Justice Stevens, who last I check retired as an active Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, continues to dissent in a case decided nearly two years ago.

But Jus t i c e Al i to’ s r e a c t ion doe s pe r suade me tha t ln due cour s e i t wi l l be ne c e s s a ry for the Cour t to i s sue an opinion expl i c i t ly c r a f t ing an exc ept ion tha t wi l l c r e a t e a c r a ck ln the founda t ion of the Ci t i z ens Uni t ed ma jor i ty oplnlon. For hi s s t a t ement tha t i t i s “not t rue ” tha t for e ign ent i t i e s wi l l be among the bene f i c i a r i e s of Ci t i z ens uni t ed of f e r s good r e a son to pr edi c t the r e wi l l not be f ive vot e s for such a r e sul t when a c a s e a r i s e s tha t r equi r e s the Cour t to addr e s s the i s sue in a ful l opinion. And, i f so, the Cour t mus t then expl a in i t s abandonment of , or a t l e a s t qua l i fy i t s r e l i anc e upon, propos i t ion tha t the ident i ty of the spe ake r i s an impe rmi s s ibl e ba s i s for r egul a t ing c ampa ign spe e ch. I t wi l l be ne c e s s a ry to’ expl a in why the Fi r s t Amendment provide s gr e a t e r prot e c t ion to the c ampa ign spe e ch of some non-vot e r s than to tha t of othe r non-vot e r s .

…

Whi l e I r e cogni z e tha t the membe r s of the Supr eme Cour t ma jor i ty tha t de c ided Ci t i z ens Uni t ed di s agr e e wi th my judgment on thi s i s sue ! I think i t c l e a r – for a l l the r e a sons expl a ined in my Ci t i z ens Uni t ed di s s ent and e a r l i e r in thi s t a lk- tha t the i r di s agr e ement i s ba s ed not on some cont rol l ing rul e of l aw! but r a the r on the i r di f f e r ing vi ews about wha t rul e wi l l be s t s e rve the publ i c int e r e s t .

(I apologize for the bizarre spacing but the PDF has some serious formatting issues and I do not have time to clean it up).

JPS gives new meaning to the concept of the “perpetual dissent.”

Update: Doug Berman comments:

What is Justice Stevens up to?  It is hard to see how this speech is not timed to have some influence over the Court and what it will do in the Montana case.  Let’s put aside the propriety of the retired Justice speaking about this case (I leave that ethical question to others who know something about the subject—though I predict political hacks on the right will condemn Stevens for making this speech now and hacks on the left will defend him.)  But what’s the goal of the speech now?  To get the Court to set the Montana case for argument? To buck up the likely dissenters in the Montana case?  If it is to get the Citizens United majority to reconsider its opinion in Citizens United, it hardly seems likely to work.  His long dissent didn’t do it. What’s different now doctrinally? Bluman? I hardly think that will be enough to convince Justice Kennedy or the Chief Justice.  More public criticism?  There’s been plenty of that.