Finally! Supreme Court Will Reconsider Citizens United

[villager]

In what could be the beginnings of a huge victory for the 99%, the U.S. Supreme Court today announced it would take a case that will give it a chance to reconsider its disastrous Citizens United v. FEC decision.

The case involves two corporations that say a Montana Supreme Court decision denied them the right to use undisclosed amounts of money as an expression of free speech-a right given to them by the 2010 Citizens United ruling. Early this year, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 100 year-old law that bans corporate money in state politics.

The corporations responded by suing the state of Montana to overturn the law. A lower court agreed with them, saying Citizens United trumped the state law. But, as Care2 reported in February, “American Tradition, a conservative interest group dedicated to fighting ‘the radical environmentalist agenda,’ originally petitioned the court to reverse the Montana Supreme Court ruling without additional briefing or argument. Thankfully, SCOTUS did not comply, but merely put a hold on the petition until American Tradition could present a more complete request for the court’s review.”

The incident raises an important question for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider: “Whether Montana is bound by the holding of Citizens United, that a ban on corporate independent political expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment, when the ban applies to state, rather than federal, elections.”

<snip>

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/finally-supreme-court-will-reconsider-citizens-united.html#ixzz1reKgcH7I

[global1]

1. The Damage Has Been Done With Citizens United......

surely if by some leap of fate that SCOTUS overturns Citizens United - it won't be in time to make a difference in the 2012 General Election. And if by some leap of fate that the Repugs win and come into power - any overturning of CU will benefit them going forward.

Was this all in the plan all along?

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. I have very little faith that the court will backtrack.

The court will extend the spending=speech ruling to the states.

[Chipper Chat]

4. It will be 5-4

Ho-hum

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I'd love to read the briefs before the Court does.

[onenote]

5. Not sure this story is correct.

Back in February, the Court stayed the effectiveness of the Montana law, with even Ginsburg and Breyer agreeing that was the proper result in deference to the decision in Citizens United. However, Ginsburg and Breyer went on to express the view that a grant of "certiorari" to hear the challenge to the Montana law would provide an opportunity to revisit the Citizens United case.

At that point, therefore, it appeared that the Court had the following options: it could grant the pending request by the opponents of the Montana law that the decision of the Montana court striking down that law be summarily reversed based on Citizens United. Or it could grant certiorari and direct the parties to brief and argue the case. It takes five votes on the court to summarily reverse the state court decision, which presumably is a number that can be reached if the five justices that voted for Citizens United stick to their guns. However, it only takes four votes to grant certiorari, and a grant of cert should trump the summary reversal vote. Therefore if the four dissenters in CU stick together, they can force the Court to hear full argument on the Montana case.

The article makes it sound like the latter decision has now been made. And maybe it has, but it certainly doesn't appear that way from the SCOTUS website, which does not show the Court taking any action in this case since it issued the stay order in February. Indeed, I don't believe the Court took any action yesterday, which is what the article in the OP suggests.

If someone has a link to the Court's cert ruling, that would help clear things up. Until I see it, I believe the matter remains unresolved.

[jillan]

6. Maybe they saw that it hurts Republicans too.

Just a thought

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Overturning it will hurt Unions, that's for sure.

Some have considerable resources to bear on an election campaign.

Maybe an 'aw shucks, they get to do it too?' moment.

[jillan]

12. No - not at all. Get all the money and interest groups out of politics.

Only then will government return being by the people, for the people.

[slampoet]

8. Playing politics. Didn't give a shit when they thought it would defeat democrats.

I have even less respect for them.

[yellowcanine]

9. The SCOTUS might say corporations are people only for national elections and not for state

elections. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

[uponit7771]

10. Yeap, like their 2000 Gore Vs Bush stoping the state counting of ballats

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. the Court isn't reconsidering, it is deciding if it is going to expand it