A Mockery of Personhood

That is what the U.S. Supreme Court made in Citizens United. AT&T is now asking our dearly beloved Court to take that one step further and recognize corporations as having a personal right to privacy in FCC v. AT&T. Dahlia again has the best write up on yesterday's oral argument, as she has taken AT&T's argument seriously and personified it:

AT&T slips into the Supreme Court chamber this morning, moments before arguments are set to start. He feels slightly affronted that nobody seems to notice him. (AT&T is a very emotional guy.) AT&T is handsome in the obvious way. . . .

Thankfully, it appears that there is little support for the argument:

AT&T dies a little inside when Scalia asks: "Did some members of Congress who had passed FOIA say, 'This is outrageous; what about the personal privacy of General Motors?' I'm not aware of any objections along those lines. . . ."

Even CJ Roberts, who earlier in argument did his best to trot out some defense of the contention, however halfassedly, raises an issue with AT&T's counsel:

The chief justice isn't done, either. He takes up AT&T's claim that since "person" is defined elsewhere in FOIA to include corporations, "personal" should be applied to corporations, too. Mulls Roberts: "I tried to sit down and come up with other examples where the adjective was very different from the root noun. It turns out it is not hard at all. You have craft and crafty. Totally different. Crafty doesn't have much to do with craft. Squirrel, squirrely. Right? I mean, pastor—you have a pastor and pastoral. Same root, totally different."

As Klineberg (counsel for AT&T) suggests that AT&T doesn't adhere to the "grammatic imperative" used in the 3^rd Circuit ruling, AT&T seems to understand that somewhere along the line, he has lost the confidence of the chief justice. Maybe he isn't a real person, capable of dignity and shame and other strong emotions after all. Maybe if you prick him, he does not bleed. If you tickle him he does not laugh. If you poison him, well. AT&T rises to leave the room. But he suddenly finds that he has no legs to stand on.

At least it appears that the current Court "gets it" in the sense that it cannot yet fully personify a corporation. What is most troubling is that this is even a question that can make it to the SCOTUS. Why must corporations seek refuge in personhood and continued to make a mockery of that notion? If we want to develop a bill of rights for corporations, I think the congress could do so, or we could amend the constitution. Isn't that what the judicial conservatives always suggest?