Kennedy needs to step down, and Fat Tony dies of a massive heart attack before the next term starts, and Clarence Thomas committed (after showing Alzheimer's signs) to a nearest nuthouse.

With the minority, the Roberts Chief Justice title is stripped and offered an option to resign with some dignity and zero pension.

That leaves Alito. Fine, we can leave it at a 8-1 majority for a very long time. It's payback time.

It usually refers to a decision made by the court as a whole, rather than by a specific judge.

To be clear, however, at issue in the case was whether CU applied to Montana state law, specifically around state and local elections. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So deciding CU decision overrules state law was to some extent a no brainer.

I did not read the pleadings but I have seen nothing to suggest Montana asked the Court to overrule CU, simply looking at it from an "as applied" against state law perspective.

So I am not sure I would characterize this as an affirmation of CU. That question was not, to my knowledge, put squarely before the court.

Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 12:47 PM - Edit history (2)

there can be no serious doubt that CU applies to Montana state law, and Montana's
arguments were 'either already rejected (by CU) or fail meaningfully to distinguish that case.'

Right, it is, sadly, no surprise. I do think several justices want an opportunity to re-think CU, but this is not it, unfortunately.

Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor disssented. Discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002854254

that were traditionally GOP....we can get some billionaires and spend billions taking over the state governments and making them vastly progressive...where the mid-section goes so does the rest of the body...

Most of 'em are already in private ownership.

not now but in the future.

two emotions dictate activity on Wall Street. Greed and fear.
Those same two emotions now dictate activity in Congress and
obviously the Supreme Court. Given the opportunity these same
emotions will control the administration if they have not done so
already.

as people are in donating to a campaign? Do we need new laws to address this, deeming that campaign ads are considered a formal campaign contribution?

Five justices granted this case certiorari--i.e the Supreme Court will hear it at some future time. It is likely that the five justices who voted for certiorari want to re-affirm the Court's ruling in Citizens United, but the Court has not done so yet, as this thread's title suggests.

Four justices dissented from the grant of certiorari. They say they did so explicitly because they fear the Court will reaffirm Citizens United if this Montana case is heard, and they tried to prevent this case from being heard in order to prevent the whole Court from re-affirming Citizens United.

-Laelth

Seriously.. .they were SUPPOSED to be above all of that!! But if you think about the fact that Thomas' wife works for people involved in all of this... then it's become another dirty tool for the republicans. My god.. they're destroying democracy on vote at a time. This is serious, folks.