THREE CHEERS FOR JUSTICE JAMES C NELSON OF THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT!

"While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s decision," wrote Justice James C. Nelson, in his dissent. "And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping."

The photo of me taken at Occupy New Orleans is a fright, and my enemies may well use it against me, but I sacrifice for the cause.

H/T to Charles Pierce at The Politics Blog at Esquire, who urges us to send flowers to the justice.

WHOSE CHOICE IS IT?

From the Washington Post:

The Montana Supreme Court has delayed an order that a cancer patient undergo a hysterectomy to give her time to appeal a finding that she is not mentally competent to make such a decision.

District Judge Karen Townsend issued a March 1 ruling ordering the woman to undergo a radical hysterectomy on March 3 to treat her cervical cancer. The woman is identified in documents by the initials L.K.

L.K.'s appeal says she is a deeply religious woman who wants children and that she objected to the hysterectomy on both grounds, the Missoulian reported Sunday.

After L.K.'s cancer diagnosis, Dr. Valerie Knutsen sent a letter to the Missoula County attorney's office in September with concerns about L.K.'s ability to make medical decisions. A nurse sent similar letters in September and October. A petition to appoint a temporary medical guardian was filed in November. On Feb. 11, the temporary medical guardian signed a consent form for L.K. to have the radical hysterectomy. The surgery was scheduled for March 3.
....

The Supreme Court stayed Townsend's order and agreed to expedite the appeal.

Ever since I read the article in the local paper this morning, I've been thinking about LK's situation off and on. She is Stage 1, and she could probably be cured and live for many more years. And yet, and yet.... Unless upon further examination, LK is shown to be incapacitated by mental illness beyond the decision not to have surgery, I lean toward her being permitted to make the choice. I believe that LK is wrong to refuse the surgery, but I do not believe the treatment should be forced upon her.

What do you think?