It's possible SCOTUS will agree that their ruling doesn't apply to Montana's law, for the reasons Montana says it does.
It's possible they'll decline to hear it as a state matter.
It's possible they'll reverse themselves.
It's possible they'll overrule the Montana court, and in the process further enrage the majority of the US who are currently supporting a constitutional amendment overriding the original decision.
But all of those will take LONGER than the current election cycle.
As I understand it, because of the way the SCOTUS originally ruled, if they uphold their ruling they have to say "yes, we really are that dumb, and the ways in which we are dumb is this, that, and the other".
You know, USUALLY I dislike groups who say the Supreme court does not apply to them... This time it is on a ruling I support though damnit, and I Still think they should abide by the SCOTUS, and work to fix the SCOTUS...
"Groups" is one thing. It's actually the case that in some circumstances, what the Supreme Court says doesn't apply the same way to states, because they have their own courts and authorities (and constitutions).
That said, without knowing the facts of the case, I know the First Amendment has in fact been incorporated to apply fully against the states, which instinctively would tell me that what the Supreme Court says about it applies to the states too, and Montana can't opt out.
Objection the first: The First only applies to the states because the Fourteenth says so. It's not inherent to the First.
Objection the second: "the Citizens United ruling did not remove all bans on corporate speech, the Montana Court said. 'The Supreme Court held that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.'"
The Montana court maintains that their state law limiting corporate spending meets both those tests.
Objection the First: That's what I meant by "incorporated."
Objection the Second: Like I said, I didn't read it, and was only going by the idea that basically, the Montana SC would have to show that it satisfies the USSC's tests.
Dred Scott is a different kind of stupid (maybe). The anti-slavery justices insisted on hearing a case that they could not get a majority on, and they should have known that. On the other hand, it solidified positions -- people against slavery but opposed to taking any action suddenly found their status quo untenable.
I don't think the anti-slavery justices were thinking that far ahead, but I wouldn't bet money on it without further reading.
Thing is, the decision in that case went *way* beyond the issues at hand. The majority didn't *just* address Dred Scott, it also established that under no circumstances could any non-white man ever be considered a citizen.
Thing is, the decision in that case went *way* beyond the issues at hand.
Yup, and the anti-slavery justices should have known that was going to happen -- it's not like the pro-slavery justices were subtle about their views.
And as I said before, it's possible that the anti-slavery justices got the result they wanted. The Dred Scott decision cut off a lot possible compromises on slavery.
Taney explicitly stated that it was his intention to end the slavery question once and for all. He thought the decision would bring peace -- so while he was thinking far ahead, he was thinking incorrectly. And just reading that decision still makes my blood boil. They settled it all right, and cracked the nation right in two.
Thanks. I think the nation would be split in two regardless though -- if not Dred Scott, then another event would have solidified everyone's positions.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 12:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 12:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 12:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 03:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 01:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 01:08 am (UTC)It's possible they'll decline to hear it as a state matter.
It's possible they'll reverse themselves.
It's possible they'll overrule the Montana court, and in the process further enrage the majority of the US who are currently supporting a constitutional amendment overriding the original decision.
But all of those will take LONGER than the current election cycle.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 05:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 01:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 02:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 05:06 am (UTC)That said, without knowing the facts of the case, I know the First Amendment has in fact been incorporated to apply fully against the states, which instinctively would tell me that what the Supreme Court says about it applies to the states too, and Montana can't opt out.
But I haven't read the case.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 05:23 am (UTC)Objection the first: The First only applies to the states because the Fourteenth says so. It's not inherent to the First.
Objection the second: "the Citizens United ruling did not remove all bans on corporate speech, the Montana Court said. 'The Supreme Court held that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.'"
The Montana court maintains that their state law limiting corporate spending meets both those tests.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 05:50 am (UTC)Objection the Second: Like I said, I didn't read it, and was only going by the idea that basically, the Montana SC would have to show that it satisfies the USSC's tests.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 05:58 am (UTC)(I think Dredd Scott was worse, personally.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 06:02 am (UTC)Citizens United got protests, screaming, and words.
Dred Scott got a war.
(I simplify because I just don't care that much. *grin*)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 06:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 05:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 03:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 03:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-08 07:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 12:53 am (UTC)I don't think the anti-slavery justices were thinking that far ahead, but I wouldn't bet money on it without further reading.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 12:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 01:31 am (UTC)Yup, and the anti-slavery justices should have known that was going to happen -- it's not like the pro-slavery justices were subtle about their views.
And as I said before, it's possible that the anti-slavery justices got the result they wanted. The Dred Scott decision cut off a lot possible compromises on slavery.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 05:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-01-09 06:56 pm (UTC)