dirty filthy money

Wonkette Bookmaker: Will Supreme Court Overturn ‘Citizens United’ With ‘Citizens United First Blood Part 2′?

Six dudes and three hot babesHOT NEWS, HOT NEWS! The Supreme Court is hearing a Montana case with direct bearing on its infamous decision in Citizens United, which may have done more to scar the Court’s reputation than anything besides Bush v. Play-Acting Dilettante. Their biggest detractor? “Straight-Talk” John McCain, just cold threatening the Supreme Court’s lives and such, with such terrrrrible thuggery as the following:

“What the Supreme Court did is a combination of arrogance, naivete and stupidity the likes of which I have never seen,” McCain said. “I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.”

Will someone fetch our smelling salts? We are fairly sure that kind of potty talk is not allowed around the great and inerrant Court.

But even some among the robed think the Court is errant (don’t worry John Roberts will send them to Gitmo), and are hoping that hearing the Montana case — a total ban on corporate money affirmed by their state Supreme Court after Citizens United — will give them a chance to revisit the matter.

In March, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer argued the Montana case would give the Supreme Court a chance to rethink Citizens United.

“A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway,” the statement said.

OK enough “information” for all you low-info voters. Now vote!

[UPI]

Related

About the author

Rebecca is the editor and publisher of Wonkette. She is the author of Commie Girl in the O.C., a collection of her OC Weekly columns, and the former editor of LA CityBeat. Go visit her Commie Girl Collective, and follow her on the Twitter!

View all articles by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

159 comments

  1. Barb

    To overturn it would be the right thing to do. My vote is that they won't do it. Clarence Thomas will have his usual conservation of words about this case.

    1. Terry

      Old Clarence can't afford to be talkative until he hears how he should think from the folks who pay his wife.

    2. DemmeFatale

      OT, but I just had to tell you, (cause I knew you'd care).
      I just got another rescue dog yesterday!!
      "Casey," is a silver poodle mix. My little Passover/Easter miracle!
      Pulled from a high-kill shelter in the nick of time.

      (I thought I was a crazy dog-lady until I met Lindsey. About 15 dogs everywhere, cats on the roof and 2 goats in a "time out" cage, for messing up the house(!))

      1. Barb

        Demme, that is such wonderful news! I am proud of you for taking in an animal who really needs you and not going to a puppy mill. I'm can't wait to see pictures of your new baby.

    3. tessiee

      Really, how do they get that scuzzy pig to do anything whatsoever at work, assuming he even does? If he has to go more than 15 minutes without pron, doesn't he get bored and go home and watch pron?

    1. banana_bread

      I automatically went to vote "no" and then had a pretty good guffaw when I actually read the choices.

      1. Texan_Bulldog

        I was thinking more along these lines.

        Q: Does Obama hate America?

        ___Yes
        ___Yes

    2. Gleem McShineys

      I had to pick the second "no" as it was obviously the True Conservative "no," unlike the first "no" that is totally a NINO.

  2. PuckStopsHere

    I didn't know Walnuts was from Chicago. He sure talks like one of those political machine thugs.

    1. flamingpdog

      Speaking of Chicago, I've already voted four times at the poll at the top of the page.

  3. nounverb911

    “I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.”
    Walnuts, you and your fellow Keating 5ers can speak from experience.

  4. hagajim

    Problem for Walnuts is that the Supreme's are supremely arrogant assholes. If you think there is a snowballs chance in hell of a reversal, just remember old Sammy Alito flat-out dissing Barry during the SOTU address. They will reaffirm and even strengthen the ruling…on a 5-4 vote.

      1. NewtsChicknNeck

        Fat Tony the Fascist is going to live to be 142. he's eye-talian for chrissakes.

    1. James Michael Curley

      "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." is the statement Obama made that had Scalia Lite shaking his head and mumbling. I think it also shows the depth of which the Obama administration reviews these issues. The Montana case was cooking when Citizens United was decided.

    2. tessiee

      "They will reaffirm and even strengthen the ruling…on a 5-4 vote."

      So we're all in for Citizens Even More United-er.

  5. Bezoar

    To paraphrase Mark Twain: "There's nothing wrong with our Supreme Court; we have the best Supreme Court money can buy!"

      1. Limeylizzie

        Someone has bested me.Published in 1988,ThePeter Lawford Story: Life With the Kennedys,Monroeand the Rat Packchronicles the life of the low-magnitude movie star, Kennedy in-law and sometime Rat Packer. Among his many acquaintances was young Nancy Davis. Just how well they were acquainted Patricia didn't know until after Reagan was elected president. The Widow Lawford recalls, “Peter was watching the news right after Reagan was elected. He went over to the set, laughing and calling Mrs. Reagan a vulgar name. I was shocked and wanted to know what was bothering him. He laughed again and said that when she was single, Nancy Davis was known for giving the best head inHollywood. Then Peter told of driving to the Phoenix area with Nancy andBob Walker[whom Lawford claims was her lover at the time]. Nancy would visit her parents, Dr. andMrs. Loyal Davis, while Peter and Walker picked up girls atArizona State University in Tempe, a Phoenix suburb. He claimed that she entertained them orally on those trips, apparently playing with whichever man was not driving at the moment. I have no idea if Peter was telling the truth, though I have to assume he was because Peter was not one to gossip.”

        1. tessiee

          "He laughed again and said that when she was single, Nancy Davis was known for giving the best head inHollywood."

          But will the bitch write a how-to book? Nooooooooo!

    1. Lascauxcaveman

      If it happens, there's gonna be a long line at your door, Liz; that's for cert.

      1. Limeylizzie

        I read that as 'I'll bang the grapes”. I had visions of you popping them out of your vagina like a porn star and ping-pong balls!

        1. Steverino247

          I may have to change my travel plans in early July. Perhaps some afternoon delight…

  6. yrbmegr

    Will the Supreme Court overturn Citizens United? Have you never heard of stare decisis? The Roberts Court just invented it after rendering the Citizens United opinion.

    1. BerkeleyBear

      Your lips to my fan/fic about the Supremes. It brings a new meaning to the term "slash fiction."

      It is pure fantasy, of course. But if trite bs like "50 Shades of Gray" is worth 7 figures, I gotta think there's an audience for BDSM forcibly carried out on certain men in black robes.

    1. tessiee

      Please, the fucking Cato Institute, or the fucking Heritage Foundation, or fucking Fox News, or some fucking diddly-poop Jeebus "college" would bankroll them for the next thousand years. Those assholes all have more money than they know what to do with.

  7. banana_bread

    The Supremes: Infallible like a 9-headed Pope, only evil (because their robes are black).

    1. Lascauxcaveman

      I voted NO about a half an hour ago to bring it within one percentage point, but since then, "No" has really pulled ahead in a late surge. Damn!

          1. Biel_ze_Bubba

            We do have quite a few of those, err, hanging around.

            Also, there is no "Saint Chad". Just saying.

  8. rocktonsam

    "a combination of arrogance,naivete and stupidity the like of which I have never seen."

    except in the mirror jerkass

    1. Biel_ze_Bubba

      Jeez … you'd think he'd have gotten to know Palin at some point during the campaign.

  9. donner_froh

    “What the Supreme Court did is a combination of arrogance, naivete and stupidity the likes of which I have never seen, since the last time I spoke with that odd woman who Bill Kristol stuck me with as Vice-President” McCain said.

    1. Biel_ze_Bubba

      "You can have my bag of cash when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."

      -Any Republican, in private.

  10. Monsieur_Grumpe

    I object to using the word "rethink" when referring to the SC. This infers that there was some thinking behind this decision the first time around.

  11. MissTaken

    I was going to buy the Thomas Kinkade of Six Dudes and Three Hot Babes but decided to go with the Codpiece on an Aircraft Carrier instead.

  12. MissTaken

    "No" is currently ahead of "No" by 18 to 17. This is well within the margin of error.

  13. Not_So_Much

    What's in it Antonin and Clarence? They've become to a certain level of comfort, if ya know what I mean.

  14. flamingpdog

    I voted no. Does that mean I'm in the minority or in the majority? Statistics are hard!

  15. DrunkIrishman

    If it happens, it'll be because Kennedy somehow grows a pair and actually stands up for something right for once.

    1. NewtsChicknNeck

      he was on the right side of planned parenthood v. casey–which if legend is believed the righties had the votes to overturn roe v. wade at conference, but kennedy flip-flopped on them leading to a scene straight out of grumpy old men starring antonin as the belligerent, pissed off italian one.

      of course, since then 3 more vago-americans have been put on the court and kennedy's afraid of consorting with the ladies. again, i guess the flip-flop proves your point. kennedy's got no nuts…and scalia will treat him like a prison wife if he doesn't get his way.

    2. Lascauxcaveman

      Kennedy is just protecting his pwecious, pwecious Libertarian values, so prized by rich people.

    1. NewtsChicknNeck

      If anything, it continues to make me feel sorry for him and his naivete, continuing on a theme that began with "Game Change."

  16. James Michael Curley

    SCOTUS is painting itself into a corner and Darth Bader Ginsberg is holding the bucket.

  17. Rotundo_

    Unless a couple of them decide to retire *and* Obama wins *and* the dems maintain controll of the senate *and* get the house back, we pretty much know where this is going. *And* Unicorns do not exist, poop marshmellows and fart cotton candy smell.

    1. Negropolis

      Yes, yes…retire…

      BTW, Obama needs the Congress for other things, but he wouldn't need it to get on a left-leaning justice. The only thing the make-up of the Congress matters for the Supreme court is the difference between getting a flaming liberal or conservative on the court, or having to settle for a moderate. But simply by virtue of being the president, you get your pick, if even he or she is your fourth of fifth on the list.

        1. Negropolis

          A Democratic or Republican Senate, no Senate would not give a president a Supreme Court nominee, if even said president had to go through a few candidates. I'm just saying, realistically, no Supreme Court seat is going to go unfilled for an entire presidency. That's not to say that the Senate isn't important, at all, for nominations, but rather that it's far more important for other things and we need to keep it…and we will.

    1. HistoriCat

      Actually, that's probably the most compelling evidence that they might overturn Citizens United. After all, no one likes Mitt Romney.

    1. Negropolis

      Oh, they sure as hell do forsee the consequences of their actions. It's not a bug; it's a feature.

  18. Lucidamente1

    Well, since it prolonged the Republican primary, they will have to introduce some tweaks.

  19. WhatTheHeck

    There are 10 Commandments
    12 Disciples
    and 9 Justices.

    They sure are an odd bunch.

  20. sbj1964

    The Court has become out of touch with reality They are now bought,and paid for by the GOP.

  21. Callyson

    Oh come on–give us some real choices in that poll. Like "Hell no" or "Are you fucking kidding me?"

  22. Chet Kincaid

    McCain said that?! If Megs or Cindy ever get a speeding ticket, they're going to have come up with a 12 page, single-spaced brief on Judicial Review!!

    1. flamingpdog

      If Megs or Cindy ever get a speeding ticket it'll only be because they spent too much time out in the sun and forget to bring along their driver's license to show their true color.

  23. pdiddycornchips

    All of this corporate fellatio over the last decade has turned out so well, why stop now?

  24. Slim_Pickins

    I think Justice Thomas follows Ben Franklin's dictum "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

    1. tessiee

      It may be a nice sentiment, but in Thomas' case, there can't possibly be a shred of doubt left anywhere.

  25. CivicHoliday

    Citizens United will be overturned with Rick Santorum becomes a Wiccan, Michele Bachmann is knighted and Dubya goes to jail for war crimes.

  26. Panty_Buns

    Strange that John McCain would open his pie hole about the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision authorizing corporate purchase of politicians so close to April 9th, the25th ANNIVERSARY of the "Keating Five meeting since McCain took big bucks from Charles Keating to help him get away with looting the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Does anyone seriously believe that the Supreme Kangaroo Court gives a crap about anything other than increasing government power and justifying torture, humiliation and perversions? Recently it made news that "Supreme Court Says Jails Can Strip Search You – Even for Traffic Violations". Surprise surprise surprise. Clarence Thomas probably wants videos of it to send to Anita Hill. Scalia had already argued that torture is not "Cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment because questions are being asked so he figures it's reasonable questioning methods. The private prison industry is big business and therefore has the right to bribe Congressmen. Of course Rebecca, that kind of McCain potty mouth is "not allowed around the great inerrant Court" – only discussions about whether there are pubic hairs on one's Coke can, Long Dong Silver, and how to keep us, the peasantry, groveling and thanking them for getting reamed. That's why the Washington Monument reminds so many of the Washington Shaft. Ouch. Do I think the not very Supreme Court will overturn part of it's Citizen's United ruling ruling using the Montana case "American Tradition Partnership, et al., vs. Bullock, et al." ? Well, pigs do fly, but we'll stil get crapped on.

  27. Negropolis

    Rebecca,

    So what you are saying is that John McCain is going to crash "land" a jet fighter in the chambers?

  28. Negropolis

    In March, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer argued the Montana case would give the Supreme Court a chance to rethink Citizens United.

    “A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway,” the statement said.

    Oh, bless their hearts. That's adorable that they think their bought-and-paid for court will rule against themselves.

    BTW, as of my vote No vs. No are in a tight race with No leading No 52/48!

  29. lulzmonger

    If you ask me, I think America should've stuck with the old Regular High-Octane Court: the decisions would still suck, but at least you'd be paying 10% less for them.

  30. ttommyunger

    Oh please, Walnuts! Some of are old enough to remember when you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar up to your fucking elbow. Can someone say "S&L" Scandal?

    1. Chichikovovich

      S&L scandal? For a moment I thought I remembered it. That there was some S&L called Silverado involving the brother of a recent Republican president and son of another recent Republican president. Cost taxpayers 1.3 billion, brother found to have engaged in multiple breaches of fiduciary duty. Never charged. Fined a piddling $50,000 in a civil action, and the Republicans set up a fundraiser for him to pay it. But then I realized it must have been a dream, because there have been no recent Republican presidents. We'd be hearing about them if there had been.

Comments are closed.