Today is set to be a busy day for SCOTUS from a news standpoint. I received an email this morning from Common Cause indicating that they have declined to hear the case from Montana about whether states have more leeway than the US in limiting outside campaign spending, effectively letting stand a lower court ruling invalidating the Montana law, thus no opportunity to deflate Citizens United. The C-SPAN Facebook feed indicated that parts of Arizona’s SB1070 (known to some as the “papers please” law) have been struck down while others left standing, but I couldn’t tell which was which. Of course the other anticipated decision is with respect to the Affordable Care Act for which there are a few questions the Court is addressing. SCOTUSblog appears to be set up for live blogging, but nothing significant there yet. Drop in the comments what you hear and let’s discuss!
The most controversial part of the Arizona Immigration Law was…
But what are the headlines???
MSNBC – High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law
Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law – NYTimes.com
Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Immigration Law – WSJ
Supreme Court strikes down part of Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants – Chicago Tribune
Let’s agree that this was a “win” for the Arizona Governor and any supporters of the law. The other pieces can be handled in other ways.
And before you guys get into the politicizing of the SCOTUS or “they made another mistake”… the SCOTUS voted unanimously on this decision.
Nope. This is largely a rebuke of the AZ law. Major parts were held preempted by federal law, including every single effort on AZ’s part to create its own enforcement mechanisms. States now cannot create their own immigration-related crimes (e.g., applying or working in-state without legal status), or even enforce federal immigration law on their own (e.g., being in the US illegally). Yes, the “papers please” bit was upheld – for now. But the only issue in this case was the technical one of whether the state law is preempted by federal law. Nothing about racial profiling, discriminatory enforcement, or anything else like that was before the Court. That’s why it was partially unanimous. Your friends Scalia etc. dissented on the preemption rulings, but they lost.
I think it’s a win, didn’t everything they wanted but I think it’s a great start. Watch for other states to adopt similar laws regarding illegal aliens.
Um … they can’t. Other states could adopt laws similar to the one provision that survived, which has to do with people already stopped for another offense being asked to prove their immigration status. But everything else is off the table.
Of course I mean regarding the immigration status. We in MA will at least be following the “safe Communities” program but this will only net the Illegals with criminal records, which I think Elizabeth Warren supports (read her website on “Vibrant and Safe Communities” But correct me if I’m wrong.
We have five unelected diktats-for-life writing the law of our country. It’s a “win” for everyone who despises democracy.
“Papers please” upheld on the technical grounds that it could be construed to support federal enforcement, but it appears the racial profiling aspects were not ruled upon. In fact the Court noted that other challenges on that aspect could go forward. (There’s your spin, johnd, and yes profiling is a concern. You have this nasty habit of assuming that we will withdraw our opinions because a poll, or the Court, or Congress, or whomever said otherwise; we do have the right to dissent in this country.)
They struck down mandatory life without parole for teens convicted of murder.
A fuller report on the Montana decision is here.
Also, I heard on the news today that a health care decision is now expected Thursday. Is SCOTUS acting like a TV series, deliberately heightening the anticipation so we will “stay tuned”?
The description in your post is incorrect. The Court granted review in the Montana case and summarily (i.e., without briefing or oral argument) reversed the Montana Supreme Court ruling. The Montana court had allowed the state law to go forward despite Citizens United; the Court’s action today holds that Citizens United controls at the state level. Not surprising at all, though disappointing.
As for holding the health care cases until Thursday, that is totally unsurprising to anyone who follows the Court regularly. It’s the folks who are paying attention to the Court for the first time who are surprised by the way the decisions come down. This is how they’ve done it for decades.
and according to you a big setback for Arizona and xenophobe’s everywhere.
So… why isn’t the issue on the front page of BMG? if it’s such a victory (your words – “This is largely a rebuke of the AZ law”) then why are you headlining it?
BTW, will you also say the SCOTUS finding the ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional but leaving everything else in place… a victory? Certainly people must be planning the “spin” on that decision.
Because, frankly, I have better things to do than worry about what happened to a bad law drafted by crazy Arizona legislators and signed by Arizona’s joke of a governor.
my bad.
Let me play… “its’s so annoying… I had jury duty last week and they demanded I show my license, WTF?”
What’s next, requiring IDs when you fly!
The brevity of the unsigned (“Per Curiam”) opinion for the majority overruling the Montana Supreme Court suggested that the five Justices who jointed in Citizens United were totally unmoved by a stack of friend-of-court briefs urging the Court to reconsider that decision in the wake of the flood of money going into races this year, especially for the presidency and for seats in Congress. The whole of the majority’s reasoning was contained in these three sentences:
“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does…Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.”
Those final words were an indication that this year’s spending patterns, often by supposedly “independent” groups known as “Super PACs,” did not justify reopening the decision that allows unlimited independent spending by corporations and labor unions. Since that decision, a lower court has interpreted it to mean that unlimited contributions can be made to independent spending groups.
when you only ask brown people for their papers.
…when you ask for anyone’s papers just ’cause. Jury duty and flying are very specific situations, the former you need to be a citizen and the latter you do with the understanding that security is in place. I don’t carry on my person anything that confirms my citizenship on a routine basis, do you?
When people are stopped for any legal reason, I hope the Arizona Police determine everyone’s status. I hope they find lots of people who are here illegally and bounce them. Over time, many of them will leave which I also think is great. Lastly, maybe this type of action will make the Federal Government address illegals being here and reform our immigration policy, increase Green cards, increasing immigration limits, increase fines on companies hiring illegal aliens… once and for all.
Of all the problems facing America, illegal immigration is near the bottom. I’m not sure what motivates your animus against illegal immigrants.
It is interesting that I can give unlimited amounts of money to a PAC for a particular candidate, yet to vote for that candidate the right expects me to prove my citizenship.
Down the rabbit hole…
It is interesting that I can anonymously give unlimited amounts of money to a PAC for a particular candidate, yet to vote for that candidate the right expects me to prove my citizenship.
Down the rabbit hole…
All.
I guess that not ALL agree, since the GOP blocked the 2010 Disclose Act that would have required that. More important, locally, is that Scott Brown voted to kill it.
He just says that so he can further infect the big scary “narrative” of biblical proportions that he believes the liberals have constructed to deprive him of his liberties.
Do you agree with Obama keeping Gitmo prison open? Did you agree with Obama signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Do you both agree that it’s possible to be a loyal party member and still disagree with some of their positions… or are you droids? I already elaborated on Citizen’s United which I think was a mistake (and have told my party leaders and I told Congressman McGovern on Saturday night), but I think we should take ALL money out of politics, corporate and union.
When you wrote “We agree, all contributions should be identified with a donor name … all”, I thought you meant “all of us”.
I vigorously oppose Barack Obama’s decision to keep GITMO open. I also vigorously oppose his decision to not prosecute the war crimes of the prior administration (not to mention the illegal politicization of the Justice department). I therefore find it striking that the GOP response is to go after Eric Holder, again trying to manufacture scandal where none exists. Again and again, Barack Obama strives to create cooperation and avoid conflict — again and again the GOP does just the opposite.
I think that Barack Obama was forced to extend the Bush tax cuts by absolutely intractable GOP opposition. I think the GOP has done everything in its power to destroy the presidency of Barack Obama, and has therefore opposed EVERYTHING President Obama has supported while offering NO remotely reasonable alternatives.
President Obama tried to propose alternatives to the Bush tax cuts, and was rejected. The GOP offered NO alternative to the DISCLOSE act. I therefore view the extension of the Bush tax cuts differently from blocking DISCLOSE.
But I’m calling you a liar. Clear?
I’m married to an Austrian. Her parents and older siblings lived through WWII. For my wife and her family, allowing police to arbitrarily stop people on the street and say “papers please” is rightly terrifying.
Those who love freedom should be appalled and nauseated by this decision.
These people just want a better life. Personally, I’d prefer to make legal immigration so easy that illegal immigration is almost a moot point. We need to keep out anyone dangerous, but otherwise my attitude is come on in – the Golden Door is wide open! If you are stopped how will you prove your citizenship? Like I said, I can’t as a routine matter; most of us can’t. The law says you can “only” be asked if there is other “lawful contact”, but what does that mean? Combine “papers please” with NYC-style “stop and frisk” and you’ve got yourself quite the police state! Both of those laws really can only work by inviting and encouraging racial profiling.
I want people to follow the rules. How many should be allowed in… 10 million, 100 million, 2 billion… be real.
No conditions at all like having a desired skill? Can people just come in, have their kids educated k-12 and nana and gramps goes on Obamacare? Any and all, right, come on in???? Utterly amazing.
I wonder what “desired skills” the English convicts and indentured servants had who were sent to Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia. Educating kids on the public dime — oh the horror — was invented here in Massachusetts.
It seems that danfromwaltham has, perhaps inadvertently, discovered the kernel truth that makes America unique and great.
Laboratory of uncontrolled borders. As Mitt would say, nice try.
…that there must be a constitutional amendment to reverse the effects of Citizens United and related case law. I have previously indicated understanding behind the reasoning SCOTUS used in that case, but it is now clear how it is negatively impacting our ability to be a true democratic republic. Rachel Maddow also reported tonight that just as corporate rules are getting looser, union rules are getting tighter courtesy of SCOTUS (ie Unions have to get members’ permission to use money for political purposes whereas corporations do not need to likewise get shareholders’ permission.)
The amendment process should not allow itself to get into the weeds though about what money is regulated and how. An amendment should simply state: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit Congress and the several states from regulating the sources, amounts, or recipents of money exchanged with the intent of influencing the outcome of an election.”
never will happen.
…that is at least unwelcoming and contrary to the American way, IMO, if not quite as strong as hate. Your comments come across as xenophobic.
As for the amendment, how would you do it? You’ve said you think candidates should just be given equal financing, which is fine, but that still doesn’t prevent outside groups from playing. We need to force Congress to act which may involve engaging state legislatures.
Most of the people I “hate” are white Americans for what it’s worth.
The majority of the people I deal with everyday in my business world who are immigrants or green card holders and they are some of the brightest people I have ever met. For the record, I want tight immigration controls on illegals from every country from Mexico, to Ireland, to Russia and the Far East. I want more immigrants as long as they follow our rules and laws.
I have had a lot of respect for you and your opinions over the years, even though we usually disagree but I don’t understand your anger towards me or your recent assertions. Don’t go ugly just because we disagree. I don’t see us changing our sides so it will continue, whether Romney wins, ObamaCare is defeated, Scott Brown wins, Pension reform finally nappens, unions are finally brought under control…
I’m still trying to understand why you seem so passionate about illegal immigration. Perhaps the impression of xenophobia arises from your reluctance to share what problems you think illegal immigration creates — especially here in Massachusetts.
Like the voter ID fiasco, this seems to be an issue that the GOP (and you) elevate out of proportion to its alleged harm.
We all saw the video of the white guy who walked into a polling station in DC during the Republican primary and said he was Eric Holder. The poll person offered him a ballot!! No alarm bells? Really?
When I am required to show ID when purchasing children’s flu medicine at Shaws, then people can show ID when voting for the leader of the free world.
I dislike Illegals being here because it goes against my ideas on law and order, maybe more the “order”. When people stand outside Best Buy for 8 hours at Christmas waiting for the “deals” and gate crashers run in to the store first, I want those gate crashers either beaten or arrested. When we have volunteers clean up our town and then have a cookout for those volunteers, it pisses me off when people show up for free hot dogs who “didn’t” clean the town. I want order and illegal immigration is not orderly. You and others here can hang xenophobe and/or racist around my neck but issue is the law breakers who come here. I will be happy to welcome Mexicans, Cubans, Russians, Irish… and people from everywhere who follow the rules for legal immigration.
AS for voter ID, we are well past the time in our country where the Ward Clerks knew everyone voting. If you want to vote you should show your ID. There is nothing racist about it. We have to prove who we are for almost everything else in our lives, why not voting? I want every person who can legally vote to vote. For those making mistakes like forgetting their ID, then vote with a provisional ballot. It will still count if the voter is legal.
(Of course I can easily imagine a white person named Eric Holder.)
I think the concern about voter ID is that about 11% according to Brennan Center studies do not have an ID that would be good for this. Also, anything that would require one to pay for an ID specifically for voting can easily be construed as a poll tax and thus unconstitutional. I’m personally more comfortable with ID than many here, but now it’s too late, IMO to enact such legislation to apply this year. Another option is to have onsite facial recognition which verifies identity without requiring the physical carrying of ID.
Proposing this solution will freak out the “libertarian” wing of the Show ID to Vote folks, and it’ll prove that their policy has nothing to do with “voting integrity” and everything to do with “Make sure less Dems vote”.