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

[nofakenews]

can someone tell me what you are trusting?

please explain this to me.

Rockefeller has enough shit to deal with since one of their top boys was suicided.

please explain why everyone is completely paranoid because an "opinion" was exposed on this board when the MSM has not said a fricking word about it.

Heritage foundation is going crazy over it.

You think that opinion is a good thing to the NGO's?

we are talking about the opinion and it might point to evidence about this person.

you call her a judas. sure, ok. please post evidence to that besides Heritage propaganda or Cato propaganda.

TRhe only evidence anyone posted here is that the constitution is bad and that corporations have free speech.

I apologize, but that is not what we are about.

We are constitutionalists and have been exposing that corporations and not people.

people are people.

but please, other than her being an ecvil judas crazy rican belizean grover, can anyone show any evidence, please?

I'm trusting my gut that she is new world order from her pagan belief's and she only quit under pressure cause people kept calling that into question.

I agree with you from a constitutional standpoint that what she is doing is surprising but does that mean I should thank her for something that should have already been done?

I think your right some of us are paranoid that this is another outlandish divide and conquer technique and while all of us have our eye on this hand the other will be stealing another cookie.

Your right to have your own a opinion and I was only expressing mine above that the record has shown us over the years you cant really trust any of them in position's of power. I see a dragon talking like obamas message of hope and change but the evidence is clear if she was a good person she would be removed as you cant stop the NWO or they would give up the power seeking quest.

Obama chose her for a reason so they also know how angry people have been with their tyrannical system. So even if they start doing more good deeds we shouldn't be so fast to trust her.

[chris jones]

I cannot believe some of the posts here, especially from the heavy hitters (senior/hero members)!  this woman thus far, if we were to judge by the fruit, as provided bad fruit.  This one item sounds good for now, but we will see if it is good fruit.  I would  recommend every one reserve judgment to see what becomes of this and other rulings she weighs in on. BUMPED
If this is a game of chess I would liken this to an opening play like moving a pawn.  If she is a Patriot, great!  If not, let us not be so mesmerized and focused on what she is doing now and continue our fight.  I personally don't trust her.  Judas was with the ministry of Jesus for a long time and was trusted until he finally betrayed. 

We ought not let this woman's words weigh so heavily.

Hi luckeel.

This has been one far reaching thread. I for one see a comment made that hits on truth. Need it go any deeper than that for the moment.
Her past record, we are aware of.
I do not beleive that anyone is thouroughly convinced of her intentions in the long run. There are no crystal balls, no soothsayers around, it is not written in the stars. Only time will tell.
At the very least, this statement was made, it was not retracted, and it is constitutional.
The pie has been sliced into particles by various posters, that asside, the truth of her remark is noted and has raised flags. I am with hope that she maintains her stand.
I am a firm beleiver that corporations have been in the shadows of goverment for many moons. I have seen their actions, their methods of gaining power and controll. Corps are not one entity, they have their elite masters, a conglomerate moreso than individual corps.
These power have used and abused ours and other nations for many a decade, to the point of military insurgency to get what they desire.
After reading various posts it seems a few of us have jumped on the side of the corps. SAD, frustrating, and depressing. I suggest those who are in fear of corps abiding by and under the controll of our Constitution visit nations that have been used by these same corps to make profit, and bear witness to the genocide.
My take is on a human level, I hope no one beleives that I'm making an attempt at armchair philosophy. The proof is historical.
We can only wait this one out, but I cheer her comment, and will not back down. So those who care to cut it up, slash it, analyse it, physco fiddle it, thats your perogative.  
Corporations will not banish from the face of the earth, I beleive that its time for them to give heed to the the law, the constitution, and the people.

[Unintelligable Name]

AJ should interview her on the show!

La Raza Belizean Grove Obama Supreme Court apointee on the Alex Jones Show? Preposterous!

[Berminator]

Thank's Chem, i remember who she is now.

[Dig]

La Raza Belizean Grove Obama Supreme Court apointee on the Alex Jones Show? Preposterous!

couldn't be any worse than Lord David de Rothschild, Noam Chomsky, Ollie North, or the zionist Ann Coulter.

[and she is not an appointee, she is a justice and can only leave by retiring.]

[nofakenews]

couldn't be any worse than Lord David de Rothschild, Noam Chomsky, Ollie North, or the zionist Ann Coulter.

Nope but remember just get me a sandwich. 

[Damascus]

Might I point out with the destruction of the American economies/industry, They might not need that device anymore, and therefor justify sacrificing one of their minions sort of speak. Suck the unrightfully gained power of corporatism because it is now the time of international bank/NWO Robbing model? You can't really have powerful international corporations in a serfdom system. I'm just saying it might be a power struggle between master and servant now that the servant has done its job.

[John Galt]

La Raza Belizean Grove Obama Supreme Court apointee on the Alex Jones Show? Preposterous!

Preposterous is right. And to compare her to Cynthia McKinney at this stage, well that seems equally preposterous. I for one refuse to hang too much hope on what she has recently said. Judge by the fruits, right? We here should be focused on what she has done, what she is doing, and what she does in the future. Actions are what speak to me.

[vcif]

Is this the only thing she said?

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."

I would certainly agree with that statement and go further to say is was in fact a terrible error. In addition, corporations are "imbued" with limited liability, which is the real issue.

In any event, I fail to see how this is good. Neutral perhaps, but not really good. This quote basically says that the state has created corporations and it is an error to think that corporations have any rights. OK. What does that mean in practice?

Judging from her prior remarks, rulings, and overall gestalt it appears that she is setting the stage for more government control of corporations, not fewer, less powerful corporations with boards that are accountable for their actions personally.

How is that good? Seems like more consolidation to me. When she wants to get rid of limited liability or even just come out and say it was an error, then we can talk about her patriotism.

[N.E.P.]

here is a solution...

AJ should interview her on the show!

I think she does interviews.

Pretty sure the media would have to talk about 911 after Alex pelts her with 911 and FEMA camp questions for an hour. I would hang a portrait of her in my living room if she comes on the Alex Jones show and starts talking some truth to power. hahaha

[Freeski]

Pretty sure the media would have to talk about 911 after Alex pelts her with 911 and FEMA camp questions for an hour. I would hang a portrait of her in my living room if she comes on the Alex Jones show and starts talking some truth to power. hahaha

OMG - Please, for the love of God bring it on!

[Mike Philbin]

AJ should interview her on the show!

I think she does interviews.

Like I said, there could be some WAC type questioning.

by that definition, it'd be more appropriate if Alex interviewed a Constitution scholar like the President on his show.

[Dig]

Is this the only thing she said?

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."

I would certainly agree with that statement and go further to say is was in fact a terrible error. In addition, corporations are "imbued" with limited liability, which is the real issue.

In any event, I fail to see how this is good. Neutral perhaps, but not really good. This quote basically says that the state has created corporations and it is an error to think that corporations have any rights. OK. What does that mean in practice?

Judging from her prior remarks, rulings, and overall gestalt it appears that she is setting the stage for more government control of corporations, not fewer, less powerful corporations with boards that are accountable for their actions personally.

How is that good? Seems like more consolidation to me. When she wants to get rid of limited liability or even just come out and say it was an error, then we can talk about her patriotism.

Actually quite the opposite. Her statement goes to the heart of the matter. The point is to expose the inaccurate court ruling in the first place (which she did). What has been done in past 30 years has been like you said, regulation and ungodly sanctions which only creates new barriers to entry so that the top corporations are protected while all the others will never be able to get off the ground and will close down. I mentioned this in like the 2nd post of this thread to point out why this was an important opinion. In addition, the sheer fact that she is bringing up the constitution and the rights of man v. corporations in the first place is an incredible thing as far as I see. I have been looking at supreme court rulings over the past few decades (check them out, an eye openning experience), there is some nasty shit in them.

Especially starting with bush v. gore and then after 9/11 there has been almost an absense of reference to the creator's rights of man and the constitution. Instead there are opinions about security issues in a post 9/11 world (they actually put it into the opinions as if 9/11 truly should render the constitution just a goddamn piece of paper) and growing needs or powers for the state/authority to manage the equal benefits and protection to the citizens (definitely a communist philosophy attempting to take responsibility from the human being and give it to the state).

Also like JT has expressed, the supreme court has no ultimate authority over the constitution. The constitution has the ultimate authority over the constitution. It is written at an eigth grade level and is like 7 fricking pages. You tie it in with the Declaration of Independence and the federalist papers and if the supreme court rules against it, it sticks out like gumby sitting on a hay stack.

Of course people should always be leery of infringements in legislation that are unconstitutional.But these infringements are usually crammed down our throat by British Crown Chartered Corporate Entities, not by individuals. These corporate interests are responsible for the patriot act, the telecomm immunity act, the federal reserve act, the bailouts, the climate change bill, and now the healthcare bill.

Again, taking the overwhelming dislike for her out of the argument, I do not see the issue with her opinion and it seems to me to be a breath of fresh air compared to the opinions of the past few decades.

Putting her back into the picture, I still have yet to see overwhelming evidence against her based on her opinions. The firefighter case to me was definitely a bullshit call and therefore I do agree that she should be highly scrutinized. But compared to Thomas, I mean WTF? Thomas just ruled (as the only descenting voice) that the school has a constitutional right to strip search 13 year old girls if they are searching for a tylenol. And if you read the ruling opinion of the case it will make you throw up. It says that the school has this right if the school feels threatened that harm may come to them or any other student. I mean, WTF about the 4th amendment and just plain old common decency does the supreme court not understand.

Here was the now retired judge souter's bullshit opinion on the matter:

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear...We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

So because the "power of the drug" was insufficient to cause an issue (in other words if the school suspects that instead of a tylenol it was an extasy pill (again just suspected by the anonymous phone call to anyone at the school, or some girl coming in saying I saw her with a funny pill and the school assessing that it could have a more potent effect than a tylenol) then strip searches of 13 year old girls (the entire class if necessary) seems to be allowed with this opinion. Also because nothing was found seems also to be a factor in when to strip a 13 year old girl in front of various old dudes who happen to work for the school.

I mean this is a prime example of the types of opinions that have been coming out of the supreme court over the past few decades. Even the ruling on the DC gunban is completely unconstitutional. It is bullshit. They rule the right way 50% of the time and their opinions have no grounding in the constitution like over 95% of the time.

It is for this reason (and I should have been more specific earlier and I apologize) that I found the opinion on corporations and free speech so refreshing.The supreme court has for a while now been rendered a total joke concerning the rights of man and the constitution of this republic. It is important to notice when an opinion bucks the status quo concerning this failing branch.

[JTCoyoté]

Is this the only thing she said?

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."

I would certainly agree with that statement and go further to say is was in fact a terrible error. In addition, corporations are "imbued" with limited liability, which is the real issue.

In any event, I fail to see how this is good. Neutral perhaps, but not really good. This quote basically says that the state has created corporations and it is an error to think that corporations have any rights. OK. What does that mean in practice?

Judging from her prior remarks, rulings, and overall gestalt it appears that she is setting the stage for more government control of corporations, not fewer, less powerful corporations with boards that are accountable for their actions personally.

How is that good? Seems like more consolidation to me. When she wants to get rid of limited liability or even just come out and say it was an error, then we can talk about her patriotism.

There are several threads running right now that dovetail with this...  

First off, in your second paragraph you mis-characterized her quote... she is actually chastising the court, for its error in imbuing a creation of the state, which was federalized in 1871, with the attribute's of an individual human being.

This little quote, has some extremely far-reaching implications... it tugs at the very underpinnings of judicial review, Marbury vs Madison. She doesn't have to mention limited liability, or any other corporate specific since her quote pertains to ALL aspects of corporation power "imbued" by court interpretation.  The laws pertaining to these entities were created out of whole cloth, because of the power of judicial review to de-facto amend, by Court interpretation, the Constitution.

You can pooh-pooh her little quote if you want... but that ain't no little quote... it lolly-gagged the media, you can bet your ass on that, since nobody in the media is talking about it.

--Oldyoti

"Who would lay down his life for the UN, EU or a
"North American Union?"... Every true nation is
the creation of a unique people, separate from all
others. Indeed, if America is an ideological nation
grounded no deeper than in the sandy soil of
abstract ideas, she will not survive the storms
of this century any more than the Soviet Union
survived the storms of the last..."
--State of Emergency
~Pat Buchanan

[Damascus]

SO WTF PEOPLE!!! IS she now good to go for the reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment!!??? One or two good moves and now she is on our side? I warn you do not take a single act of kindness from your enemy as a change of heart. Wait and see the repercussions of what they do! I've seen too many good con jobs to just become a cheerleader for the enemy. Sometimes I wounder who the gatekeepers really are and if they even know they are gatekeeping.

[Dig]

SO WTF PEOPLE!!! IS she now good to go for the reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment!!??? One or two good moves and now she is on our side? I warn you do not take a single act of kindness from your enemy as a change of heart. Wait and see the repercussions of what they do! I've seen too many good con jobs to just become a cheerleader for the enemy. Sometimes I wounder who the gatekeepers really are and if they even know they are gatekeeping.

you do not understand the point. the point is that no one can "reinterpret" or even "interpret" the United States Constitution. It is written at an eighth grade level and is 7 pages long. All attempts to interpret it and use of judicial review have not affected its inherent power.

Judge Sotomayor has pointed this out. If she interprets the second amendment to be anything ofther than what it is (as others have done for the past 50 years), it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Con job this, con job that all you wish. She said the truth in the descending voice and it was right on the money. It reinforced the power of the constitution including the entirety of the bill of rights and shot a direct blow to the heart of the NWO's attempt to use judicial review to "misinterpret" the constitution. In addition, by mentioning the "coorporations" directly she exposes the CFR, the NSA, the Federal Reserve, and all other corporations that have no human being rights and are infiltrating and diminishing the rights of the human beings.

She did not give a "nice one time opinion", she actually exposed the entire racket of judicial review whether she knows it or not.

[Freeski]

she actually exposed the entire racket of judicial review whether she knows it or not.

That's the real question, whether she knows it or not.

[Damascus]

OK, I'll just wait to say I told you so. I think it is totally against her character as it stands up till now. I'll just wait and see what happens with the leaf turning. We really need to be careful as they have used bait and switch before.

[Dig]

That's the real question, whether she knows it or not.

To me, the real question is: "Are we going to promote this opinion and create debate on the streets, pubs, soccer games, etc. about the constitution and the fallacy of "corporate personification"?

That question is much more important than if Sotomayor is going to do a double take later. Who gives a shit, this is our constitution anyway. We are the ones who need to be protecting it. She just happen to expose a big hole in the NWO armor. It is up to us to exploit that hole and expose the inherent evil in giving British controlled corporations unchecked power, authority, and human being rights.

[Dig]

OK, I'll just wait to say I told you so. I think it is totally against her character as it stands up till now. I'll just wait and see what happens with the leaf turning. We really need to be careful as they have used bait and switch before.

Told me what?

Even if she turned into a 100 foot succubus, it does not negate the fact that she wrote an opinion that reinforces the value of the constitution and negates the presumed power of the supreme court. It also reinforces the power of the individual and negates the artificial and anti-constitutional faux powers of the corporation.

[chris jones]

Why don't people stick to the comment rather than blow this out of shape scrutininzing her and turning this into a sideshow.

Was her comment a constitutional one, YES, is something incorrect about her comment, NO.

Isn't that enough. No one is attemtping to turn her into the Joan of Arc of this nation. But some including me take the statement itself for its worth.

This was atacked rather than given a speck of creedence.

[JTCoyoté]

What Chris said.

We go after people here, for all form and manner of their associations, affiliations, and stuff... but it's usually because they "do something unconstitutional" to begin with and we damn everything they do for that one DAMNING criminal act... The ultimate litmus for whether or not someone is not righteous has always been their respect for the The Constitution.

As Sane pointed out, the only justification and interpretation for the Constitution, is in the hands of those whom the Constitution spells out as the ground of power... the very ones who formed and constructed the Constitution as can be seen in its preamble... "We the people."

This freshman Justice of the Supreme Court made an incredibly Constitutional statement that needs to be spread far and wide... it needs to be water-cooler conversation, it needs to be argued loudly over Monday night football and the jukebox running at the same time in the local saloon!

We do after all live in America, and as long as the Constitution is served by her, she can hang out at the Belizean grove all she wants. Just like when David Duke does not transgress the Constitution, he can hang out as the grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan... the bottom line is... the easy to understand and hard to misinterpret, Constitution And Bill Of Rights For The United States Of America and the PEOPLE for whom it stands.

Now if you try to force me to join either one of those groups... I'll be standing there in defiance with my Constitution, and my .45 Colt ready for action... You try to coerce my minor son or daughter into either of those organizations and you WILL see and feel the power of my Constitution and that .45 Colt if need be!

JTCoyoté

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we
like it. The only question is whether World Government
will be achieved by conquest or consent."
~James Paul Warburg, banker and son of Federal Reserve
creator and Rothschild minion, Paul Warburg, appearing before the
Senate on the 7th of February 1950

[phosphene]

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said.

This sounds like she is affirming the Freeman/Strawman theories. Where human beings are turned into government corporations via birth certificate, SS card, Driverse license, Capital letters, etc.

[Dig]

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said.

This sounds like she is affirming the Freeman/Strawman theories. Where human beings are turned into government corporations via birth certificate, SS card, Driverse license, Capital letters, etc.

can you expand on this?

[MonkeyPuppet]

can you expand on this?

She's not affirming the freeman/strawman theories at all.  She's only stating the facts.  The corporate form is a fiction created by statute.  In Justice Marshall's day (early 1800's), such collaborative business ventures could not buy and sell property, nor could they do any more than their respective charters laid out explicitly.  After the ratification of the 14th Amendment, creative attorneys convinced the courts to treat the fictitious entities as if they were "persons" under the law...

14th, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This change in the nature of the corporate form was the beginning of the end, IMO.  Corrupt corporate/government collusion would be near impossible without it.

[phosphene]

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said.

This sounds like she is affirming the Freeman/Strawman theories. Where human beings are turned into government corporations via birth certificate, SS card, Driverse license, Capital letters, etc.

can you expand on this?

Accepted for Value

Creditor vs. Idiot - Pre Paid HJR-192 commercial redemption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSldO7pfmY4

[phosphene]

After the ratification of the 14th Amendment, creative attorneys convinced the courts to treat the fictitious entities as if they were "persons" under the law...

14th, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This change in the nature of the corporate form was the beginning of the end, IMO.  Corrupt corporate/government collusion would be near impossible without it.

What he said.