FARK.com: (7180419) Will The Supreme Court be considered racist or too conservative this week? Fark Healthcare/Immigration Supreme Court discussion thread

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Will The Supreme Court be considered racist or too conservative this week? Fark Healthcare/Immigration Supreme Court discussion thread (washingtonpost.com)		216
		More: Interesting, supreme courts, President Obama, workplace discrimination, federalisms, discrimination law

• • •

681 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2012 at 10:21 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7180419

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

216 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

midigod		2012-06-25 11:25:32 AM

scarmig: o, if I walk up to a roulette table and put down my money and lose, I have no right to complain, because I chose to play. But I refuse to play and *still* lose money, then I have pretty good reasons to complain, I think.

You have no right to complain; your analogy is faulty. You're still playing, whether you like it or not, because the outcome still affects you. To make it more binding, think of going to the table and letting the other players decide where your bet goes. If you don't like the outcome, you've been an idiot and a rube.

Teiritzamna		2012-06-25 11:26:02 AM

Craptastic: CPennypacker: Its a disgrace how partisan this court is. I understand that there will be splid decisions, but those decisions should be base on the pure constitutional interpretation of what is being decided, and the splits should be random. The fact that the same clowns split to the same side on every ruling is a dead giveaway. Really a shame. You would think being appointed for life would be enough to remove at least some partisan influence. What else can we do?

That's part of the reason David Souter retired. He ruled according to his interpretation of the constitution, and not because of political pressure from any party. That's also why conservatives hated him.

Well to be fair, most of them aren't partisan so much as they are grossly ideological. Judges and academics at their level dont have a black and white political morality so much as one that is blue and orange. While the big judicial ideologies tend to track with the major parties on some levels, they also diverge in crazy pants ways. See Scalia on the 4th amendment. But i would agree completely that there are many more judicial ideologues on the court now and their ideologies track much closer to parties than they used to.

12349876		2012-06-25 11:26:45 AM

scarmig: How do you know I wasn't born at a roulette table?

If you think there are people in this country who can't possibly survive without playing your stupid game, you might want to look around a bit more.

So your mother was a Vegas hooker?

And the internet wouldn't exist without your "stupid game"

vernonFL		2012-06-25 11:26:46 AM

I think its racist AND too conservative. More conservative than racist, though.

CujoQuarrel		2012-06-25 11:27:21 AM

Ned Stark: NeoCortex42: Mrtraveler01: Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.

I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.

But is the rest of it even sustainable without the mandate? Wouldn't the result be that prices have to skyrocket to cover "pre-existing conditions" since healthy people will still be able to opt out? If that happens, I can see the right-wing rhetoric getting even worse with arguments of "See what Obamacare did to your healthcare costs"

Personally, I hope the whole thing stands, but I'm not optimistic about the mandate staying

Yes, the bill standing without the mandate would wreck the insurance industry.

Here's hoping it happens.

They'll just stop selling individual insurance policies .

Teiritzamna		2012-06-25 11:27:40 AM

Oxygen_Thief: jihad_cowboy: The portion of the law which was upheld allows for inspection of papers during a stop, not just an arrest. Additionally, since people can be held 72 hours without being charged, there is nothing I can the decision stopping police from stopping and holding random people and running immigration checks in the available window.

The only bright spot is that specific portion of the law will almost definitely get thrown out once the law takes affect (it was stayed until this decision was reached). There is no way this will be enforced without violating equal protection, as cops will arrest more Hispanics than before. It is just that for a law to be thrown out as being prejudicial in fact, it must have already caused actual harm to the plaintiff.

Perhaps. The court generally ignores the issue of racial profiling when dealing with 4th amendment issues. It may violate the 14th amendment, but the issue in regards to 4th amendment analysis which means that even if the officer had a racial pretext for the stop, we use an objective standard which is (could any reasonable officer believe a crime was afoot..I will just leave the infinite set of factors that could fall into that) The problem with the Arizona law, I thought was that we used to say that race, color, creed, may not be used etc..but this law says race may not be the sole factor but can be a factor thus moving from an objective to a subjective (what the officer thought and using race is ok. We know racial profiling happens we have just never dealt with it in fourth amendment law because we always used the objective standard. To uphold the law would be a pretty dramatic shift in my opinion just on fourth amendment principles. Scalia will uphold it though.

yeah nothing has been more dangerous to the 4th amendment than the modern court's belief that judges should never second guess cops.

Terry v. Ohio seemed so reasonable once . . .

thurstonxhowell		2012-06-25 11:27:42 AM

CPennypacker: The fact that the same clowns split to the same side on every ruling is a dead giveaway.

Why? If Scalia and Thomas really do interpret the Constitution in ways that are very similar, why should I not expect to see them on the same side of a split more often than not?

I_C_Weener		2012-06-25 11:29:24 AM

NeoCortex42: But is the rest of it even sustainable without the mandate?

Let's say you pay $100 per month in HI premiums and your employer covers the other $100 per month. The HCR allows for that to go up 10% each year (similar to what has been happening the past 20 years anyway). So, $200 per month x 12 months is $2400.

Year 1 - $2400
Year 2 - $2640
Year 3 - $2904
Year 4 - $3194
Year 5 - $3513

Or put it another way. Do you expect to earn 10% or better raises each year? If not, your health insurance costs may be greater than your raise each year so that even under HCR you are falling behind.

And that is beside the point that Congress probably shouldn't be in the business of fixing prices.

qorkfiend		2012-06-25 11:29:37 AM

Teiritzamna: But when it comes to the applicability of the laws, IBM and frank stand in basically the same footing with regards to suit.

That equivalence doesn't quite match up. Uncle Frank is a person, vested with inalienable rights under the Constitution; a corporation is not. A corporation has no inherent rights; any it does have is a privilege granted by the government.

People are free to associate, but are not granted any extra rights above and beyond their inherent rights as individuals.

I should note that this only applies to corporations and as you've noted that wasn't the basis for CU; I also can't come up with a good reason why something like a PAC is unconstitutional. It's a very basic exercise of freedom of association.

scarmig		2012-06-25 11:30:00 AM

midigod: scarmig: o, if I walk up to a roulette table and put down my money and lose, I have no right to complain, because I chose to play. But I refuse to play and *still* lose money, then I have pretty good reasons to complain, I think.

You have no right to complain; your analogy is faulty. You're still playing, whether you like it or not, because the outcome still affects you. To make it more binding, think of going to the table and letting the other players decide where your bet goes. If you don't like the outcome, you've been an idiot and a rube.

Ah yes, the glorious mob enforcers standing behind me, gun in my ribs, telling me I have to play, and if I lose, I can't complain because I played.

There's a word for such behavior.

dumbobruni		2012-06-25 11:30:48 AM

Corvus: Immigration is in and all the important parts got struck down.

It actually sounds like a pretty sensible ruling of "The state can do state stuff but not federal things".

Zerohedge (popular finance/libertarian blog) is attempting to spin this as a loss for Obama somehow.

Link

Oxygen_Thief		2012-06-25 11:31:03 AM

Teiritzamna: Oxygen_Thief: jihad_cowboy: The portion of the law which was upheld allows for inspection of papers during a stop, not just an arrest. Additionally, since people can be held 72 hours without being charged, there is nothing I can the decision stopping police from stopping and holding random people and running immigration checks in the available window.

The only bright spot is that specific portion of the law will almost definitely get thrown out once the law takes affect (it was stayed until this decision was reached). There is no way this will be enforced without violating equal protection, as cops will arrest more Hispanics than before. It is just that for a law to be thrown out as being prejudicial in fact, it must have already caused actual harm to the plaintiff.

Perhaps. The court generally ignores the issue of racial profiling when dealing with 4th amendment issues. It may violate the 14th amendment, but the issue in regards to 4th amendment analysis which means that even if the officer had a racial pretext for the stop, we use an objective standard which is (could any reasonable officer believe a crime was afoot..I will just leave the infinite set of factors that could fall into that) The problem with the Arizona law, I thought was that we used to say that race, color, creed, may not be used etc..but this law says race may not be the sole factor but can be a factor thus moving from an objective to a subjective (what the officer thought and using race is ok. We know racial profiling happens we have just never dealt with it in fourth amendment law because we always used the objective standard. To uphold the law would be a pretty dramatic shift in my opinion just on fourth amendment principles. Scalia will uphold it though.

yeah nothing has been more dangerous to the 4th amendment than the modern court's belief that judges should never second guess cops.

Terry v. Ohio seemed so reasonable once . . .

I know right? no dis minmas searches, but reasonable suspicion is ok so we do not need probable cause. It is a search, but not really, even though it is.

Bf+		2012-06-25 11:31:14 AM

"Independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUS-TICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting:
weknowmemes.com

/in essence.

Coolfusis		2012-06-25 11:31:55 AM

I_C_Weener: I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984: So, here is how Fox News is casting this:

[i.imgur.com image 640x397]

And that is inaccurate how?

MSNBC...

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government.

Text of the decision (PDF)

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

Taking the only provision left standing and declaring the "key provision" isn't a little slanted? Especially when it's not what everyone is upset about? (hint: being arrested without committing a crime and without a warrant for "looking like an illegal" was the bullshiat provision.)

hurdboy		2012-06-25 11:31:56 AM

jrw8778: Interesting. That sounds like a total loss for Arizona and conservative wing-nuts. We'll have to see how that plays out over the next few years.

It is a big loss for Arizona, but it isn't a win for the Administration, either. There's all sorts of Federal laws that the Federal government relies upon local law enforcement to ultimately enforce. (Some, like most drug laws, have overlap., but not all.....)

Wondering why they punted on the PP&ACA decision, again. Only thing I can think of is the justices wanted to GTFO of DC before the decision drops....

meat0918		2012-06-25 11:31:58 AM

Now where have I seen this before???

Oh yeah.

thurstonxhowell		2012-06-25 11:32:47 AM

I_C_Weener: Or put it another way. Do you expect to earn 10% or better raises each year? If not, your health insurance costs may be greater than your raise each year so that even under HCR you are falling behind.

And that is beside the point that Congress probably shouldn't be in the business of fixing prices.

So the problem with HCR is that the rate of increase in price is allowed to be too high and that they shouldn't have been able to cap the rate of increase in the first place? You must be a big fan of Joseph Heller.

qorkfiend		2012-06-25 11:32:56 AM

I_C_Weener: And that is beside the point that Congress probably shouldn't be in the business of fixing prices.

Yeah, but how can you effect cost control in a largely involuntary market like health care? Normal cost controls are achieved by self-rationing; you don't buy X because you don't need it and can't afford it. In health care, the people at price point - the patient and the doctor - are the ones with the least incentive or ability to control costs.

Ned Stark		2012-06-25 11:33:08 AM

12349876: scarmig: How do you know I wasn't born at a roulette table?

If you think there are people in this country who can't possibly survive without playing your stupid game, you might want to look around a bit more.

So your mother was a Vegas hooker?

And the internet wouldn't exist without your "stupid game"

Dismissing modern USAian politics as nonsense unfit for the participation of thinking being is hardly a wholesale rejection of The State.

pxsteel		2012-06-25 11:33:09 AM

I_C_Weener: thurstonxhowell: jpk_ks: I think Arizona's immigration law stands as well.

Nope.

Seems they kept the offensive part the "random" checks. But kicked the rest. Weird. That actually seems to be a worst case scenario for Az and the other states that had better drafted laws that dropped the "random" part, but kept the, "We can protect or borders" parts.

This may be a bigger decision in the long run than the HCR one.

This scenario is what this ruling creates:

Patrol officer pulls over a car with a broken light
Driver has no DL or Insurance
Driver admits he is an illegal alien
Patrol officer calls ICE
ICE refuses to show up to collect driver (this is what is happening now)
The parts of the law struck down means that the patrol officer cannot detain the driver
Patrol officer issues tickets for no DL or Insurance and a broken light
And sends the driver on his way.

The tickets never get paid because the name and address given by the driver were bogus.

Serious Black		2012-06-25 11:33:10 AM

dumbobruni: Corvus: Immigration is in and all the important parts got struck down.

It actually sounds like a pretty sensible ruling of "The state can do state stuff but not federal things".

Zerohedge (popular finance/libertarian blog) is attempting to spin this as a loss for Obama somehow.

Link

Jesus titty-farking Christ, the comments on that page are insane. People are suggesting secession and starting another civil war over this ruling?

thurstonxhowell		2012-06-25 11:34:19 AM

meat0918: Now where have I seen this before???
[i457.photobucket.com image 630x420]

Oh yeah.
[www.arktimes.com image 500x338]

up-ship.com

Teiritzamna		2012-06-25 11:34:43 AM

qorkfiend: Teiritzamna: But when it comes to the applicability of the laws, IBM and frank stand in basically the same footing with regards to suit.

That equivalence doesn't quite match up. Uncle Frank is a person, vested with inalienable rights under the Constitution; a corporation is not. A corporation has no inherent rights; any it does have is a privilege granted by the government.

People are free to associate, but are not granted any extra rights above and beyond their inherent rights as individuals.

I should note that this only applies to corporations and as you've noted that wasn't the basis for CU; I also can't come up with a good reason why something like a PAC is unconstitutional. It's a very basic exercise of freedom of association.

well let me unpack. I am actually not saying that corporations have a constitutional right to constitutional rights. I am saying that they have a government granted right to constitutional rights. And that this is the point. It was more of a sighing reaction to yet another thread that decries coporate personhood without knowing what it is and why.

As to the second bit - yeah i want a good hook to show without an amendment why Citizens United is bad law and i haven't been able to get one. Bad policy? you bet. But i want a legal argument. Professors i have talked to havent been able to spool up much either, and seemed sadder than me about this. Hell even the Citizens United dissent was a long discussion of the bad policy outcomes rather than a discussion of why Buckley v. Valeo was wrong.

keylock71		2012-06-25 11:34:46 AM

meat0918: Now where have I seen this before???
[i457.photobucket.com image 630x420]

Oh yeah.
[www.arktimes.com image 500x338]

You'd need a step ladder to "tread on" that fat bastard in the front...

Mrtraveler01		2012-06-25 11:34:52 AM

Serious Black: dumbobruni: Corvus: Immigration is in and all the important parts got struck down.

It actually sounds like a pretty sensible ruling of "The state can do state stuff but not federal things".

Zerohedge (popular finance/libertarian blog) is attempting to spin this as a loss for Obama somehow.

Link

Jesus titty-farking Christ, the comments on that page are insane. People are suggesting secession and starting another civil war over this ruling?

People who visit Zerohedge are idiots plain and simple.

DROxINxTHExWIND		2012-06-25 11:36:04 AM

Serious Black: dumbobruni: Corvus: Immigration is in and all the important parts got struck down.

It actually sounds like a pretty sensible ruling of "The state can do state stuff but not federal things".

Zerohedge (popular finance/libertarian blog) is attempting to spin this as a loss for Obama somehow.

Link

Jesus titty-farking Christ, the comments on that page are insane. People are suggesting secession and starting another civil war over this ruling?

Fark if I'll let THE MAN give me affordable healthcare!

incendi		2012-06-25 11:36:18 AM

mrshowrules: d) tossing the libs a bone because they will completely farking destroy them on the health care ruling

If they for one second ever thought of any decision as tossing one side a bone to make up for another unrelated ruling, they should be lined up and shot.

Serious Black		2012-06-25 11:37:19 AM

Teiritzamna: qorkfiend: Teiritzamna: But when it comes to the applicability of the laws, IBM and frank stand in basically the same footing with regards to suit.

That equivalence doesn't quite match up. Uncle Frank is a person, vested with inalienable rights under the Constitution; a corporation is not. A corporation has no inherent rights; any it does have is a privilege granted by the government.

People are free to associate, but are not granted any extra rights above and beyond their inherent rights as individuals.

I should note that this only applies to corporations and as you've noted that wasn't the basis for CU; I also can't come up with a good reason why something like a PAC is unconstitutional. It's a very basic exercise of freedom of association.

well let me unpack. I am actually not saying that corporations have a constitutional right to constitutional rights. I am saying that they have a government granted right to constitutional rights. And that this is the point. It was more of a sighing reaction to yet another thread that decries coporate personhood without knowing what it is and why.

As to the second bit - yeah i want a good hook to show without an amendment why Citizens United is bad law and i haven't been able to get one. Bad policy? you bet. But i want a legal argument. Professors i have talked to havent been able to spool up much either, and seemed sadder than me about this. Hell even the Citizens United dissent was a long discussion of the bad policy outcomes rather than a discussion of why Buckley v. Valeo was wrong.

Why was it wrong? Because Justice Kennedy flatly rejected every single possible argument that independent expenditures could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption between politicians and people funding these expenditures.

Dr Dreidel		2012-06-25 11:40:50 AM

Teiritzamna: 2) What is the basis for your distinction regarding why it is not ok to stop you from spending money on expression but ok to stop others? why can 1 rich person spend a million dollars on speech and be ok, but that when 10,000 people spend $100 each as a group it is somehow now invalid. As noted, corporate personhood is not the basis of CU, the aggregate rights of natural persons is equally as controlling.

If that group exists to spend money on behalf of a political cause, there is and should be no problem with it.

If that group exists to promote some common good or charitable cause (like a 527, like so many PACs are listed as), but instead spends money to get a candidate elected, that's shady. Not 100% wrong, but shady. There is (or should be) a "political organization" heading, and a "charitable cause" heading. Conflating the two ("I believe getting Yelnick McWawa elected IS a common good!" - Fantastic. List yourself as a PAC.) is therefore turning the process on its head.

If we assume a corporation is made up of employees (management + labor) and stock/shareholders, the only way I'm comfortable with corporate donations is if 100% of those people support the decision to donate that sum to that candidate/PAC. Otherwise (again, assuming money is speech), you've compelled someone to support an issue/candidate they do not support. I believe that may be a violation of their civil rights - using their efforts (labor, sale of stock) qua money, to advance a cause they do not support.

Besides which, the Court has made any number of rulings which refer to "time, place and duration" of speech, even group speech - we limit protests to permit-holding protest groups, we don't allow speech designed to cause public panic (the proverbial "FIRE!" in a theater), we don't allow people to make threats against certain politicians, groups deemed to be "terror" groups can't raise or spend money, I can't "express" my opposition to the War on Sex by buying a prostitute's services...

mrshowrules		2012-06-25 11:40:50 AM

incendi: mrshowrules: d) tossing the libs a bone because they will completely farking destroy them on the health care ruling

If they for one second ever thought of any decision as tossing one side a bone to make up for another unrelated ruling, they should be lined up and shot.

I don't disagree with you but consider the fact that Thomas' wife is very well paid by a health care insurance lobby and he is not recusing himself in this ruling. If that doesn't shatter your faith in this group, what would?

Deneb81		2012-06-25 11:43:08 AM

qorkfiend: Teiritzamna: But when it comes to the applicability of the laws, IBM and frank stand in basically the same footing with regards to suit.

That equivalence doesn't quite match up. Uncle Frank is a person, vested with inalienable rights under the Constitution; a corporation is not. A corporation has no inherent rights; any it does have is a privilege granted by the government.

People are free to associate, but are not granted any extra rights above and beyond their inherent rights as individuals.

I should note that this only applies to corporations and as you've noted that wasn't the basis for CU; I also can't come up with a good reason why something like a PAC is unconstitutional. It's a very basic exercise of freedom of association.

CU just highlights a problem - growing economic inequality. Thats the problem.

Corporations or wealthy individuals using their money to promote their views is a natural part of our government and society. The only issue is the AMOUNT, not the kind of expression.

The base problem is that the economic inequality we have in the US combined with modern communication techniques increasingly allows a small group of people to have a exponentially greater voice. And again, the issue isn't even that some people have more money and more access to venues - it's a matter of scale.

CU doesn't matter if we address the underlying issue of growing exponential economic inequality.

jihad_cowboy		2012-06-25 11:43:24 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Teiritzamna: Oxygen_Thief: jihad_cowboy: The portion of the law which was upheld allows for inspection of papers during a stop, not just an arrest. Additionally, since people can be held 72 hours without being charged, there is nothing I can the decision stopping police from stopping and holding random people and running immigration checks in the available window.

The only bright spot is that specific portion of the law will almost definitely get thrown out once the law takes affect (it was stayed until this decision was reached). There is no way this will be enforced without violating equal protection, as cops will arrest more Hispanics than before. It is just that for a law to be thrown out as being prejudicial in fact, it must have already caused actual harm to the plaintiff.

Perhaps. The court generally ignores the issue of racial profiling when dealing with 4th amendment issues. It may violate the 14th amendment, but the issue in regards to 4th amendment analysis which means that even if the officer had a racial pretext for the stop, we use an objective standard which is (could any reasonable officer believe a crime was afoot..I will just leave the infinite set of factors that could fall into that) The problem with the Arizona law, I thought was that we used to say that race, color, creed, may not be used etc..but this law says race may not be the sole factor but can be a factor thus moving from an objective to a subjective (what the officer thought and using race is ok. We know racial profiling happens we have just never dealt with it in fourth amendment law because we always used the objective standard. To uphold the law would be a pretty dramatic shift in my opinion just on fourth amendment principles. Scalia will uphold it though.

yeah nothing has been more dangerous to the 4th amendment than the modern court's belief that judges should never second guess cops.

Terry v. Ohio seemed so reasonable once . . .

I know right? no dis minmas searches, but reasonable suspicion is ok so we do not need probable cause. It is a search, but not really, even though it is.

With the way the Roberts court (and Rehnquist to a lesser degree) has strongly backed government's police powers as superior to individual privacy rights, this "Wait and see" position Kennedy outlined us about the best to be hoped for.

Considering Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are all on record as saying the 9th Amendment should be ignored and view the 10th as not containing "to the people" I'll take what I can get.

Teiritzamna		2012-06-25 11:45:31 AM

Serious Black: Why was it wrong? Because Justice Kennedy flatly rejected every single possible argument that independent expenditures could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption between politicians and people funding these expenditures.

But again that's really a policy answer rather than a legal one. "If we let people have the freedom to speak and assemble, they may use it to do unsavory and unpleasant things." Yes. That is in the nature of broadly defined rights. It is their biggest drawback. and perhaps that is enough. But then the opinion enshrining that policy position as law better be damn well (and narrowly) written, because 1) it will be a (yet another) massive dimunition of a right to say that congress can decide how political speech is done because we fear what the populace will do with it and 2) future courts will use that boostrap to gut the 1st like they used Terry and Leon to gut the 4th.

jihad_cowboy		2012-06-25 11:52:48 AM

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Why was it wrong? Because Justice Kennedy flatly rejected every single possible argument that independent expenditures could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption between politicians and people funding these expenditures.

But again that's really a policy answer rather than a legal one. "If we let people have the freedom to speak and assemble, they may use it to do unsavory and unpleasant things." Yes. That is in the nature of broadly defined rights. It is their biggest drawback. and perhaps that is enough. But then the opinion enshrining that policy position as law better be damn well (and narrowly) written, because 1) it will be a (yet another) massive dimunition of a right to say that congress can decide how political speech is done because we fear what the populace will do with it and 2) future courts will use that boostrap to gut the 1st like they used Terry and Leon to gut the 4th.

CU basically did enshrined a policy position into law... It decided that in the balance of rights between speech and free and fair elections (both fundamental rights) that money as speech should win.

When deciding between fundamental rights, it is entirely appropriate to look at policy impact in the real world. That impact is what led to Brown v. Board as separate but equal was shown to have real negative impacts even though in theory it shouldn't have. This is a good parallel to CU; in a perfect world, there would be no negative externalities here. However, the theorized outcome of the decision relied upon real world assumptions (no appearance of corruption / no discrimination) which turned out to be false. Therefore, overturn.

bartink		2012-06-25 11:53:31 AM

Teiritzamna: But again that's really a policy answer rather than a legal one.

Not according to the court. Appearance of corruption is a legal framework they themselves set up to evaluate this law. If money is speech, then we need to make sure that when it is spent on influencing the government it isn't a form of bribery.

That is a legal question.

Teiritzamna		2012-06-25 11:54:26 AM

Dr Dreidel: Teiritzamna: 2) What is the basis for your distinction regarding why it is not ok to stop you from spending money on expression but ok to stop others? why can 1 rich person spend a million dollars on speech and be ok, but that when 10,000 people spend $100 each as a group it is somehow now invalid. As noted, corporate personhood is not the basis of CU, the aggregate rights of natural persons is equally as controlling.

If that group exists to spend money on behalf of a political cause, there is and should be no problem with it.

If that group exists to promote some common good or charitable cause (like a 527, like so many PACs are listed as), but instead spends money to get a candidate elected, that's shady. Not 100% wrong, but shady. There is (or should be) a "political organization" heading, and a "charitable cause" heading. Conflating the two ("I believe getting Yelnick McWawa elected IS a common good!" - Fantastic. List yourself as a PAC.) is therefore turning the process on its head.

If we assume a corporation is made up of employees (management + labor) and stock/shareholders, the only way I'm comfortable with corporate donations is if 100% of those people support the decision to donate that sum to that candidate/PAC. Otherwise (again, assuming money is speech), you've compelled someone to support an issue/candidate they do not support. I believe that may be a violation of their civil rights - using their efforts (labor, sale of stock) qua money, to advance a cause they do not support.

Besides which, the Court has made any number of rulings which refer to "time, place and duration" of speech, even group speech - we limit protests to permit-holding protest groups, we don't allow speech designed to cause public panic (the proverbial "FIRE!" in a theater), we don't allow people to make threats against certain politicians, groups deemed to be "terror" groups can't raise or spend money, I can't "express" my opposition to the War on Sex by buying a prostitute's se ...

Well 1) lets not (mis)quote Schenck v. United States (its about shouting fire in a theater falsely - i.e. all harm for no benefit - that Holmes was speaking of in that opinion) in the era of Brandenburg, as the clear and present danger test is no longer the rule. (sorry pendantry required me to do this and like zoidberg says: i am bad and should feel bad)

2) this sounds dangerously like having the courts determine which speech is ok and which isnt because of the group speaking.

3) as to your argument regarding corporations spending money, that is an issue of corporate law. The derivative suit over misuse of corporate funds is already a valid option. If you are a shareholder in X co and they spend 1 mil supporting Candidate Joe who you hate, sue em. Heck, i would be fine if state laws were changed to require higher % of shareholder approval to support campaign financing.

But lets be honest here its not so much corporations as PACs that are the big concern and they are set up specifically for campaigning/causes

jrw8778		2012-06-25 11:54:31 AM

hurdboy: jrw8778: Interesting. That sounds like a total loss for Arizona and conservative wing-nuts. We'll have to see how that plays out over the next few years.

It is a big loss for Arizona, but it isn't a win for the Administration, either. There's all sorts of Federal laws that the Federal government relies upon local law enforcement to ultimately enforce. (Some, like most drug laws, have overlap., but not all.....)

Wondering why they punted on the PP&ACA decision, again. Only thing I can think of is the justices wanted to GTFO of DC before the decision drops....

I'm not going to disguise my liberal bias. If I'm critical of the president, it's because he's too conservative. I'm not sure if the Ariz. v. US decision helps the Administration or not. What it does tell me is that the SCOTUS will operate as intended (i.e. it will not be swayed by the passions or prejudices of fringy pop political causes). That gives me some hope.

meat0918		2012-06-25 11:55:36 AM

thurstonxhowell: meat0918: Now where have I seen this before???
[i457.photobucket.com image 630x420]

Oh yeah.
[www.arktimes.com image 500x338]

[up-ship.com image 535x356]

Not really, there are a lot of similarities in the demographics.

I'd use photos of anti Irish or Chinese immigration, but they aren't as easy to come by.

The cartoons will have to do.

At least no one has bombed any schools like they did to a Chinese school in Marcola, Oregon back in 1901

Goddamn, people are so full of fear.

Serious Black		2012-06-25 11:57:22 AM

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Why was it wrong? Because Justice Kennedy flatly rejected every single possible argument that independent expenditures could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption between politicians and people funding these expenditures.

But again that's really a policy answer rather than a legal one. "If we let people have the freedom to speak and assemble, they may use it to do unsavory and unpleasant things." Yes. That is in the nature of broadly defined rights. It is their biggest drawback. and perhaps that is enough. But then the opinion enshrining that policy position as law better be damn well (and narrowly) written, because 1) it will be a (yet another) massive dimunition of a right to say that congress can decide how political speech is done because we fear what the populace will do with it and 2) future courts will use that boostrap to gut the 1st like they used Terry and Leon to gut the 4th.

It's both of those really. Strict scrutiny requires regulations on fundamental rights have a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Kennedy's opinion said that there is literally no compelling state interest in regulating independent expenditures because they can't possibly give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption (despite mountains of evidence to the contrary), so no regulation can be narrowly tailored to meet a non-existent interest, nor can one be the least restrictive means to achieve the non-existent interest.

hurdboy		2012-06-25 12:02:40 PM

jrw8778: ~~I'm not going to disguise my liberal bias. If I'm critical of the president, it's because he's too conservative.~~Derp.

FTFY.

jrw8778: I'm not sure if the Ariz. v. US decision helps the Administration or not. What it does tell me is that the SCOTUS will operate as intended (i.e. it will not be swayed by the passions or prejudices of fringy pop political causes). That gives me some hope.

It does. Sotomayor is coming around. I was very unimpressed with the first opinion she wrote, but she was qualified for the Court. Kagan, OTOH......

There's going to be lots of law-and-order Democrats really upset about the decision not letting them lock up minors for life. The Republicans were upset when they said a state couldn't execute minors, now they're saying you can't lock 'em up for life. IOW, John Malvo is going to get out of prison, y'all......

BeesNuts		2012-06-25 12:03:16 PM

For the record, I find it incredible that one of the Justices recused herself from the proceedings. For the very reason that many people said she might be wise to.

So out of curiosity, I'm wondering. How many recusals have there been in the SCotUS?

AngryPanda		2012-06-25 12:06:43 PM

scarmig: AngryPanda: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: When are people going to realize that the demo-hippies and repugnants are equally evil, ineffective and destructive? Neither party effectively helps the American people. All of the public party fighting is just dragging the country down. Obama and romney( might have misspelled romny(?)) are both tool bags and should be sold for scrap metal.

When are people going to realize that standing away from the debate and refusing to vote for either indicates that you get no right to complain later on?

No, that's not how it works.

See, when you vote, you are participating in influencing the outcome. However, by participating, you implicitly agree to the outcome, even if it wasn't the one you wanted.

If you don't vote at all, someone forced the outcome upon you, you have every right to complain, on the grounds that neither outcome was something you voluntarily agreed to.

So, if I walk up to a roulette table and put down my money and lose, I have no right to complain, because I chose to play. But I refuse to play and *still* lose money, then I have pretty good reasons to complain, I think.

No, that's not how that works. Voting for either side implies that you agree with some policies of that candidate. Complaining that so-and-so's policies are diametrically opposed to yours later on, and then adding in the information that you DIDN'T vote for the opposition who agreed with you, means you have no right to complain because you decided to not participate in the first place.

I don't care if you vote for the ghost of Ross Perot, or some other third party vote. Just don't tell me you won't vote at all and say that's participating. Enough people vote that your particular philosophy will continue to go unnoticed.

qorkfiend		2012-06-25 12:11:56 PM

BeesNuts: For the record, I find it incredible that one of the Justices recused herself from the proceedings. For the very reason that many people said she might be wise to.

So out of curiosity, I'm wondering. How many recusals have there been in the SCotUS?

It's not that unusual, especially for situations like this one where the justice argued one side (in their capacity as Solicitor General, usually) or heard the case as a judge in a lower court before they were named to the Supreme Court.

Teiritzamna		2012-06-25 12:14:39 PM

Serious Black: Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Why was it wrong? Because Justice Kennedy flatly rejected every single possible argument that independent expenditures could lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption between politicians and people funding these expenditures.

But again that's really a policy answer rather than a legal one. "If we let people have the freedom to speak and assemble, they may use it to do unsavory and unpleasant things." Yes. That is in the nature of broadly defined rights. It is their biggest drawback. and perhaps that is enough. But then the opinion enshrining that policy position as law better be damn well (and narrowly) written, because 1) it will be a (yet another) massive dimunition of a right to say that congress can decide how political speech is done because we fear what the populace will do with it and 2) future courts will use that boostrap to gut the 1st like they used Terry and Leon to gut the 4th.

It's both of those really. Strict scrutiny requires regulations on fundamental rights have a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Kennedy's opinion said that there is literally no compelling state interest in regulating independent expenditures because they can't possibly give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption (despite mountains of evidence to the contrary), so no regulation can be narrowly tailored to meet a non-existent interest, nor can one be the least restrictive means to achieve the non-existent interest.

Well to be fair i saw Kennedy's point there less political naivete and more that under the lens of Strict Scrutiny and the concomitant judicial minimalism that tends to go with it, while it is easy to say that direct campaign contributions can easily be quid pro quos, what independent expenditures will do is ensure that PACs with big piles of money will ensure that their message will gets lots of airtime. The problem here is that while this is a distorting effect i am not sure it is a distorting effect outside the ambit of the 1st. I did a big corruption case a little while ago and the biggest question in it was trying to determine how to make indirect money illegal. Its very hard to do without chilling speech.

As an example group A wants to overturn DOMA legislatively, so they build a pac and gather tons of money to help ensure that friendly senators are elected. Group B wants lower tariffs and does the same thing. Both could have a distorting effect (as does all lobbying) but i can see the argument that without a bright line distinction its weird to say that corporate independent expenditures are somehow more corrupting. That is what i saw as Kennedy's dismissal of the corruption/appearance angle.

bhcompy		2012-06-25 12:16:29 PM

Durinia: Interesting Bloomberg Article on HCR.

Basically, 19 of 21 top constitutional law scholars agree that HCR, including the mandate, is clearly constitutional based on established law and precedent. Also, only 8 of them predicted the court would agree.

Gives you an interesting take on how poorly the Roberts court is viewed by people who study this stuff for a living.

Which is to say: Based on case law where the court allowed Congress to rape and pillage the Constitution, specifically their wild interpretation of the Commerce Clause, this should be legal... but, this court sometimes actually revisits the Constitution to make sure they understand what it is saying before making a ruling.

midigod		2012-06-25 12:20:47 PM

scarmig: Ah yes, the glorious mob enforcers standing behind me, gun in my ribs, telling me I have to play, and if I lose, I can't complain because I played.

There's a word for such behavior.

Whatever word you're talking about, you missed my point. The outcome of a vote affects you as a member of the United States society. So whether you vote or not, you're still being affected. It really doesn't seem that difficult to understand, so what are you going on about?

xria		2012-06-25 12:29:02 PM

CPennypacker: Its a disgrace how partisan this court is. I understand that there will be splid decisions, but those decisions should be base on the pure constitutional interpretation of what is being decided, and the splits should be random. The fact that the same clowns split to the same side on every ruling is a dead giveaway. Really a shame. You would think being appointed for life would be enough to remove at least some partisan influence. What else can we do?

Personally I think a better approach would be that the supreme court would be made up of people elected for something like an 8-12 year period from a group of their peers only (possibly in rounds to avoid issues with geographic bias - so maybe when a seat is up, each state puts forward one name, then the 50 of them get together and vote for the most appropriate candidate amongst themselves). With how important the SC has become over time, making it a political appointment means that politicians will appoint the most ideologically aligned candidate they can get away with, rather than the best candidate.

verbaltoxin		2012-06-25 12:35:23 PM

Will The Supreme Court be considered racist or too conservative this week?

Nice on, trollmitter. If there's anything I've learned, there's never "too conservative." There's only "not conservative enough."

dumbobruni		2012-06-25 12:47:43 PM

Mrtraveler01: Serious Black: dumbobruni: Corvus: Immigration is in and all the important parts got struck down.

It actually sounds like a pretty sensible ruling of "The state can do state stuff but not federal things".

Zerohedge (popular finance/libertarian blog) is attempting to spin this as a loss for Obama somehow.

Link

Jesus titty-farking Christ, the comments on that page are insane. People are suggesting secession and starting another civil war over this ruling?

People who visit Zerohedge are idiots plain and simple.

zero hedge offers a lot of interesting posts, such as today's infographic on the effects of euro disintegration.

I don't take much of what "Tyler Durden" posts himself seriously though. nearly every piece of news somehow ends up as a reason to buy gold in his mind. for insightful analysis (and less crazy comments sections) I stick to ftalphaville and nakedcapitalism

bugontherug		2012-06-25 01:12:23 PM

Teiritzamna: 3) as to your argument regarding corporations spending money, that is an issue of corporate law. The derivative suit over misuse of corporate funds is already a valid option. If you are a shareholder in X co and they spend 1 mil supporting Candidate Joe who you hate, sue em. Heck, i would be fine if state laws were changed to require higher % of shareholder approval to support campaign financing.

Either you believe shareholders should be allowed to sue corporate officers in their individual capacity to recover corporate funds spent to advance their preferred political causes, or this is smoke in mirrors.

Displayed 50 of 216 comments