Hey John Sotomayor has some crazy legal theories

[JMJ]

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

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.

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

[Area52]

Originally Posted by JMJ

Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law

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.

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

The people that voted for the appointment of this woman knew about her ideals beforehand. They chose to ignore it.

[Doc Com]

Methinks you should read the entire piece.

Quite information and rich with a rare look into Corporate America history, its influence over the Justice Department, and the Justice Department's treatment of the Corporate body.

It seems she does raise some valid points and is well versed in law to dig up laws that deal with treating a Corporation (an non living thing) the same as a human being. If you take the time to read between the lines, this is really shaping up to be a fight over how to handle corporations, their property, their rights, and how to limit what they contribute to candidates.

This is merely a statement - not a ruling, not an argument, not a decision.

There are some very good points on both sides of the coin here.

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.

This is all about campaign finance reform.

If some insist that the corporation should be treated like a person (read the entire piece) then how can it (corporation) have separate laws regarding what it can contribute from a person.

This seems to be a sticking point as well as a literal translation of how some of the original laws were worded and appeared to give life to a corporation by allowing ownership of property.

[JMJ]

Oh I read it alright. Unless you follow an old debate John and I had you wouldn't really get the point of me making this post.

Why don't you reverse what she is saying there and look back at what John was arguing with me about.

More or less John was arguing with me over this very topic only I was explaining it from a human=corporation (person is not a human) in the eyes of the court perspective. As in we have lost our unalienable rights due to these very same decisions.

[Doc Com]

I got the John thing from moment one.

Your title is whacko.

Your point is whacko.

The article is fine. It shows two sides to the same argument.

You know, sometimes to get to the root of the problem you have to play the devils advocate. Someone has to take the safe course and someone has to step out on a limb. This is a fine example of that. It is one of the first things you have posted in a long time that I have read. It is not about having to agree with anything said but raises some very legitimate points. Its a shame you want to cloud the issues with a JMJ vs. JB thingy.

Look at it this way. You go to a hospital and you have a temp of 104 degrees. You ask "why do I have a temp?"

Are you going to be satisfied with the answer of "Because you have a fever" or do you want to know why you have a fever, what is causing it, how did you get it, is whatever you have contagious?

Point is, if you stick to the obvious then you miss all the other parts that caused the issue to begin with. You want to treat the cause, not the symptoms. That is pretty much the way law is and that is how I relate to this particular matter quoted.

Hey, she made a statement that she feels is worth considering and looking into. She's doing her job. She raised concerns over the status of a corporation. Reason: because of the verbiage of a ruling enacted decades and over a century ago.

I love history. And before taking into account what this says you have to go back to when it was said. The point of the Industrial Revolution is very intriguing.

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.

This all goes back to how some things were worded in 1819 and how it was passed over in another ruling in 1886.

Very cool stuff for peeps like me. I am very into pre-colonial, colonial history, and more. Yup, we declared Independence in 1776 but the war did not end until 1781. Its amazing we got a start as a nation to begin with.

Anyways, its pretty cool to me to see how law was influenced by the events of the day (time period) and vice versa.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I got the John thing from moment one.

Your title is whacko.

Your point is whacko.

The article is fine. It shows two sides to the same argument.

You know, sometimes to get to the root of the problem you have to play the devils advocate. Someone has to take the safe course and someone has to step out on a limb. This is a fine example of that. It is one of the first things you have posted in a long time that I have read. It is not about having to agree with anything said but raises some very legitimate points. Its a shame you want to cloud the issues with a JMJ vs. JB thingy.

Look at it this way. You go to a hospital and you have a temp of 104 degrees. You ask "why do I have a temp?"

Are you going to be satisfied with the answer of "Because you have a fever" or do you want to know why you have a fever, what is causing it, how did you get it, is whatever you have contagious?

Point is, if you stick to the obvious then you miss all the other parts that caused the issue to begin with. You want to treat the cause, not the symptoms. That is pretty much the way law is and that is how I relate to this particular matter quoted.

Hey, she made a statement that she feels is worth considering and looking into. She's doing her job. She raised concerns over the status of a corporation. Reason: because of the verbiage of a ruling enacted decades and over a century ago.

I love history. And before taking into account what this says you have to go back to when it was said. The point of the Industrial Revolution is very intriguing.

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.

This all goes back to how some things were worded in 1819 and how it was passed over in another ruling in 1886.

Very cool stuff for peeps like me. I am very into pre-colonial, colonial history, and more. Yup, we declared Independence in 1776 but the war did not end until 1781. Its amazing we got a start as a nation to begin with.

Anyways, its pretty cool to me to see how law was influenced by the events of the day (time period) and vice versa.

The only reason my point might be considered "whacko" is because we have been trained our whole lives believing that those making the laws are doing so in our best interests. When in reality they haven't been.

If you go to the doctor with a high fever and the doctor tells you you have the swine flu because they were told not to determine what you have and just assume it's the swine flu does that mean you have the swine flu?

[Doc Com]

As much as I would like to offer a response, I can not follow that line of questioning and the reasoning.

If a doctor is "told" to tell you you have the swine flu because they were told not to determine what you have makes no sense at all.

If that is what you have experienced, then you now know never need to go to that doctor or clinic or hospital again.

If you present to the clinic with flu like symptoms when there is an outbreak of swine flu ongoing, then there would be an assumption that you have the flu. The strain is determined by definitive testing.

If you present to the clinic with flu like symptoms when there is NO ongoing flu in the locale, then expect a barrage of questions to determine why YOU and no one else has flu like symptoms. There are many diseases which mimic flu like symptoms and one of the first questions you would most likely be asked is have you traveled outside the country lately?

However, if there is an outbreak of flu (say swine flu) in your locale and 250 people are in the ER waiting room with flu like symptoms, it would be prudent to treat everyone with what you have in your arsenal. Testing each one may not be done en masse simply because if you are in the waiting room, if you don't have the flu and 249 other people do you will damn well have the flu.

A typical scenario (actually happened) would be to treat and test. Tests (nasal swabs, sputum samples, perhaps some blood work) would be done but results would be impossible to obtain immediately. You treat all who present with the same symptoms based on evidence (signs and symptoms) present at the time. If there is anything on those tests that would indicate a different matter, you would get a call back.

Does this sound familiar? It should. And you should be able to relate the case you posted as the Supreme Court making law based on evidence of the time! That is why people are sentenced from crimes committed based on the evidence of the time and perhaps later are released because new evidence (DNA) proves they are innocent of the crime.

A law is the same thing. It is not permanent, can be reviewed, amended, struck, or thrown out.

If I get a speeding ticket for driving 65 in a 55 mph zone, if they change the speed limit to 65 the next day, does that make my citation invalid? No. At the time, the law was 55.

Just take a look at the many laws that people want to revisit:

Roe v Wade
Drinking age

If a 19 year old is arrested for drinking and a 25 year old is arrested for contributing to a minor, are those charges later thrown out and stricken from their police record if the decision is made later to restore the drinking age to 18?

[JMJ]

You are simplifying things too much. I'm talking about a governing body making decisions about my body based on unsubstantiated evidence with the excuse it serves the populace for the better as a whole. This is whats happening whether you want to admit it or not. Give China as an example because a few thousand people in the entire world have died from this flu and most of which are being determined to have had other complications they are requiring their entire population to take this untested flu vaccine. That is my point with the flu reference. They are changing laws based on the current events to require people take something which could very well end up killing more people than the flu itself.

A governing body making a decision about other peoples bodies against there consent. Now figure out how they are able to do this by "law" and you start to see how it's all been done by "contract." How are they able to give you that speeding ticket? By contract.

[Doc Com]

seems to me you are trying to support unsubstantiated evidence with more unsubstantiated evidence.

If I am simplifying things too much, then obviously someone is trying to complicate things too much.

You are asking me to admit to something whether you like it or not is total poppycock. I am supposed to admit that you think the government is now trying to control your body simply because you say so?

Admit to hypothetical scenarios you pose that the government is trying to control your body? Do you have health insurance? Death insurance? Someone already is trying to control you body. If health insurance does not cover childbirth then lets say that the government is in the practice of genocide. If your death benefits do not cover suicide then lets claim that the government (insurer) is trying to deter suicide bombings.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

seems to me you are trying to support unsubstantiated evidence with more unsubstantiated evidence.

If I am simplifying things too much, then obviously someone is trying to complicate things too much.

You are asking me to admit to something whether you like it or not is total poppycock. I am supposed to admit that you think the government is now trying to control your body simply because you say so?

Admit to hypothetical scenarios you pose that the government is trying to control your body? Do you have health insurance? Death insurance? Someone already is trying to control you body. If health insurance does not cover childbirth then lets say that the government is in the practice of genocide. If your death benefits do not cover suicide then lets claim that the government (insurer) is trying to deter suicide bombings.

No what I'm trying to say is certain small groups who believe certain things who also have influence over the government impose those ideas/beliefs upon the populace without their consent in the form of a social contract which in many cases said populace knew nothing about or that they agreed to them. Flu is just one example. You have global warming and a host of other issues.

[Doc Com]

Then say it. No need to say "what I am trying to say" or "what I meant is"...

If you think flu, pandemic, global warming, and all other issues and plagues are fabricated and conspired, then please say so.

Who in the hell wants to have a philosophical debate or even an intelligent conversation when the other party is beating around the bush and being evasive.

You have issues with Berryhill, then say you have issues with Berryhill.

You have issues with flu and vaccine, then say you have issues with flu and vaccine.

Now, deeper into this thread, I see that this was not even to be a thread about campaign finance reform which is the subject of your title and the article you referenced.

What next: Serena's Tirade and how it exposes the black person's role in society and rebellion against authority?

It was an athlete getting pissed off at a ump. That's it.

The CDC and WHO has made recommendations to certain at high-risk groups to get vaccinated. That's it.

You have the ability and the capability of selective reasoning. You have the right to refuse to abide by that recommendation and that is the decision you have made.

None of this whole issue with Berryhill has no correlation with any of this. It is simply you chose to correlate what he said in another thread and interjected that line of reasoning into this thread.

It is either about Berryhill or it is not. It is either about Sotomayer or it is not. It is either about campaign contribution reform or it is not. It is either about the swine flu or it is not. Now lets throw in global warming to futher muddy the already murky waters.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

Then say it. No need to say "what I am trying to say" or "what I meant is"...

If you think flu, pandemic, global warming, and all other issues and plagues are fabricated and conspired, then please say so.

Who in the hell wants to have a philosophical debate or even an intelligent conversation when the other party is beating around the bush and being evasive.

You have issues with Berryhill, then say you have issues with Berryhill.

You have issues with flu and vaccine, then say you have issues with flu and vaccine.

Now, deeper into this thread, I see that this was not even to be a thread about campaign finance reform which is the subject of your title and the article you referenced.

What next: Serena's Tirade and how it exposes the black person's role in society and rebellion against authority?

It was an athlete getting pissed off at a ump. That's it.

The CDC and WHO has made recommendations to certain at high-risk groups to get vaccinated. That's it.

You have the ability and the capability of selective reasoning. You have the right to refuse to abide by that recommendation and that is the decision you have made.

None of this whole issue with Berryhill has no correlation with any of this. It is simply you chose to correlate what he said in another thread and interjected that line of reasoning into this thread.

It is either about Berryhill or it is not. It is either about Sotomayer or it is not. It is either about campaign contribution reform or it is not. It is either about the swine flu or it is not. Now lets throw in global warming to futher muddy the already murky waters.

It all intertwines. It's all a direct result of these "opinions". Opinions of a small group of people. John was calling me every name in the book because I was more or less saying the same thing she is saying only reversed. We have certain God given rights (whatever God you chose to acknowledge) law of the land if you will and those rights are being trampled on because of contracts which are made generally unknown to most of the general public. You say that CDC and WHO made certain recommendations, etc. Well I say that they are wrong and there are just as many people if not more who believe something entirely different than what they believe. You say get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is certain groups with influence wanting to impose their beliefs on others. The only answer and solution to it all is for all of those groups to mind their own damn business. Recommendations are one thing. Forcing something on the populace is another. We have States passing laws requiring their entire population to get these vaccines and we have entire cities placing RFID bracelets on theirs. Now that those States/Cities have done it the others say "hey look they're doing it."

Let's use another example. There was a recent study and it was found that texting while driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving. So whats next? Are they going to start TWD checkpoints? Are they going to start to subpoena the GPS records of your phone to see if you were traveling in a car while texting? Are we going to start jailing people because they are addicted to texting? Where does it all end?

I can see it now. "Can I see your license, registration, health insurance card, your cellphone, (and you'll really think I'm crazy on this but it's already happening) please give me your arm so I can draw your blood and scan your bracelet.

In most cases the "State" is bringing charges against and/or contracting with a "person." IE tickets, so you have a artificial being claiming that this "person" caused it harm. Both sides being represented by a human being. Only on one side a human must claim him/herself as the "person" and the other not. The idea is that the "State" is the populace as a whole but that's not the case. The State is a corporation supposedly acting on the behalf of the population as a whole. When in reality it's acting on behalf of it's own interests.

As in they are all creatures "of state law with human characteristics" and the "majority might have it all wrong" because the beliefs of small groups of people said that's the way it is.

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by JMJ

The root of the problem is certain groups with influence wanting to impose their beliefs on others. The only answer and solution to it all is for all of those groups to mind their own damn business. Recommendations are one thing. Forcing something on the populace is another.

Damn those Christians :/

Originally Posted by JMJ

Let's use another example. There was a recent study and it was found that texting while driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving. So whats next? Are they going to start TWD checkpoints? Are they going to start to subpoena the GPS records of your phone to see if you were traveling in a car while texting? Are we going to start jailing people because they are addicted to texting? Where does it all end?

Why are you all so dramatic? And what would be so wrong with saving lives? Obviously you have never had a family member killed or injured by a drunk driver... and if "texters" are more dangerous then it would be good to have some enforcement against it. Maybe not as extreme as you exaggerated, but like the laws they have in New York.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by zurc.net

Damn those Christians :/


Why are you all so dramatic? And what would be so wrong with saving lives? Obviously you have never had a family member killed or injured by a drunk driver... and if "texters" are more dangerous then it would be good to have some enforcement against it. Maybe not as extreme as you exaggerated, but like the laws they have in New York.

So what you're saying is that because someone "might" do something we should fine or imprison them? Why don't we all just lock ourselves up. Saving lives? Find me a statistic where any of these laws have actually saved lives. People are going to do whatever they want to do regardless of what the laws are. The "war on drugs" is the finest example of that whole belief. It's been proven time and time again that treatment is less costly and more effective than imprisonment and we have more 4% of the World's population and more than the entire world behind bars 60-70% of which are there because of minor non-violent drug related charges. Who benefits? The States by receiving money for housing prisoners and the contractors who have the contracts to operate and supply. Does it all benefit the population? Not in the least. If they wanted to do something beneficial they would treat those people.

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by JMJ

So what you're saying is that because someone "might" do something we should fine or imprison them? Why don't we all just lock ourselves up. Saving lives? Find me a statistic where any of these laws have actually saved lives. People are going to do whatever they want to do regardless of what the laws are. The "war on drugs" is the finest example of that whole belief. It's been proven time and time again that treatment is less costly and more effective than imprisonment and we have more 4% of the World's population and more than the entire world behind bars 60-70% of which are there because of minor non-violent drug related charges.

I never agreed on the war on terror. Do i believe people should be arrested for smoking marijuana? If they are doing it in the privacy of their own home, no. Cocaine, crack, heroine, etc? Yes.

But from what you are saying, at least the way it seems to me, is that someone shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk till they actually kill someone? Really?

Anyone texting or on the phone while driving should AT LEAST be given a ticket... I don't care what anyone says...

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by zurc.net

I never agreed on the war on terror. Do i believe people should be arrested for smoking marijuana? If they are doing it in the privacy of their own home, no. Cocaine, crack, heroine, etc? Yes.

But from what you are saying, at least the way it seems to me, is that someone shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk till they actually kill someone? Really?

Anyone texting or on the phone while driving should AT LEAST be given a ticket... I don't care what anyone says...

But texting while driving is more dangerous... They should get a ticket and the person drinking gets thrown in jail? Get it? How many texting tickets do you think a person get before they become a felon? By your logic the two should at least have the same penalties should they not? So three texts and you're out. Let's see how good that does.

BTW I said the "war on drugs" the war on terror is another one of those "beliefs of a small group" which is forced upon the populace.

[zurc.net]

Originally Posted by JMJ

But texting while driving is more dangerous... They should get a ticket and the person drinking gets thrown in jail? Get it? How many texting tickets do you think a person get before the become a felon?

They got to do whatever they have to do to save lives. If people choose not to think about others and want to risk innocent lives so they can text there buddy every move they are making, then they should face the consequences... just like a drunk person does after swigging down a few beers and some patron, then tries to drive home.

I really don't see what you are trying to prove here other than someone shouldn't be prosecuted til they have actually killed someone. But wouldn't that be a little late?

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by zurc.net

They got to do whatever they have to do to save lives. If people choose not to think about others and want to risk innocent lives so they can text there buddy every move they are making, then they should face the consequences... just like a drunk person does after swigging down a few beers and some patron, then tries to drive home.

I really don't see what you are trying to prove here other than someone shouldn't be prosecuted til they have actually killed someone. But wouldn't that be a little late?

My point is that the laws aren't saving anyone's life. Some small group may think it is but in reality it's not. They are however great revenue generators. And yes I've had a family member kill himself drinking and driving. Did laws change that? No.

Another great example seat belt law. Do you really think the state gives a damn about your life or that it's just another reason to pull you over and earn them some revenue.

[thevirtual]

First of all, what is the crazy legal theory?

Maybe you can send a pm next time you want to have a private debate. lol