What Precedent?

"In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law. ... Sotomayor sggested that the majority might have it all wrong--and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first accorded 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 that that was the court's error to start with... [imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.' ... Originally, corporations were a relatively rare form of organization. ... 'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible,' wrote Chief Justice Marshall in an 1819 case. 'It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.' ... 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", Jess Bravin at the WSJ, 17 September 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125314088285517643.html.

What? I've held to Ginsburg's comment for decades. I would like to see the "Ginsburg-Sotomayor" bloc win this one and overturn what I believe to be 100 years of bad law.