Montana Says "Fuck Citizen's United"

[Vene]

Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.

www.alternet.org/story/153623/montana_high_court_says_%27citizens_united%27_does_not_apply_in_big_sky_state?page=entire

Only one judge dissented, on the basis that the Supreme Court says otherwise not on the basis that the Supreme Court made the right call as he most definitely disagrees with it.

[N. De Plume]

Yay, Montanna!

[cestlefun17]

While I disagree with Citizens United, I also disagree with both the majority and dissenting opinions in the Montana case. The Montana Supreme Court is bound by all relevant United States Supreme Court rulings and cannot cherry-pick which ones it wants to follow. The one judge's dissenting opinion was also completely inappropriate as courts are not supposed to issue advisory decisions. The judge's personal opinions of the Citizens United case are completely irrelevant.

As Montana is bound by Amendment I to the United States Constitution (and all the legally binding interpretations thereof) through Amendment XIV, this ruling will not stand.

[erictheblue]

Jan 3, 2012 11:51:20 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

While I disagree with Citizens United, I also disagree with both the majority and dissenting opinions in the Montana case. The Montana Supreme Court is bound by all relevant United States Supreme Court rulings and cannot cherry-pick which ones it wants to follow.

Actually, no. When interpreting state law, state courts can (and do) go against what the USSC says. (If the USSC decision directly addresses the state law, they have to follow the USSC, but if the state law has aspects that were not at issue in the USSC holding, the state court can interpret those aspects per their own precedent.) State law cannot conflict with federal law, of course, but state law can go farther. (This is the reason why some states can outlaw capital punishment, even though the USSC has said the DP is OK.)

[ironbite]

I believe that calls for an OH SNAP gif.

[cestlefun17]

Actually, no. When interpreting state law, state courts can (and do) go against what the USSC says. (If the USSC decision directly addresses the state law, they have to follow the USSC, but if the state law has aspects that were not at issue in the USSC holding, the state court can interpret those aspects per their own precedent.) State law cannot conflict with federal law, of course, but state law can go farther. (This is the reason why some states can outlaw capital punishment, even though the USSC has said the DP is OK.)

Thank you for clarifying. But does the state law conflict with the the USSC ruling or not? I did say that the Montana Supreme Court was bound by all relevant Supreme Court cases, and as the 1st Amendment applies to the states via the 14th, it isn't purely a federal matter.

It seems like Montana wants to restrict corporate speech when the Supreme Court has ruled against that. The state decision isn't going farther, giving greater 1st Amendment protections, but rather being more restrictive of the 1st Amendment by saying that Citizens United went too far basically. I didn't think this was allowed.

[Wykked Wytch]

Jan 3, 2012 20:41:56 GMT -5 ironbite said:

I believe that calls for an OH SNAP gif.

[Smurfette Principle]

NAKED VAMPIRE SANTA

[Art Vandelay]

Jan 3, 2012 20:22:54 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

(This is the reason why some states can outlaw capital punishment, even though the USSC has said the DP is OK.)

That's right people, the United States Supreme Court as rules that double penetration is a-ok.

[kristine]

Jan 3, 2012 20:41:56 GMT -5 ironbite said:

I believe that calls for an OH SNAP gif.