So much for states’ rights from the so-called “conservative” U.S. Supreme Court — as if 2000’s Bush v. Gore didn’t already tell you that they, like other “small government Conservatives”, were largely full of shit when making that pretend claim…only when convenient to their policy goals, of course…
You can read more about the courageous decision earlier this year by the Montana Supreme Court — the decision struck down today by SCOTUS — in Ernie Canning’s coverage from January. In that case, even the dissenting MT Justice found the U.S. Supreme Court’s “entire concept” of corporate personhood to be “offensive.”
“Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. … Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons,” wrote the dissenting Justice James C. Nelson who, clearly, disagreed with Citizens United, but dissented in the MT case because he believed — as SCOTUS affirmed today — that they, not states, can decide how campaign finance will or won’t work for every state in the entire nation.
The 5-4 Citizens United majority has essentially told Montana — and every other state in the union — that they may not run their own elections as they wish. Even though Justice Anthony Kennedy had written for the majority in that case that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” the high court today decided not to review the record of corruption — essentially, mining companies buying up the entire state legislature in MT back at the turn of the 20th century — which gave rise to the now-dead Montana law.
In Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion of today’s summary reversal (made without even hearing oral arguments), he writes: “[E]ven 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,” Breyer wrote in the dissent (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan). “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.”
The court’s one paragraph summary reversal and Breyer’s full dissent can both be read here [PDF].
Thanx for posting this article. I put it up on FB.
For those who, like myself, who have taken exception to many of President Obama’s policies, they need to look no further than this decision to understand why they must hold their noses, while they work to defeat Mitt “Gordon Gekko” Romney in November.
As I explained in Romney Hopes to Bork the Courts:
The harm to the rule of law that would accompany the expansion from four Supreme Court radicals in robes to seven could not…be remedied by “the next election or even in the next generation”.
If Romney becomes the POTUS, corporate despotism will be firmly entrenched for generations to come, and nothing, short of a constitutional amendment or a revolution, will change that stark reality.
The one silver lining that comes from this decision is the fact that Justice Kagan signed onto the dissent, erasing all doubts as to where she stands on Citizens United. If Obama is re-elected and seizes the opportunity to appoint Justices like Sotomayor and Kagan, the 5-4 majority decision may ultimately be overturned by a new majority who understands the corrupting effect of unlimited corporate funding of elections.
what exactly is stopping Montana from NOT allowing it anyway?
If I were Montana I would simply not allow it period.
Supreme Crooks, more like.
What if Montana just decided to cancel their participation in the 2012 election?
It is time to impeach Scalia and Thomas.
So…all those for state’s rights, like for the Arizona immigration law, GOP state voter id laws, etc…WILL BE OUTSPOKEN ON BEING FOR MONTANA STATE LAW here, right? State’s rights?
I expect to see rightwing media saying how outrageous this decision against state’s rights is: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, FOX “news”, Laura Ingraham, etc…the whole state’s rights gang. They’re all talking about how outraged they are today, right?
Crickets?
Re Obama’s opportunities to “improve” the court.
By the very same circumstances by which Willard could ensure a 7-2 lock on SCOTUS, Inc., Obama would most like have only the “opportunity” to maintain the 4-5 disadvantage.
That is, those justices most likely to need replacing are among the minority 4.
John Puma @8 wrote:
Age suggests otherwise. The four oldest justices now on the bench are Ginsberg, 79, Scalia, 76, Kennedy 75 (to be 76 in July) and Breyer, 73.
If Obama were to replace all four with Justices like those who dissented in this case, the vote would be 6-3 to overturn Citizens United.
If the three oldest were replaced by Obama appointees, the vote would also be 6-3 to overturn Citizens United.
To Ernest:
In the absence of a mandatory retirement age, I’d suggest health and political ideology, not age, is the determining factor.
Ginsberg’s pancreatic cancer will probably create the next opening on the bench. As with Breyer, the risk would be confirming someone as desirable … to maintain the minority at merely 4-5.
If Obama is reelected, pure political will and obstinance, in the absence of biological collapse, will keep Scalia on the bench.
Don’t know about Kennedy’s health nor if he possesses a level of self-importance, attached to his swing vote position, that overrides all other considerations of life’s potential for a 76-year old.
Let us not assume that all Obama confirmations would decide as we would like to see, for the rehash of Citizens United or in general. This for all manner of reasons from Obama’s actual nominations to the pathology of the Senate GOP to the large selection of Senate DINOs.
The confirmation process will become very much more difficult than we have seen for Obama, if and when a seat determining the direction of the 5-4 swing is in the balance.
John, outside of Ginsberg, there is no indication of immediate health problems, though the Chief Justice has suffered two unexplained seizures.
By the time the next POTUS is sworn in, Scalia will be close to 77, Kennedy 76. I’ve seen no study that suggests obstinate right-wing assholes live longer than the rest of us.
So, odds are that two of the likely three Supreme Court openings during the next four+ years will be on the right.
Finally, when it comes to corporate power, Kennedy is not a “swing vote”. He’s the author of Citizens United.
To Ernest:
OK, let me then put it this way: I don’t know about Kennedy’s health, or if he possesses a desire to protect his baby, Citizens United, or has a level of self-importance, attached to his swing vote position, that overrides all other considerations of life’s potential for a 76-year old who once tasted “supreme” power.
I didn’t say obstinate, right-wing assholes live longer than the rest of us. I said that one of the two critical “justices” in question, for sure, has sufficient obstinacy and assholery to suggest that only his death will create a vacancy for his seat. You have provided evidence that the same might well be true for Kennedy.
My point was that merely listing ages is not a foolproof method for predicting openings of SCOTUS, Inc.
Does your not having addressed the last two paragraphs of my post #10 mean that you agree with that analysis?
After the rulings on 1070 and Obamacare this week, I think you folks can officially stop whining about the Supreme Court. States cannot protect themselves and the Federal government has limitless powers, this is not and has never been a “conservative” court.