Citizen's United Upheld, Montana Law Overturned

[tertius]

Because unlimited corporate expenditures do not cause corruption, you know.

From the dissent:

Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that
independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that
court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations.

(the decision is as brief as humanly possible: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...1-1179h9j3.pdf )

[Mark E. Hurling]

Montana. First bullet riddled outhouses and now this.

[Will D]

That is not what the decision says. It says that the First Amendment of the Constitution can not be overridden simply because of corruption.

I'm glad that was a quick read, I almost snorted beer out of my nostrils when I saw that you linked supreme court opinions.

[tertius]

That is not what the decision says. It says that the First Amendment of the Constitution can not be overridden simply because of corruption.

I'm glad that was a quick read, I almost snorted beer out of my nostrils when I saw that you linked supreme court opinions.

You remain a total idiot. I commend you on your consistency.

[mstrofbass]

You remain a total idiot. I commend you on your consistency.

Well, to be fair, you've made up your mind about what you think the correct outcome is without actually knowing if it's the correct outcome. Some of us think that's the definition of total idiot.

[Will D]

The precedent was founded on this:

“political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.”

regarding applicability to the case under review:

"The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does."

This is so simple...

[tertius]

Well, to be fair, you've made up your mind about what you think the correct outcome is without actually knowing if it's the correct outcome. Some of us think that's the definition of total idiot.

That's actually what the court did in this instance, by issuing a per curium decision and not actually allowing the case to be argued, you mean.

[mstrofbass]

That's actually what the court did in this instance, by issuing a per curium decision and not actually allowing the case to be argued, you mean.

No, because briefs have to be filed that provide the arguments and relevant support.

[Will D]

HAHAHAHAHA tertius please go back to cataloguing your henti collection. you are an imbecile. The link doesn't do anything except explain precedent. There's always other motives, they could whip a precedent out of thin air. Why is this relevant in the first place. . .

[mstrofbass]

Not full briefs, but arguments and relevant facts, which may be sufficient to issue an opinion.