Courts Endow Corporations with Unalienable Rights

[rumpel]

By Jeffrey Kaplan, ReclaimDemocracy.org. Posted February 12, 2008.

Corporations are increasingly accorded the rights of legal persons -- if only Guantanamo detainees could be so lucky.

In evaluating allegations that U.S. military forces deprived four British men of human rights during two years they were held captive in Guantanamo Bay prison, a U.S. appeals court found an innovative way to let the Bush administration off the hook. Two of three judges ruled the men -- because they are not U.S. citizens and, technically, were not imprisoned in the U.S. -- were not legally "persons" and, therefore, had no rights to violate.

While those judges were defying common sense and decency by denying legal personhood to living human beings, an appeals court in Boston has been reviewing an April 2007 decision by Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro that engaged in a different form of judicial activism -- granting human rights to corporations.

Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe. The law aims to protect doctors and, indirectly, their patients, from drug companies pressuring doctors to choose their products.

The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/76778/

Editor's note: shortly after completing this article, we learned of this shocking story: Judge Allows Halliburton to Force Sexual Assault Case Out of Court

[ixion]

1. The Constitution is very clear on this:

Corporations are NOT individuals.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Most important issue of our times.

[RuleOfNah]

3. Speech is eavesdropping?

Barbadoro struck down a New Hampshire law that prevented pharmaceutical corporations from learning exactly what drugs doctors prescribe and how much they prescribe.
The judge's grounds? He claims corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights" that would be infringed by such a measure.

Corporations want to intrude on patient doctor confidentiality? Are lawyers and religious professionals next? Is only Cheney safe from the prying eye?

21st is "<ideal> is <value statement> for <desired goal> and must be <desired conclusion>" with complete disregard for letter and spirit.

[femrap]

4. What if the survivor of the rape were to

incorporate? Maybe we should all incorporate so to be treated equally.

Our nation is sick.