Uh-oh! Showing a clear lack of social conscience or any shred of responsibility to living citizens of these United States, the Supreme Court has removed the last vestige of restraint on corporate “personages” – a legal fiction fitting the definition set forth by Justice Scarth as “…fictions having a false assumption of fact in order to extend the remedy the Court could grant”. Indeed, the legal precedent for corporate personhood was set in an 1886 pre-decision statement, attributed to Chief Justice Waite, that somehow got written into the header of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision. The false assumption is surreptitiously doubly false, as it errs in assuming corporations operate as persons with normally functional moral, ethical, and intellectual faculties.

Legal precedents aside, if corporations are to be treated under the law as people, at best they should be accorded a set of diminished rights, as afforded to children or the mentally incapacitated, and justified “because of their presumed intellectual and moral incapacity” (Dahl, 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press).

In political terms, then, the disability category in laws governing political participation appears to be of considerable importance. Because disability is often thought of as deviancy, the exclusion of incompetent people is no surprise. By associating cognitive and emotional impairments with deviancy, these terms also are connected to fears of criminality. – Kay Schriner, University of Arkansas and Lisa Ochs, Arkansas State University (Encyclopedia of criminology and deviant behavior, 179-183)

Read that quote again, “Honorable” Supreme Court Justices! It is well established that corporations are designed to act sociopathically and without conscience, in strict pursuit of profit, thus there can be no good argument for allowing them unrestrained rights. Imagine the destruction a sociopath could wrought, given a multibillion dollar treasury.

Anyone who has studied logic understands that arguments can be made for or against just about anything. In the final analysis, arguments are selected to justify decisions after the fact. In this case, the Supreme Court quite obviously chose to further the (seemingly inevitable) collapse of the United States for unknown reasons. As this latest decision stands, any not-yet-paid-for, or uncompromised politicians are left no cover from a soon to be expected onslaught of corporate pressures brought on by the releasing of restraints. Anyone with a single pair of clicking neurons could tell you that it’s a very bad idea to allow corporations (owned by anybody, anywhere on the planet) to spend any amount they wish to influence our representatives. I’m now half expecting new legislation will force me to buy Wheaties or face punitive measures!

Comments are closed.