Montana Sup. Court judge on corporate "people": "Ironic that the death penalty & hell are reserved only to natural persons."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

From a previous post, Citizens United lost in Montana, the Supreme Court upheld state ban on corporate spending, a ruling in favor of a 100-year-old ban on direct corporate spending on political candidates in their state.

Again, the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision enabled the most vile of the vile to raise unlimited quantities of very influential cash to buy votes for even more vile candidates. And because of that, democracy took a hit, because ordinary, well-qualified, smart, creative people who will never live in mansions and employ "chair slaves" know they don't stand a chance against Candidate Moneybags, and so they forgo a run.

Now check out one of the dissenters who only did so because he said "that the U.S. Supreme Court left no room for states to exempt themselves — [but also] argued forcefully against the broad corporate latitude encompassed in the Citizens United decision."

L.A. Times:

"Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government," Justice James C. Nelson wrote in his reluctant dissent.

"Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons," he wrote.

Please read the whole article. I posted these two most excellent quotes, but the rest offers some insight on the potentially positive effect of this case that "could provide the long-awaited vehicle critics have sought for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare