I did a Google search using the following format:
site:nytimes.com supreme court decision corporate personhood
Unrelated tip: Notice the site: and web address. That tells Google to search the specified site for the key words that follow. Neat trick, huh?
I found lots of editorials, one of which led me to this article:
Have you heard about it? What do you think about it? Is this good or bad and why?
My knee-jerk response is: Does this mean the people in the corporation get two ways to influence congress? One as a corporation and another as a private citizen? If that is a realistic assessment, does it seem fair?
Has anyone read the 180 page document that the Judges drew up in support of the decision, or the 90 page report that supported the opposite decision?
How will this reel its ugly head in the 2012 election?
"a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections."
Oh -- that seems to be a bad idea. Looks like politicians can be ruled by corporations and such. Big business can help support their candidates.
What were you thinking Cane -- same thing?
Well, I only have intuitions about it. It seems to me that "big business" has all the help it needs in controlling policy in the US. It doesn't need any more power, but the Supreme court handed them a sledge hammer. I think it it is very bad, but I don't know it is very bad.