Does anyone else find the SCOTUS to be inconsistent in saying that a corporation should be considered a person for the purpose of buying our political system, but can't be considered a person when it tortures people? Why was it so easy to draw a distinction about "natural persons" when it comes to torture, and to completely ignore that when it comes to spending money in elections?
8:14 AM PT: There was a request for links and context. The SCOTUS decided that the PLO could not be sued as an entity for torture undertaken under its auspices.
http://www.latimes.com/...
Earlier, the SCOTUS decided that corporations could spend unlimited amounts in political campaigns as free speech under the 1st amendment.
http://articles.latimes.com/...
These two decisions go in different directions so far as how corporations are treated under the law. It's an all of the rights, fewer of the responsibilities sort of thing.