In New Decision, The Supreme Court Still Loves Citizens United

[jaxx]

In New Decision, The Supreme Court Still Loves Citizens United
A Montana case gave the justices a chance to reconsider their decision allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections. The court's conservatives weren't interested.

—By Andy Kroll
| Mon Jun. 25, 2012 8:15 AM PDT

In a case billed as "Citizens United II," the US Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear new arguments on the wisdom of its 2010 Citizens United decision, the court's most controversial campaign finance ruling in years. By a 5-4 vote, the court summarily reversed a decision by the Montana Supreme Court upholding that state's century-old ban on independent political spending by corporations. This deals a blow to reformers who hoped to undo or chip away at Citizens United and stem the expansion of special interest money in elections.

<..> The Roberts court's summary reversal of the lower court's decision deals a blow to a coalition of Democrats, campaign finance reform advocates, and others who wanted the justices to reconsider Citizens United. The five-justice majority's decision is unsigned and just one page in length; it reads in part, "The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does."

Justice Stephen Breyer fired back in a one-and-a-half page dissent:

Even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court's legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court's finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. Thus, Montana's experience, like considerable ex­perience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...witterfeed

[azmouse]

Just wait. When we get a few new Supremes this whole Citizens United mess will be overturned.

[jaxx]

(06-25-2012 09:37 AM)azmouse Wrote:  Just wait. When we get a few new Supremes this whole Citizens United mess will be overturned.

I think so too. A huge reason why PBO needs to be reelected.

[Velleity]

Corporations are not people and money is property, not speech.

[Blue_Roses]

How is this democracy when such unfair decisions, such as this, continue to plague the people? I have no doubt our forefathers did not intend for these "powers" to be used this way. There has to be another way to make this fair for ALL who call themselves, "We the people."

The definition of "corporation" is a contradictory term in of itself:

Cor·po·ra·tion Pronunciation: \ˌkor-pə-ˈrā-shən\Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 a : a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild b : the municipal authorities of a town or city 2 : a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession 3 : an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state
http://i.word.com/idictionary/corporation

[Velleity]

And it is intentionally vague, no matter what "conservatives" try to tell you. The Founders were a diverse and contentious lot, so gleaning their intent on much of anything is impossible.

The Founders, except for Washington, were alive in 1803 and I don't recall much opposition from them to Marbury v. Madison. The Founders had to be aware of the need for someone to have the final say in such matters of the day, but the actual codification of even the Supreme Court's role is debatable.

A system that's a lot neater and simpler is what? Stalinism?

[Blue_Roses]

(06-25-2012 12:52 PM)Velleity Wrote:  And it is intentionally vague, no matter what "conservatives" try to tell you. The Founders were a diverse and contentious lot, so gleaning their intent on much of anything is impossible.

The Founders, except for Washington, were alive in 1803 and I don't recall much opposition from them to Marbury v. Madison. The Founders had to be aware of the need for someone to have the final say in such matters of the day, but the actual codification of even the Supreme Court's role is debatable.

A system that's a lot neater and simpler is what? Stalinism?

Marbury v. Madison has been debated from day one and continues today. Little did they know that one day the Supreme Court would decide a presidential election. Ironically, that decision--Gore v. Bush--reeked of "Stalinism".

Back to present day. This decision is obviously one intended to affect the outcome of this election by this conservative leaning court--once again. Their bullshit of "upholding the constitution" is just that--bullshit. They are very subjective when interperetating the constitution when it comes to GOP advantage. All the archaic verbiage doesn't change that.

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 02:29 PM)Blue_Roses Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 12:52 PM)Velleity Wrote:  And it is intentionally vague, no matter what "conservatives" try to tell you. The Founders were a diverse and contentious lot, so gleaning their intent on much of anything is impossible.

The Founders, except for Washington, were alive in 1803 and I don't recall much opposition from them to Marbury v. Madison. The Founders had to be aware of the need for someone to have the final say in such matters of the day, but the actual codification of even the Supreme Court's role is debatable.

A system that's a lot neater and simpler is what? Stalinism?

Marbury v. Madison has been debated from day one and continues today. Little did they know that one day the Supreme Court would decide a presidential election.

Marbury v. Madison and the idea of judicial review was always controversial. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. What I am suggesting here is that the idea was probably assumed by the Founders because they recognized the need to have a final arbiter.

Whether Bush v. Gore comports with this idea of finality is a different question, IMHO. It was such a lousy opinion that even they said that it couldn't be used as precedent.

But then if you're going to be fair Bush v. Gore is no worse, in principle, than Roe v. Wade.

[Blue_Roses]

(06-25-2012 02:58 PM)Velleity Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 02:29 PM)Blue_Roses Wrote:  Marbury v. Madison has been debated from day one and continues today. Little did they know that one day the Supreme Court would decide a presidential election.

Marbury v. Madison and the idea of judicial review was always controversial. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. What I am suggesting here is that the idea was probably assumed by the Founders because they recognized the need to have a final arbiter.

Whether Bush v. Gore comports with this idea of finality is a different question, IMHO. It was such a lousy opinion that even they said that it couldn't be used as precedent.

But then if you're going to be fair Bush v. Gore is no worse, in principle, than Roe v. Wade.

Ahhh...I was wondering when Roe v. Wade would pop up.

While I see your point, I respectively disagree. In the Roe v. Wade ruling, it is much clearer as to why they reached their decision and Constitutionally based:

"...This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi...13_ZO.html

[Velleity]

(06-25-2012 03:44 PM)Blue_Roses Wrote:  

(06-25-2012 02:58 PM)Velleity Wrote:  Marbury v. Madison and the idea of judicial review was always controversial. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. What I am suggesting here is that the idea was probably assumed by the Founders because they recognized the need to have a final arbiter.

Whether Bush v. Gore comports with this idea of finality is a different question, IMHO. It was such a lousy opinion that even they said that it couldn't be used as precedent.

But then if you're going to be fair Bush v. Gore is no worse, in principle, than Roe v. Wade.

Ahhh...I was wondering when Roe v. Wade would pop up.

While I see your point, I respectively disagree. In the Roe v. Wade ruling, it is much clearer as to why they reached their decision and Constitutionally based:

"...This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi...13_ZO.html

The "penumbras" are clearer?

I don't think so. Roe was a huge reach. I'm not saying it wasn't good or necessary, but it was a huge reach.

[There Is No Spoon]

This was an unbelievable decision - it's going to get a bit sketchy the next decade or so until we can regain control of our democracy, hopefully without too much in the way of chaos.

[Velleity]

including Bush v. Gore, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, all of the crap they're trying to push legislatively, and Citizen's United is that it's all straight across party lines. They seem to have no remorse over this rank partisanship and the potential consequences of such a system.

[suzie]

Hadn't all previous electoral problems before Bush v. Gore that involved the presidency had been settled by the House of Representatives, NOT the Supreme Court?

Going back to the election of Jefferson in 1801?

I realize that's before Marbury v. Madison, but weren't all later electoral questions decided in the House of Representatives rather than the Supreme Court?

[NJMaverick]

still love Citizens United because Republicans hate Democracy and giving the people the power

[Brewman_Jax]

Once again, the corporate-controlled SCOTUS sells the people and the political process into the hands of the Top 1%, neatly gift wrapped.

If for no other reason, PBO must be re-elected to break the corporate hold on the Supreme Court, since the justices hold a lifetime appointment and impeachment is nearly impossible.