The imprint of Federalist Society members can be spotted everywhere in this case. In fact, most of the lawyers representing the NAM are affiliated with the Federalist Society. Lawyer Eugene Scalia, who filed an amicus brief in favor of the NAM's case, is also a member alongside his father, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. The Federalist Society does not mention an overarching agenda to subordinate individual rights to corporate personhood, yet their support of NAM demonstrates, it does condone decisions minimizing human rights protections for the sake of expanding corporate "rights".
The NAM case reveals systemic oppression on an international scale, as the Congolese people are the most affected by the court's ruling, but have the least say in the matter. Now, the legal mechanisms to prevent corporate supply chains from exploiting the Congo Conflict are severely restricted, creating many future implications about the other regulatory functions of government.
The Congolese will be most affected by this ruling, which also presents a long-term threat to our own safety and welfare in the United States. If the government cannot compel corporate interests from disclosing privately held information, what is to prevent a corporate supplier from using lead or other dangerous materials in other common household products?
The DC Circuit Court is well aware the U.S. Constitution says nothing about a corporation's "right to secrecy," but will continue to making decisions like NAM vs. SEC until we pass a constitutional amendment making clear corporations are not people and are accountable through local, state, and federal laws.
As more judges like Sentelle and Randolph reveal their allegiance to corporate executives exploiting war-torn regions for profit, we as a nation must stand together with the Congolese people to demand justice and accountability from corporate war-profiteers.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
