comments to twitter her with an awesome question but in the meantime, might be cool to say thanks for not being a left/right shill and actually talking constitution.

[N.E.P.]

Yeah, of course she would be for this. If Noam Chomsky got appointed to the supreme court, he would also be for overruling that law. Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing but I'm not surprised that she would have this opinion. Wait until she really starts sinking her teeth in to the Republic.

[Dig]

Yeah, of course she would be for this. If Noam Chomsky got appointed to the supreme court, he would also be for overruling that law. Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing but I'm not surprised that she would have this opinion. Wait until she really starts sinking her teeth in to the Republic.

bullshit, Chomsky would talk about how evil corporations were and how there must be draconian regulations on them. this of course would put artificial barriers to entry for new and smaller corporations to add competition.

she went to the outer layer of the heart on this one.

really shocking.

and WTF, chomsky? that guy has been denying reality for the CIA for over 40 years. his statements are a matter of public record. he hates the constitution and everyone that supports it.he wants some brave new democracy based on intellectualism. c'mon that was a low blow to the sista. I am not saying she is a pure constitutionalist, but she is in a lifelong position.

I really hope they do not have any crazy ritual sex videos of her (for a multitude of reasons) at belizian grove that they may use to blackmail her, but if they did, now would be the time when they may threaten.

[oh yeah, one last thing, the zionist chomsky would add "but we are not doing enough for the really needy in israel"]

[N.E.P.]

bullshit, Chomsky would talk about how evil corporations were and how there must be draconian regulations on them. this of course would put artificial barriers to entry for new and smaller corporations to add competition.

she went to the outer layer of the heart on this one.

really shocking.

and WTF, chomsky? that guy has been denying reality for the CIA for over 40 years. his statements are a matter of public record. he hates the constitution and everyone that supports it.he wants some brave new democracy based on intellectualism. c'mon that was a low blow to the sista. I am not saying she is a pure constitutionalist, but she is in a lifelong position.

I really hope they do not have any crazy ritual sex videos of her (for a multitude of reasons) at belizian grove that they may use to blackmail her, but if they did, now would be the time when they may threaten.

[oh yeah, one last thing, the zionist chomsky would add "but we are not doing enough for the really needy in israel"]

OK Sane if you say so. I kinda just lump her in with the foundation liberal crowd thus my comparison with Chomsky. I will give the Sista another look.

[hardrain77]

I knew that was why I had a thing for those Wise Latinas.

I married one, even. 

[Unintelligable Name]

I'll see what comes of it, she could take it a lot of different directions... sacrifice something to gain another type of thing.

[Dig]

I knew that was why I had a thing for those Wise Latinas.

I married one, even. 

so dd Lou Dobbs right?

[NWOSCUM]

OK Sane if you say so. I kinda just lump her in with the foundation liberal crowd thus my comparison with Chomsky. I will give the Sista another look.

That's Justice Sista to you. 

[sociostudent]

so dd Lou Dobbs right?

I believe he did, and he's against illegal immigration too.

I'm strictly against illegal immigration from any country to another. My great-grandparents from Portugal had to go through the process, and the process needs to continue to be followed, not thrown in the toilet to create a North American Union. I love this country, I love the patriotism and melting pot of diversity, but I think if you want to move here, you need to go through the immigration process and prove that you want to live here and be a contributing, tax-paying citizen of the United States.

[lavosslayer]

I believe he did, and he's against illegal immigration too.

I'm strictly against illegal immigration from any country to another. My great-grandparents from Portugal had to go through the process, and the process needs to continue to be followed, not thrown in the toilet to create a North American Union. I love this country, I love the patriotism and melting pot of diversity, but I think if you want to move here, you need to go through the immigration process and prove that you want to live here and be a contributing, tax-paying citizen of the United States.

I totally agree...except for the taxpaying part...those should just go away...stupid fed, IRS...

[valkator]

A positive step? Absolutely. However, this will only 'go all the way' when the State, itself, is exposed for, and brought down as, the artificial entity it has become under the 'rule' of those within it. Apply the same legal and philosophical exposure to the State as to the artificial corporations and then we'll see how genuine Ms. Sotomayer and all other 'progressives' are in their positions. States DO NOT have inalienable rights! The fact that we are living in a global police state ought to keep people honest here and focused. Remember, we are dealing with not just 'private corporations' - but now a public one - the very State Ms. Sotomayer is helping to become the ONLY corporation as all 'lesser entities' are devoured and subsumed. Corporations devoured individual human beings and, as we see, the State is now devouring the corporations and their human commodities. The whole 'thing' devours itself like this:

[LoreOnTerror]

What about flesh and blood human beings being treated as corportions aka "persons"? I don't like the way she worded it. Almost as if the comment was directed as a change in dealing with corporations and not humans. Good to see it aknowledged though.

[JTCoyoté]

Ms. Sotomayor....

With one statement, has opened up one of the sacred cows of time foisted corporatism as if she had used a scimitar. The fact of the matter is that the courts did err when they gave unto corporations the status of persons... which will now be conversation on the blogs and boards as it is here...

What are we to surmise from this, is this newly appointed Supreme Court Justice a constitutional sleeper... one who used stealth and what is considered politically correct in order to obtain and be appointed to a position of power within the court, to do the Constitution's bidding?? Or is this to draw patriots into acceptance of her, only to be dashed later on in Second Amendment and other crucial constitutional issues...

We will see... right now I am studying her statements as they relate to the 14th amendment... we may just have a sleeper here boys and girls... a patriot in a position of power!

JTCoyoté

"One unerring mark of the love of truth is
not entertaining any proposition with greater
assurance than the proofs it is built upon
will warrant." ~John Locke

[sociostudent]

I hope JT's right on this one.

[N.E.P.]

We will see... right now I am studying her statements as they relate to the 14th amendment... we may just have a sleeper here boys and girls... a patriot in a position of power!

That would be a shocker if she is a stealth Patriot. She would be a hero in my books. I'm going to wait to see what she does with the 2nd amendment. If she truly protects the constitution, I will hang a portrait of her in my living room.

[Mike Philbin]

We will see... right now I am studying her statements as they relate to the 14th amendment... we may just have a sleeper here boys and girls... a patriot in a position of power!

Hmm, Sotomayor was personally chosen by Obama (a Constitutional scholar) - so, if she turns out to be an ally, what sort of light would this cast on the Obama Deception and was Alex Jones maybe in on this double-play all along?

Interesting discussions ensue.

[JTCoyoté]

Hmm, Sotomayor was personally chosen by Obama (a Constitutional scholar) - so, if she turns out to be an ally, what sort of light would this cast on the Obama Deception and was Alex Jones maybe in on this double-play all along?

Interesting discussions ensue.

The paradigm is untouched of course, the deception is still real... Her appointment would have been based on some deception of her own... and therefore Alex's movie is as true as ever...

 Ms. Sotamayor's conduct would be one of the stealth patriot infiltrating the false paradigm... the one way we will be able to tell for sure, will be when the New World order through the media begins attacking her on her background, instead of us doing it as we did before she was confirmed.

JTCoyoté

"Reverie is when ideas float in our mind without
reflection or regard of the understanding."
~John Locke

[Unintelligable Name]

She doesn't believe the Constitution applies to the States...

No right to bear arms, no free speech, no religious freedom, no right to assemble, no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, no more warrants, no prohibition of soldiers quartering your residence without your conset, no due process, no right for women to vote, slavery is alright, double jeopardy, eminent domain, no right to public trial, speedy trial, right to an attorney, no limits on bail....... etc.....

..... Unless written into law by the individual States.

This woman is a quack in my book. I quite frankly don't care if she has a legal argument for her position.

[Mike Philbin]

Ms. Sotamayor's conduct would be one of the stealth patriot infiltrating the false paradigm... the one way we will be able to tell for sure, will be when the New World order through the media begins attacking her on her background, instead of us doing it as we did before she was confirmed.

We live in interesting times, JT.

[FormlessDisposition]

I will have to take a second look at Sotomayor. I remain skeptical as always. However, just yesterday I was describing to someone how corporate person-hood is a pillar of the NWO. The NWO is essentially the rise of the multinational mega-corporation over the nation-state. Destroying the idea of corporate person hood is going straight for the jugular of the NWO, it would collapse if we reformed our corporate law.

However, reforming corporate law would be a monumental task that would meet unprecedented resistance; so, it's possible she can make these statements safely because she feels they ultimately will mean nothing in the grand scheme.

Hoping for the best.

[Kilika]

One topic doesn't make a Supreme Court judge. Wait and see how thigns go, but if it's any indication, she is an Obama'ite. It makes sense she would attack corporate America, which the Socialists must do to break the corporate stranglehold on the country. Shift away from capitalism to the government fully running the show. A perfect example is how the government has put it's nose into how corporations pay their employees. They don't have to change corporate America really, just add some new rules on how much freedom corps have to operate, and who they answer to. I see her position as consistant with the moves of the Obama administration.

There's a reason why Obama's very first nomination to the Supreme Court got confirmed, and it ain't because she's a "wise Latina".

[JTCoyoté]

I will have to take a second look at Sotomayor. I remain skeptical as always. However, just yesterday I was describing to someone how corporate person-hood is a pillar of the NWO. The NWO is essentially the rise of the multinational mega-corporation over the nation-state. Destroying the idea of corporate person hood is going straight for the jugular of the NWO, it would collapse if we reformed our corporate law.

However, reforming corporate law would be a monumental task that would meet unprecedented resistance; so, it's possible she can make these statements safely because she feels they ultimately will mean nothing in the grand scheme.

Hoping for the best.

This is exactly why the new world order has always been against any state assertion of 10th amendment power... all it would take is 38 states stating... that we are going to Constitutionally review all law passed, all federal court rulings, and all amendments to the state's contract creating the federal government, called the Constitution, from the time before the Civil War to the present under our power protected by the 10th amendment and reinforced by the protected power of the people's rights under the ninth amendment...

New World order... don't call us... we will get back to you!

JTCoyoté

"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed
by God on the children of men. It has God for its
author; salvation for its end, and truth without any
mixture for its matter. It is all pure."
~John Locke

[valkator]

I was describing to someone how corporate person-hood is a pillar of the NWO. The NWO is essentially the rise of the multinational mega-corporation over the nation-state. Destroying the idea of corporate person hood is going straight for the jugular of the NWO, it would collapse if we reformed our corporate law.

Wrong. The main pillar or tenet of the so-called 'nwo' is the sovereignty of man, regardless of the level of organization formed around this pillar. The corporation grew out of the organizational context of the nation-state to further integrate the power and organization of man over all within man's view. The nation-state, itself, was and is an artificial entity that was formed and previously acted in the very same manner as a modern corporation. Some nation-states still attempt to do so. Now, the modern corporation, as well as all other organizational levels of man, are being subsumed into a more encompassing organizational framework - which will integrate them all into a formally organized global state of man. To achieve this, corporations must have their legal personhood status reclarified because the state that the corporations will be integrated into will maintain the exclusive power to exercise, define, and act with the rights of personhood. Think about this clearly. The United States, itself, was set up as a model for this scheme to work globally. As the United States goes down, so will the 'nwo' in this current Age. If anyone is paying attention, the United States is collapsing along the same - but reversed - lines in which it was built. The same can be said, generally, about the rest of the world in terms of its organization.

All together, the focus and foundation of this organiational pyramid scheme is the belief in the sovereignty of man - who believes he is at the top of the food chain and has a right to rule over and organize all of creation around his own subjective sense and view of self. Man is sorely mistaken...

[chris jones]

There is no posible way to mistake what Sotomayor has said. There is no alteriamotive, it is crystal clear.

I can not express how good I'm feeling at this moment.

Her finger is hanging out of the sleeve of her robe and pointed at the corporations.

Given the climate of todays political BS, she just hit a home run for the people.  

Bless her heart.

[TheCaliKid]

The Heritage Foundation is the worst!!!