Oh the times, they are a’ chagin’.As previously mentioned, I’m going to be doing something new with the Sausage. One of the comments that came out of the Writers Workshop was that the “shotgun” approach where I hit everything all at once didn’t really work for everyone. So from now on, each day I’m going to focus on a single topic instead and be a little more longform in my writing.
“SCOTUS Update: La Loi, C’est Moi” – James Fallows (The Atlantic)
“Supreme Court knocks out Montana’s challenge to Citizens United, 5-4” – Benjy Sarlin (TPM)
“Everything you need to know about Obamacare and SCOTUS in one post” – Sarah Kliff (Wonkblog)
Well, the Supreme Court has decided to make today the hors d’oeuvres course to the PPACA main course. A rundown of the major decisions announced today:
- The Eighth Amendment forbids life imprisonment without possibility for parole for juveniles. (Miller v. Alabama, Jackson v. Hobbs)
- The Montana state anti-corruption act directly in conflict with the Citizens United decision was summarily reversed. (American Tradition Partnership v. Montana)
- Three of the four provisions of the Arizona anti-immigration law, SB1070, were declared unconstitutional. The “papers please” clause survived. (Arizona v. United States)
Miller v. Alabama wasn’t really on my radar, but it makes sense; who we are under 18 is certainly not who we will be the rest of our lives. Arizona v. United States is actually the opposite of how I thought the court would rule: I figured the “papers please” cause would be struck down and the rest left intact. Notably, in his dissent in Arizona v. United States, Scalia commented on the President’s change of immigration policy, which was not part of the case.
Most worrying out of all the decisions is the summary dismissal of American Traditional Partnership v. Montana. This was the court’s chance to take another swing at Citizens United, having now seen exactly what they have wrought, but the 5-4 majority that gave us the original pile of dogshit has decided to continue rubbing our noses in it.
A hundred years ago, the state legislature of Montana elected a copper baron by the name of William Clark to the United States Senate. The Senate refused to seat Mr. Clark, on the grounds that he had basically purchased the Montana State Legislature.
A hundred years ago, it was patently obvious to anyone with more than a handful of brain cells to rub together that a nefarious individual with unlimited personal wealth could easily use their vast financial resources to influence legislators, and that doing so would undermine our democracy. For seventy years, Congress and the courts agreed again and again and again: money wasn’t speech and corporations weren’t people.
And then, they gave us Buckley v. Valeo, which has paved the way for thirty years of the systemic dismantling of the campaign finance protections that have kept most of the money out of politics.
Unfortunately, the court’s opinion on Citizens United will stand until such time as one of the justices that decided it dies, is impeached, or retires, because the court has made it clear that they will hear no argument against it.
A friend of mine that’s currently studying for the bar came over this past weekend and, while luxuriating in the hot tub and having a few beers, we discussed the PPACA and how the court would rule. His feeling is that the court will punt until the law goes completely into effect.
Normally I’d agree with him but as noted in the Fallows piece, these are not normal times. Bloomberg polled 21 constitutional scholars and 19 said the individual mandate was constitutional, but only eight expect it to be upheld. Now, I don’t know whether that’s just lawyerly cynicism or a reasoned analysis of the court’s composition, but either way the picture it paints is disturbing.
It looks like the PPACA ruling will be at 10am on Thursday. Hold on to your butts, it’s about to get bumpy.
