Why the Montana Decision shows that the Court is Corrupt, not merely mistaken.
The Supreme Court Doubles Down by Ignoring the facts
I actually don't have that much trouble with the police checking folks immigration status when they arrest someone, so I don't have much trouble with the Arizona decision that allows the law to mandate a check of immigration status. What I do have trouble with is the corrupt reaffirmation of the corrupt Citizens United decision. Presented with clear evidence that, in actual fact, the power of corporations to use money to quash the speech of everyone else is a corrupt exercise of the power to bribe, corruptly influence, intimidate, and oppress, the supreme court reaffirmed its decision in the Citizens United by striking down Montana's law -- which had been created to stop the takeover of the state by Mining companies over 100 years ago.
The minority kept their dissent short because they knew that the corrupt majority was dead set on continuing their perjury. The dissent notes:
"In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court’s hold-ing for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens’ dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much thesame way as direct contributions.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at67–68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a “substantial body of evidence” suggesting that “[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements.” Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 64–65)."
The Montana law clearly demonstrates that this is a lie. When the Supreme Court represented that "independent expenditures...do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" -- the Montana law clearly demonstrates that that statement was perjury and misuse of their office -- because it is clearly not true.
"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, thatcourt concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36–37, 363 Mont. 220, 235–236, 271 P. 3d 1,"
The fact that the court rejected the case demonstrates the court is corrupt. Only corrupt justices refuse to listen to facts and assert lies in their place. The facts and history of the 100 year old Montana law clearly demonstrate that they lied when they wrote those words quoted above. Their rejection of Montana's law is primae fascae proof that they are dishonest corrupt partisans who will perjure themselves rather than tell the truth; that all the rights and privileges of a corporation come from their role as private governance institutions designed to advance the agenda of their investors, and so any "free speech" rights of corporations derive from the rights of their stakeholders. Corporations, because they are organized for the "private, separate advantage" of their investors and senior officers -- when they exercise any kind of power they are tyrannies by John Locke's definition. And this court is an instrument of tyranny.
Justice Breyer writes for the minority:
"36–37. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so. Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant thepetition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition."
The reality is that the only thing that bothers me about the Arizona decision, is that the corrupt and arrogant Justice Scalia chose to talk about the President's pardon of children of illegal immigrants in his decision. It shows how much these folks think they are a committee of Kings. I believe that these judges have presented grounds for impeachment. Certainly if they made such bald faced statements as liberals the Republicans would be impeaching them by now.
- Montana history supports court's anti-corruption ruling
- Originally published June 26, 2012, updated 8/22/2015 with a cute little graphics and some minor formatting updates