Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century 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.”
The end result of her line of thinking would be:
1) People lose rights when they band together
2) If corporations lose the rights of citizens but not the responsibilities of citizens, then you get taxation without representation
3 Responses to “Sotomayor shows why she was opposed”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
3) Therefore corporate income taxes should be abolished. Let the employees and shareholders pay their taxes on the money paid to them from the corporation, and end the double taxation of income that results from corporate taxes.
There’s a serious debate to be had about whether corporations should be legally treated as individuals, but I doubt that Sotomayor and her ilk really want to think through all the ramifications of her statements.
> end the double taxation of income
“Double”? Ah, an optimist. If *only* income was taxed only twice!
“The end result of her line of thinking would be… People lose rights when they band together…”
Corrolary: The more people you band together, the more rights they lose. Which is what always happens when you implement “progressive” policy, in outcomes and regardless of intentions, for the last hundred years and more.