As you probably know, I did some work with Democracy for America to raise awareness of and build support for an effort by our country’s state attorneys general to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in favor of hearing the American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana case. Ultimately, twenty-three attorneys general signed on to the brief (you can thank them here). Personally, I want to thank all of you who stepped up to the plate to lend your hands to the effort. Sadly, however, we were not successful.
In a brief per curiam (unsigned) opinion, the five conservatives on the Court summarily overruled the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to defy Citizens United and refused to receive briefs or hear arguments. Justice Breyer, writing for the minority, issued a terse dissent.
This is tragedy for Montana, but it is also a tragedy for our whole country. The conservatives didn’t even have the intestinal fortitude to sign this death sentence for our democracy. They were completely unmoved by the spectacle of billionaires deciding who would become the Republican nominee or the opinions of nearly half the attorneys general in the country that Citizens United has a corrupting influence on their home state’s politics.
This is utterly shameless and totally destructive. The only way to fix this now is to replace one of the five conservatives on the Court with an Obama nominee.
Mother Jones fills in the blanks.
Hmm, that would require having enough senators that aren’t mind-blanked assault troops for the rich aristocracy.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."One who, it is to be hoped, doesn’t need to recuse herself at a rate of more than once every year or two.
BTW, is the ABA back in charge of vetting SCOTUS picks? I completely forgot they traditionally used to perform that role up until w. Bush.
You beat me to it. Agreed that Kagan is doing the honorable thing, but with Thomas refusing to recuse himself while his wife takes money from a litigant, it is like sticking to Marquis of Queensbury rules in an alley brawl.
In February 2009, O’Connor launched Our Courts, a website she created to offer interactive civics lessons to students and teachers because she was concerned about the lack of knowledge among most young Americans about how their government works. On March 3, 2009, O’Connor appeared on the satirical television program The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote the website. In August 2009, http://ourcourts.org/ added two online interactive games. The initiative expanded, becoming iCivics in May 2010, and continues to offer free lessons plans, games, and interactive videogames for middle and high school educators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_day_o%27connor#Retirement
I’ve always been of two minds about this. On the one hand, more education in this manner is probably good.
On the other, our government and how it operates bares only a passing resemblance to what civics classes teach.
I just enjoy the irony that O’Connor, of all people, is ‘concerned about the lack of knowledge among most young Americans about how their government works.’
If young people truly understood how gov’t works–ie, Bush v. Gore–she wouldn’t be able to appear in public without facing an enraged mob.
She needs to withdraw in eternal shame for her blatantly political and self-serving decision in Bush v. Gore.
Just removing any illusions or doubt people (mostly on the left) may have had about what the Fearless Five Fascists intended and expected from their CU ruling, the case they made up to create law, a power the framers of the Constitution denied them.
Jeffrey Toobin in Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision tells the story.
But his concluding paragraph may be enough for some:
Justice Stevens should have rethought his use of Tokyo Rose in his dissent and spoken and larger truth about successful political propagandists.
fist in air
total agreement
I admit I haven’t followed this closely, but can someone explain the conservative opinion that somehow it is not for A STATE to make such a law? And how if it stood for 100 years it is not OK now?
Seems as if on almost every other subject (say abortion, or gee immigration) conservatives like to say it is a matter for the States.
The explanation is pretty simple: for most of that 100 years the neo-fascists had not built the organization to assure them that unlimited advertising would serve their agenda. There were still pesty things like unions and civic groups to worry about. Now, as WI showed the coast appears to be clear for unlimited and underchallenged propaganda assaults.
Oh, sorry, I guess you were being nostalgic and pretending that this court makes decisions on grounds other than political ideology, like the Constitution, precedent, or common sense. So according to Scalia, states have a “sovereign” right to make their own immigration policy in defiance of federal law, but not nullify federal law on such truly state matters as campaign reform or medical marijuana. The court has made itself irrelevant. We’d do just as well abolishing it, now that we’ve seen clearly what it can do.
Agree 100% with most of this; however, I disagree the SCOTUS should be abolished…unless you can imagine how one branch of federal government could be eradicated but not the other two.
United StatesSeparate Fiefdoms of America…Well,that was kind of shorthand for redoing the system from scratch. We keep talking about how it’s broken in every way, but nobody dares talk about fixing it. Contrary to Boo, it will take a hell of a lot more than replacing one “justice”.
“redoing the system from scratch”. That’s exactly what the fascists want to do. So how do you see that working out?
Well, all that may or may not be true…
I was just wondering what intellectual cover the Right was at least pretending to make.
And/Or during arguments in front of the SCOTUS, did Montana even try to make the argument that their law was within State’s rights?
It was just a revomit of the “money is speech” crap. Once that lie is accepted, it becomes a federal civil liberties issue, and thus trumps state law. I wonder if the ACLU is ashamed of itself yet.
Sure, but the Right has advocated, and the Court has supported, restrictions on certain basic rights by the States, just not the Feds.
What happened to that argument here? Was it even brought up?
they weren’t allowed to make any arguments at all. No briefs. No argument. No case. Summarily overturned the state SC’s ruling.
Jeebus.
They don’t even try to put some varnish on it.
This is the while opinion.
At the very least, Alito and Roberts should be impeached.
My preference would be to try and convict them for treason, string ’em up in a public location, and let the birds have them. Unfortunately, I’m not in charge.
Thomas should be impeached as well. How much dirty money do the Thomases have in their bank account from the healthcare industry alone? At least $1.5 million, right? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
It’s time we got serious about putting a stop to bribery. The law is already in place. We need to enforce it.
I’d argue that Roberts is the least bad of the four. Scalia I’d have a hard time discussing why he should be impeached simply for his radicalism, but thankfully he likes to go duck hunting with Dick Cheney, giving me reason to side with impeachment. Thomas for being a moron. Alito for being Alito. Also, Kennedy is the enabler.
When these men were testifying to Congress it seems they perjured themselves. But would anyone ever suggest that they be held in contempt? Ha!
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”,…
Of course, this is an intentional failure to acknowledge history, the history of big money/corruption in Montana.
Is it perhaps time to try something a little different?
Booman,
On the bright side, our DFA affiliated group, Occupy Democracy – Pasadena, after 7 months of work finally managed to get Congressman Adam Schiff to support a constitutional amendment to overturn “Citizens United”. He wrote his own house resolution – HJR 111 – with the assistance of Lawrence Tribe.
http://greeneggsandham.org/wordpress/?p=880
I wrote a blog post about our group’s work and we feel largely responsible for moving the congressman to do this. There are pockets of hope out there for saving our democracy.
Regards,
Patrick
Ever wonder what living during the Plessy Court era of the late 1800s when Newport Mansions were being built was like? I think we’re on our way to finding out. It’s not just stupidity they truly want wealth to rule.
rarotonga accommdation
—
aitutaki accommodation