The word “corporation” comes from the Latin corpore, meaning “body”. It is specifically meant to give human life to a business. Sotomayor is ignorant of reality, and is doing nothing more than playing leftie Marxist politics.

LC: Another false equivalence from you. Again, look up the definition and origin of the word “corporation”. Educate yourself.
Corporations in this country were specifically created to put big business under the control of the govt. The huge private sector trusts were becoming more powerful than the federal govt, and govt can’t stand any competition, Obama’s lies about a “public option” notwithstanding.
The Sherman AntiTrust Act, which specifically exempted labor unions(thus your false equivalence), took the power back from the private sector, in exchange for two perks: Limited liability(just like a person), and a lower tax rate than an individual business owner would pay. It allowed the corporation to pay its executives and shareholders a taxable income(just like an individual employer) which reduced tax liability for the owners of the corporation, vs what it would have been under single proprietorship.
Legally, and through design of the federal govt, corporations are people, insofar as the tax codes and regulations are concerned.
On the other hand, a corporation can’t really have a Twitter page.

Fortunately for those of us who cherish our personal freedom more than we do a federal tether, Sotomayor’s influence and tenure on the Court are unlikely to extend beyond those of Chief Roberts.

Lioncourt,

Are you suggesting that the intent of the Founders, or the intent of 14′s author(s) and the Congress and state legislatures that passed it, are of equal importance to questions of “good public policy” today, whatever the hell that is?

Are you suggesting that the intent of the Founders, or the intent of 14′s author(s) and the Congress and state legislatures that passed it, are of equal importance to questions of “good public policy” today, whatever the hell that is?

No, I think it clearly wasn’t what the founders or the authors of the fourteenth intended. I think this right was created by a judge who was bought off. It was bad public policy than and it is now. Unless you believe in a living constitution than corporations are clearly not people.

It was the federal govt that invented the American corporations, idiot! Educate yourself.

Until you have a serious conversation don’t bother me. Corporations are creations of state law, not federal and than, just as now, the laws are written by special interest.

No, I think it clearly wasn’t what the founders or the authors of the fourteenth intended.

Please read the question again. I didn’t ask for a gratuitous assessment of either the Founders’ intent or that of the 14th’s author. My point was to confirm your intimation that those two considerations should be given equal weight to questions of “good public policy.”

Bat: I do find it amusing when the big govt types attack American corporations, though, since they are essentially lapdogs of the central govt. American corporations were formed for the specific purpose of draining power from private sector business. Of course, none of the demonizations of the left have any real content. They’re solely for the purpose of obtaining more power at the expense of the freedom of the American people.

BB: Agreed, although my point is that American corporations, which are beholden to the federal govt, are being demonized with a false equivalence to the older forms of incorporation.
What would lefties do without all their false equivalences?

LC, the treating of corporations with rights common to citizens dates back to the Caesars. Whether or not a judge was bribed (absent evidence, I doubt it, ahem), it’s an ancient principle.

They are not equal, but you must have some justification for giving corporations the same constitutional rights as natural persons other than a judge who was bought off in the 19th century

Please stop trying to change the subject. You ought to be shrewd enough to understand that I’m going someplace with this discussion, and doing so carefully and concisely. You may be the only Lefty here capable of having this conversation. Don’t blow it with partisan nonsense about judges being “bought off”… a point which is irrelevant even if you could prove it.

Now, presumably then, you would agree that corporations are not “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” as are humans, correct?

Of course, LC lies in trying to make the ridiculous claim about “the same constitutional rights”, when he should know that corporations only have limited rights in that area. If you really don’t know this, LC, just read up on articles of incorporation. In other words, before you open your mouth, read up on what you are talking about.

LC: You lie again! Corporations have limited human economic rights, not general human rights.

Again, study some economic history and read up on articles of incorporation. Sotomayor is wrong; she’s just trying to implement her leftie agenda through the courts, as is the usual tactic of lefties to impose their unAmerican crap.

LC: You lie again! Corporations have limited human economic rights, not general human rights.
Again, study some economic history and read up on articles of incorporation. Sotomayor is wrong; she’s just trying to implement her leftie agenda through the courts, as is the usual tactic of lefties to impose their unAmerican crap.

The issue here is whether corporations have First Amendment rights. Unless the First Amendment is a limited economic right than you don’t know what you are talking about

The issue here is whether corporations have First Amendment rights.

Now you’re showing your idiocy again, LC! Every American has First Amendment rights. But, please explain how corporations either speak or worship.
When you’re in a hole, stop digging!
You can try to change the subject all you want, but the truth will nail you every time.

The question with a corporation is really whether their officers have the right to speak on their behalf and use company resources to speak to the issues confronting the company. Now if the 1st Amendment means anything, it means that people, and entities granted the rights of people, get to speak regarding the likely effects that government action will have upon them.

Put differently, if a dumb thing that government does (say “CAFE regulations” ) would impose billions of dollars of costs on a company, exactly why is it wrong for the company (say GM or Toyota) to use some of its funds to lobby against that move?

Which is to say that Sotomayor ought to be studying to pass the bar, not sitting on the Supreme Court, right now, as she (again) ignores the basic reality of what a corporation is, legally speaking.

Competition and the freedom to choose enhance quality of product as well as efficiency and the lowest price over big government every time.

What if it’s a corporation of illegal aliens? Then she’ll want to give them LOTS of rights.

Lioncourt, I’ve already demonstrated to you, with sources, that incorporation is an ancient legal doctrine. All that happened in the 19th century was that certain parts of it were fleshed out in the courts.

Let’s get some basic facts here. Ever since incorporation was invented, corporations have had rights. Period. And when we restrict political speech, we do violence to the 1st Amendment and the promise of redress of grievances in the msot critical way.

Hopefully the Supreme Court overturns ALL campaign finance laws. The issue isn’t campaign finance costs, but rather the fact that people know something is for sale from government. Empty the store, and the customers will stop coming, too.