Let me hear you say it again, folks: Corporations are people
Mystery of Citizens United Sequel Is Format, Not Ending
By ADAM LIPTAK, NYT
WASHINGTON — At their private conference, the justices of the Supreme Court are scheduled to decide Thursday whether and how to take a second look at the Citizens United campaign finance decision.
The usual odds that the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case are about one in a hundred. This one is pretty much a sure thing.
The justices have already temporarily blocked a lower court decision in the case. In that decision, the Montana Supreme Court seemed to defy the higher court by saying that a state law regulating corporate political spending was constitutional notwithstanding Citizens United. Two dissenting State Supreme Court justices said they would have liked to vote with their colleagues but did not believe they were entitled to ignore the United States Supreme Court.
“I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree,” wrote one of them, Justice James C. Nelson.
Even two of the dissenters in Citizens United itself said the state court’s decision had been lawless impudence. “Lower courts are bound to follow this court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in February in explaining her vote to block the Montana decision. She was joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
(More here.)
By ADAM LIPTAK, NYT
WASHINGTON — At their private conference, the justices of the Supreme Court are scheduled to decide Thursday whether and how to take a second look at the Citizens United campaign finance decision.
The usual odds that the Supreme Court will agree to hear a case are about one in a hundred. This one is pretty much a sure thing.
The justices have already temporarily blocked a lower court decision in the case. In that decision, the Montana Supreme Court seemed to defy the higher court by saying that a state law regulating corporate political spending was constitutional notwithstanding Citizens United. Two dissenting State Supreme Court justices said they would have liked to vote with their colleagues but did not believe they were entitled to ignore the United States Supreme Court.
“I find myself in the distasteful position of having to defend the applicability of a controlling precedent with which I profoundly disagree,” wrote one of them, Justice James C. Nelson.
Even two of the dissenters in Citizens United itself said the state court’s decision had been lawless impudence. “Lower courts are bound to follow this court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in February in explaining her vote to block the Montana decision. She was joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
neither are unions. However, if incorporate myself as an LLC, a sub-chapter S or a sole proprietorship, how do I keep separate the person from the corporation? Is it even possible to keep me separate from my corporation?
The Supreme Court should have thrown out Citizens United and at the same time barred unions from campaign contributions, as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home