With all the things wrong with democracy in Europe and America, you take issue with being able to challenge a state in court?

... I'm lost for words.

They are a legal fiction designed purely to divert financial responsibility for a large business from one singular person, encouraging people to build large businesses so that if it all comes crashing down, you can just chapter 7 your way out of it and call it a day, and not be stuck in eternal debt or what have you. Anything else is illusory.

So, things would be better under Mitt Romney?  Is there some sort of progressive/liberal candidate out there that would actually oppose this, or some nationalistic party on the right who would have a candidate that would give a shot to it?

Really, what would Romney of done differently?

So there are no people in them? It's just an illusion? They only look like people? Or are you saying they are comprised of people, but those people forfeit all their individual rights such as being able to challenge laws passed restricting their behavior? I already know you think they shouldn't be able to engage in free expression, but for fuck's sake. They have to challenge state laws in state courts, don't they? That's not exactly neutral ground. It's the very least a person (or a group of people, even if they are organized under such a scary word like "corporation" or "church") ought to be able to do. Unless we're finally going to drop the pretense that democracy (and the EU ain't even all that democratic to begin with) isn't just a majoritarian dictatorship.

What's wrong with democracy in Europe?

Also, it's not you who gets to challenge the state. It's not someone who represents you, it's a profit-driven company that gets to challenge the state, to remove laws that the elected representatives of the people put in place.

There are people in them who have unalienable rights as individuals. That they are allowed to join said group is a protected right, but the group itself needs no more rights than it needs to operate as it is supposed to operate (the right to stand trial, own property, and incur debt).

Unlike political advocacy organizations, political activity is not an integral part of the corporate assembly and therefore needs not be protected.

I think people seem to missing the point. Which is essentially this law is meant to make sure that countries can't play favorites as much as they do now.

So for example, When Boeing sues France for giving free money to Airbus to artificially lower prices. Boeing can sue France in a court not run by France.

All this does is make it so countries are responsible for the deals they've already agreed to.  A corportion can't say "Drug trials are expensive!" and get them revoked.

A coproration CAN say "you agreed to not favor home grown products in your trade agreement with Canada, but you have have buy american steel laws."

Using that logic you could ban political parties from taking part in the political sphere.

That's pretty contrived, and I have to assume you arrived at the conclusion first and then reasoned your way backwards to come up with such a thing. We are not even talking about the sort of political speech that you're so fretful about "corrupting the process". If there is a law that governs the activity of corporations, then corporations have to be able to challenge said law. Additionally, since laws pertain to people and not things, if corporations are not people then they can not be governed in the first place. Nor can they be taxed as a separate entity. It seems the statists want to have their cake and eat it, too, when it comes to this matter.

Romney would of been against this.

Republicans are pretty dead set against having anybody having juridicition over the US government.