The unaffiliated (definitely not co-ordinating with Stephen Colbert) SuperPAC “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” has just released the following advertisement, which logically proposes that if “corporations are people” then Mitt Romney should be regarded as a serial killer…
The way Colbert has methodically gone about illustrating on his show over the past several months the absurd ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has been absolutely brilliant. Now linking that effort to also ridicule the insane legal fiction of corporate personhood takes things to a whole new level.
Allen Asch (aka “LiberalViewer”) presents a very cogent counter-argument to the widely held perception that the recent SCOTUS decision fundamentally corrupts democracy.
I’m still not entirely convinced that the SCOTUS decision isn’t a perniciously harmful one — only time will tell on that score, I guess. But what’s more troubling are the questions that it failed to address when it comes to the distinctions between political free speech the influence of money on the democratic process.
Update: Murray Hill Inc. — The Best Democracy Money Can Buy!
Thom Hartman and Ralph Nader discuss the mysterious legal concept of “corporate personhood” and its profoundly anti-democratic implications in the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
By the way, where’s the fulminating outrage from the right-wing about the “activism” of the Supreme Court judges in this instance that overturned more than a century of legal precedent and flouted their own purported doctrine of constitutional “originalism” in order to advance what can only be described as a corporatist ideological agenda?
Fora TV has picked out one of the most provocative extracts from Justice Antonin Scalia’s lecture to the American Academy in Berlin, here concerning the role of the judiciary vis-à-vis natural law, which is a highly contentious point, but just one of many raised in the somewhat lengthy talk.
Should you have the time, it’s worth listening to the whole thing, if for nothing else than the Q&A at the end which is predictably entertaining (which is where this clip came from). Whatever one thinks of Scalia’s legal opinions, he’s most certainly not dull or unfunny.
About the RARE triumphs of Hamilton Burger, Esq.
Hmmm… Good one! A trick question perhaps? After all, it could have been “The Case of the Deadly Verdict”… But then again, the correct answer may well be “The Case of the Terrified Typist” or even possibly “The Case of the Witless Witness”… Great mystery abounds!
Thanks Al, for raising these more comical legal issues for us to ponder at length.
Much better than C-SPAN (with all due respect to that fine public media service).