* Login   * Register
It is currently Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:08 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:31 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/1 ... 85804.html


:SilentRage:
:suspicious:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:33 pm
Posts: 6816
Location: Clarksville, TN
damn.

This is why I hate the whole "A corporation should be treated like an individual" bit

_________________
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:32 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:09 am
Posts: 508
This is why I hate almost every aspect of the government in general.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:33 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:43 pm
Posts: 2757
Location: New Zealand
sventoby wrote:
This is why I hate almost every aspect of the government in general.



I keep on think of replying to your posts but your avatar scares me, never has Sarah palin been this creepy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:57 am 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:06 am
Posts: 1860
Location: Austin, TX
I'm still not sure how the Supreme Court can override an individual State's law governing campaign finance for their own elections. Yes, yes, I realize the Supreme Court gave themselves that power over the years but it's one of those things that just doesn't add up, even to Constitutional Scholars like me and the President.

_________________
Fugitive from the law of averages


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:55 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
hondo69 wrote:
I'm still not sure how the Supreme Court can override an individual State's law governing campaign finance for their own elections. Yes, yes, I realize the Supreme Court gave themselves that power over the years but it's one of those things that just doesn't add up, even to Constitutional Scholars like me and the President.


Any source on the Supreme Court gaining "extraordinay" powers over the years?

:qmarks:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:31 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:23 pm
Posts: 5737
Gotta nip this thing in the bud, can't have anti-corruption legislation spreading across the union.

_________________
What is wrong with you people? - Dr. Youth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:39 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
doc_loliday wrote:
Gotta nip this thing in the bud, can't have anti-corruption legislation spreading across the union.



Guess we have to go nuclear option by passing an amendment.

yeah right!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:23 pm
Posts: 5737
Even I'm surprised at the rapidity of this getting shut down. How many cases languish for months and years, only finally to get half assed, open ended rulings from SCOTUS.


Image

This gets to the front of the line.

_________________
What is wrong with you people? - Dr. Youth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:51 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
Historically speaking Doc_Loliday, smear tatic campaigning has been around since the founding of this nation.

What's a little verbal/visual bloodsport between candidiates? :innocent:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:23 pm
Posts: 5737
Touche. But still shocked how fast this is getting ruled on.

_________________
What is wrong with you people? - Dr. Youth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:04 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:59 pm
Posts: 12225
doc_loliday wrote:
Touche. But still shocked how fast this is getting ruled on.


If this came up during a non-election cycle, I don't think it would of landed on the SCOTUS feet this fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:34 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:16 am
Posts: 3934
Location: I'm right here
SCOTUS ruling:

Quote:
Supreme Court throws out Montana ban on corporate campaign spending

By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen, Updated: Monday, June 25, 6:04 PM

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a century-old Montana law that prohibited corporate spending on political races in the state, ruling 5 -4 that the measure violates the First Amendment rights of companies to spend funds on elections.

The decision fell along similar lines as the high court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , which found that corporations and unions have a free speech right to spend unlimited amounts of money for and against candidates.

Late last year, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 100-year-old state law banning corporate spending on elections that arose from the corruption that troubled Montana during the copper baron era. The state’s high court said that even after the Citizens United ruling, the legacy of corporate control of its politics and other factors unique to the state justified a ban on spending by corporations regulated by the state.

But the Supreme Court’s conservative wing ruled Monday that Montana’s arguments “either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case,” according to an unsigned opinion. The finding leaves Citizens United intact and scuttles any chance, at least for now, of reconsideration.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer penned a short dissent for the four-judge minority, writing that Montana’s experience “casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.”

Justice Elena Kagan, who joined the court after the Citizens United ruling, joined Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor in the dissent. Breyer and Ginsburg said in February that the court should use the case to revisit a key holding in the Citizens United ruling.

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ” Ginsburg wrote in February.

The language was a reference to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion, which declared that “we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Besides lifting the ban on corporate and union expenditures, a lower court and the Federal Election Commission have interpreted the ruling to mean that unlimited individual contributions must be allowed, clearing the way for “super PACs,” which are fundraising groups closely identified with candidates but technically independent.

The presidential campaign has seen an unprecedented explosion of spending by wealthy individuals, many making multimillion-dollar contributions on behalf of their favored candidates. President Obama and other Democrats, who have sharply criticized the Citizens United ruling, have been pushing for new disclosure rules for many independent groups.

Monday’s decision to overturn the Montana law drew strong condemnation from activists who favor tougher limits on money in politics. Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, who helped draft many of the nation’s post-Watergate campaign finance reforms, said it was “full speed ahead” with efforts to pass a constitutional amendment and other legislation aimed at mitigating Citizens United.

“Citizens and the nation are not going to accept the Supreme Court imposed campaign finance system that allows our government to be auctioned off to billionaires, millionaires, corporate funders and other special interests using political money to buy influence and results,” Wertheimer said.

But Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman who heads the Center for Competitive Politics, said the Montana decision “is correct, both empirically and as a matter of law.”

“In the two years since Citizens United, campaigns have been more competitive and more issue-oriented, with higher voter turnout and more voices heard,” Smith said. “As a matter of constitutional law, it is simply obvious that citizens don’t lose their right to speak merely because they join together in an association, whether that be a corporation or a union.”

Richard Hasen, a law professor the University of California-Irvine, wrote on his widely-read election law blog that the outcome of the Montana case is actually a “relative victory for campaign-finance reformers” because the five-justice majority shows no signs of budging on Citizens United.

“Taking the case would have made things so much worse,” Hasen wrote.

The five justices who made up the majority in Citizens United remain on the court and have consistently held that many legislative attempts to control the influence of money in politics run afoul of constitutional guarantees of free speech. Kennedy, who wrote the Citizens United decision and is often the deciding vote when the court splits ideologically, is a leader on that issue.

The political committee and Montana corporation that challenged the Montana law argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should simply overturn the state Supreme Court’s 5 to 2 decision, which acknowledged the apparent conflict with the Citizens United ruling.

Wrote one dissenting Montana justice: “When the highest court in the country has spoken clearly on a matter of federal constitutional law . . . this court is not at liberty to disregard or parse that decision in order to uphold a state law that, while politically popular, is clearly at odds with the Supreme Court’s decision.”

James Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who has frequently challenged campaign finance restrictions as an affront to protected political speech, represents the Montana challengers.

“Is this court going to limit the right of speakers to engage in core political speech because they spend huge sums in doing so?” he asked in his petition. “Or because the state they happen to be in had corruption problems, or a corporation employed a lot of people, over a century ago?”

But Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock told the court that states should have leeway in unique situations to regulate spending by corporate interests. He said domination of state politics by corporate “copper kings” led citizens to enact the corporate spending ban.

“No state in the union has detailed a more compelling threat of corruption by corporate campaign expenditures than Montana, and the unrefuted testimony presented below establishes that the corruption threat continues against Montana’s state and local elections,” Bullock wrote in his petition to the Supreme Court. “That threat includes the domination of Montana’s small republic by out-of-state, foreign corporations.”

Bullock was joined by 22 states and the District of Columbia asking the court to review the Montana case.

About half of states allow corporate spending, in some cases including direct contributions to candidates, which federal law does not allow.

The case is American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock .

_________________
Misinformed. Ignorant. Perpetually Mad.
That's the new American way.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires. -Susan B. Anthony

"I'm too old to be governed by the fear of dumb people" -Charlie Skinner

My Political Compass


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:25 am 
Offline
Satrap

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:44 am
Posts: 3166
hondo69 wrote:
I'm still not sure how the Supreme Court can override an individual State's law governing campaign finance for their own elections. Yes, yes, I realize the Supreme Court gave themselves that power over the years but it's one of those things that just doesn't add up, even to Constitutional Scholars like me and the President.


So, you proclaim to know something about the Constitution, but fail to understand that Bill of Rights trumps the states? Or are you A OK with an individual state eliminating the right to free speech, or assembly, or any one of our rights as defined in the Bill of Rights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS bitch slaps Montana
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:58 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:25 pm
Posts: 7951
Tyrius wrote:
So, you proclaim to know something about the Constitution, but fail to understand that Bill of Rights trumps the states? Or are you A OK with an individual state eliminating the right to free speech, or assembly, or any one of our rights as defined in the Bill of Rights?
Originally, they could. The rights listed were only restrictions on the federal government, and not on the states. This was the generally recognized position until the 1890s when the fourteenth amendment was passed. It took decades for this to be applied to other elements of the bill of rights. Here, take a look at this wikipedia link for a starting point on your research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporat ... _of_Rights

Then do some more searching on the topic to validate what happened. We can agree or disagree about whether it was a good idea, but until 1890 a state could absolutely eliminate free speech, assembly, etc if they chose to allow doing so in their state constitution. That is the change hondo doesn't seem to agree with, while understanding that it did happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us