Dana Milbank is spot on in this piece.<\/p>\n
In Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court uses a \u2018fiction\u2019 – The Washington Post<\/a> <\/p>\n In its last day in session, the high court not only affirmed corporate personhood but expanded the human rights of corporations, who by some measures enjoy more protections than mortals \u2026<\/p>\n Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the much-anticipated Hobby Lobby decision. \u201cProtecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.\u201d <\/p>\n Alito\u2019s ruling notably did not protect the rights of people employed by Hobby Lobby<\/strong>. They can now be denied contraceptives they were supposed to receive as part of their employee health plan \u2014 because the craft chain\u2019s owners object to certain forms of birth control required under Obamacare. \u2026 [mjh: What happens if a corporation\u2019s owners object to transfusions or other emergency medical care?<\/em>] <\/p>\n There was a certain risk in having Alito deliver the 5-to-4 opinion defending corporate personhood, because his mannerisms are strikingly robotic for a human. \u2026 <\/p>\n Ginsburg, in her dissent, wrote: \u201cUntil this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation\u2019s qualification for a religious exemption. .?.?. The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is \u2018an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law<\/strong>.\u2019?\u201d \u2026 <\/p>\n So Alito \u2026 reverted to the \u201cDictionary Act definition of \u2018person,\u2019?\u201d which includes corporations. (The Dictionary Act also \u2026 says the words \u201c?\u2018insane person\u2019 shall include every idiot.\u201d) \u2026 [zing!<\/em>] <\/p>\n Alito\u2019s ruling was, Ginsburg said, an \u201cexpansive notion of corporate personhood.\u201d She invoked the writing of former justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote that corporations \u201chave no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.\u201d<\/strong> [mjh: Corporations do have a single desire: an insatiable appetite for profit above all else, including the well-being of employees or customers.<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n In Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court uses a \u2018fiction\u2019 – The Washington Post<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dana Milbank is spot on in this piece. In Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court uses a \u2018fiction\u2019 – The Washington Post In its last day in session, the high court not only affirmed corporate personhood but expanded the human rights of corporations, who by some measures enjoy more protections than mortals \u2026 Justice Samuel … Continue reading the words “ ‘insane person’ shall include every idiot.” (including people who value corporations above humans)<\/span> \n