1 vote

Supreme Court Legitimacy at stake on Citizens United Ruling

The corporate conservative majority on the Supreme Court was at it again today (06-25-12). By its customary 5 to 4 vote, the court threw out a Montana law that had been on the books since 1912, banning corporate spending on elections. Naturally, the court’s conservatives believe their judgment in the Citizens United case is so much more refined and intelligent than the judgment of the good people of Montana.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/state...

Some observers, such as Akhil Reed Amar, a leading legal scholar who has devoted his career to a close read of the Constitution, have said that their life’s work would be called into question if the court strikes down the law. Commenting to Ezra Klein at The Washington Post about the impending ruling, Amar said “if they decide it by 5-4, then yes, it’s disheartening to me, because my life was a fraud.” It shows, he said that the law doesn’t really matter. “What mattered,” Amar said, “was politics, money, party and party loyalty.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77806.html#ixzz1yr...

The Supreme Court had a perfect chance today to clean up the corrupt mess created by their lawless Citizens United decision. Instead, they just shrugged.

Progressives in Montana rejoiced when the state's attorney general and state Supreme Court pushed to uphold its century-old ban on corporate money in state elections, but today the United States Supreme Court struck it down anyway.

This decision proves one thing: The Supreme Court is broken. The Court has adopted a purely corporate agenda, one that has already wreaked havoc on our elections and will lead to inevitable scandal -- and continued Washington hostility to the middle class and the poor.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Citizens????

I wonder if the ruling in the Citizens united case ever considered that corporations (and Unions), though now oficially considered people, are not United States citizens. I am quite sure that foreigners are not allowed to make campaign donations. The way to stop unions and corporations from controlling our elections is to limit the amount of employees/members, and total assetts a union or corporation can have outside of the United States of America. Problem solved?

Bump for discussion.

The Supreme Court has shown it's true colors on the corporate issue. Rand Paul has also gone corporate and many on this website approve. Is this continued hostility to the middle class and the poor and the unconstitutional behavior by those who legislate and interpret our laws really okay with some of you on this website?

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale

Also people, you have got to

Also people, you have got to recognize that corporations should not have been allowed to get nearly as large as they have become. To scrap their constitutional rights because of poor corporate charter laws is like saying that the second amendment is no longer valid because we have really big guns now.

If corporations were kept small, as per the corporate charter laws of the early 19th century we would not be having this conversation right now. We let corporate interest influence the law makers allowing for larger and larger corporations. Multistate then multinational, until they have control like they do now.

The fix isn't within the Supreme Court as they ARE interperating the 1st amendment properly. The fix is with us, at the state level, limiting the size and scope of the corporations.

Of course corporations should have 1st amendment rights

you gotta love the supreme court's reasoning

As was reported on my local news, they said that the law was a violation of a corporation's constitutional right to free speech. Say what?!? Apparently they drank from the same Bilderburg kool-aid that Romney did. Corporations are NOT people!

Actually, they are...

Corporations are not "strictly" speaking people, but they are classified as such so that they can be easily taxed and sued. It is unfortunate, but classifying them as people allows us to sue them in a court of law because they have many of the same rights we do. They do not have all of the same rights, but, corporations are classified as "people". I think some reforms needs to be made, but I am not exactly sure where to start.

It's a freedom of speech issue

I don't like the idea of corporate influence on government. But preventing people organized in the corporate form from speaking out is a violation of the First Amendment.

You may not like what I am saying, and think that only individual people can speak out for/against their government. But if people are prevented from joining together to speak out on issues they care about, the only people that will have a voice are 1) those that are privately wealthy and 2) those that are famous and can get on television to project their views.

Remember how Citizens United came about: it was a group of people who joined together in the cause to speak out against Hilary Clinton. They made a movie and the government wouldn't let them air it on television. It was an issue of censorship.