SCOTAL Itch

[ChuckF]

No health care opinion or immigration opinion today. Try again on Monday.

[California Tanker]

SCOTUS seems to have a habit of leaving the interesting decisions until the very end. Not sure if it's procrastination, or a sense of theatrics. I suspect the latter.

[Janet]

SCOTUS decision day always seems to coincide with the American Library Association annual conference. Normally I don't notice, but the year they were deciding if libraries could be compelled to install filters it was all anybody talked about.

[ChuckF]

Court starts at 10. Opinions are announced going in reverse order of seniority, so even if today is the day it will probably take a little while to get there.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The Montana Supreme Court's campaign finance decision looks doomed. SCOTUS granted the stay application presented to Justice Kennedy, which means that the Montana ruling is stayed until SCOTUS decides whether to take the case. Of course, the fact that SCOTUS granted the stay means that at least five justices think the parties challenging the Montana case have a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits," which kinda makes granting cert. a foregone conclusion.

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote:

Unfortunately, they were among the dissenters in Citizens United, and there's no indication of a change of heart by anyone in the Citizens United majority. Even Ginsburg and Breyer voted to grant the stay "[b]ecause lower courts are bound to follow this Court’s decisions until they are withdrawn or modified[.]" That suggests no one is taking seriously the Montana Supreme Court majority's argument that its case is sufficiently distinguishable on its facts to render Citizens United inapplicable.

There's not enough time left in the current SCOTUS term for the case to get decided through normal channels. It'll carry over until next term unless a majority of the justices think that a summary reversal is appropriate.

Summarily reversed 5-4.

[ChuckF]

Decision in Arizona v. U.S. Ninth is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Three of four key provisions (3, 5, and 6) are invalidated as pre-empted. One is not. The court should not have enjoined enforcement of 2(B), requiring police officers to check immigration status of anyone arrested. No further info yet. Opinion should be posted shortly.

ETA: Opinion by Kennedy. 5-3. Scalia would uphold the whole thing.

ETA2: No more opinions today, apparently. Opinion day on Thursday.

[LadyShea]

Can you explain what both of those mean on the ground please?

[ChuckF]

So section 3 says that not complying with federal immigration regulations is a misdemeanor under Arizona law. Section 5 makes it a misdemeanor for an an unauthorized alien to look for work. Section 6 allows warrantless arrests when the officer has probable cause that a person has committed a deportable offense. All of these are struck down because federal law preempts the state action, so they will no longer be the law.

Section 2(B) requires cops to check the immigration status of people if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the US. The Court upheld this provision as not preempted by state law, on pretty narrow grounds. The opinion said that future challenges, including preemption challenges, may be brought against 2(B), depending on how the language is construed by state courts in Arizona. It also provided a roadmap on how to interpret the statute. So for now, that is still the law, but may be challenged again depending on how the state interprets and applies it.

[LadyShea]

Supreme Court rules juvenile life without parole cruel and unusual - latimes.com

The Supreme Court on Monday limited the use of life terms in prison for murderers under 18, ruling that judges must consider the defendant’s youth and the nature of the crime before putting him behind bars with no hope for parole.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court struck down as cruel and unusual punishment the laws in about 28 states that mandated a life term for murderers, including those under age 18.

The justices ruled in the cases of two 14-year old olds who were given life terms for their role in a homicide, but their decision goes further. It applies to all those under 18. It does not automatically free any prisoner, and it does not forbid life terms for young murderers.

This is a good ruling, because judges should have some level of discretion in sentencing, IMO. Mandated sentences are usually simply too broad a brush.

[Sauron]

SC Justice Kagan recused herself because she participated in the original law's defense.

But now we have Clarence Thomas presiding over this case, even though his wife received tens of thousands of dollars as a Tea Party lobbyist to lobby against health care reform. Apparently Thomas has never heard of recusal from judicial conflict of interest:

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Federal judges abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Code of Conduct provides guidance for judges on issues of judicial integrity and independence, judicial diligence and impartiality, permissible extra-judicial activities, and the avoidance of impropriety or even its appearance.

Judges may not hear cases in which they have either personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.

Is there some ridiculous obscure case law that I'm unaware of?

Or is this yet another case of one standard for progressives, but a different standard for conservotards?


* and by "LAWYERGUYZ", I do not mean Jerome or Chief Justice yguy.

[davidm]

Don't worry about how the Supremes rule on health care. As explained in the following, it does not matter.

Earth Still Probably Doomed No Matter Which Way Court Rules

Even if, against the odds, the Roberts court manages to uphold the ACA, or even to find the individual mandate unconstitutional while preserving the rest of the bill’s reforms and subsidies, there is still a pretty good chance that the country and the world will face mass droughts, floods, famine and extinctions as this century draws to a close. With the global average temperature already .8 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, it is exceedingly unlikely that humanity will manage to keep the planet from warming by less than 2 degrees, which most scientists predict would be fairly disastrous for many people, even if Antonin Scalia writes a very strongly worded dissent to their models.

If carbon emissions continue rising at the current rate — a possibility many scientists refuse to countenance because they incorrectly believe the world to be ruled by sensible people — it will basically mean the end of the civilization, with 6 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, at which point most of the animals will probably die and there will be no food. Not even government-mandated broccoli, lol!

Stand with your back to a mirror, turn your head around to face it, and wave goodbye to your ass.

[Watser?]

How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That's how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it's how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era.

Politics - James Fallows - 5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics - The Atlantic

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

[Montana Supreme Court campaign finance decision] Summarily reversed 5-4.

That right there is jacked up. The per curiam reversal is here. The Montana Supreme Court majority went on for page after page after page explaining why the state statute under consideration in that case was different from the federal statute at issue in Citizens United, and why striking down the Montana statute was consistent with Citizens United's analysis.

So how does SCOTUS respond? Pretty much with a "lol no." Montana's arguments "fail to meaningfully distinguish" Citizens United. Why? Cuz we say so is why.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Montana Supreme Court successfully distinguished Citizens United, but it was clearly a damned fine effort and deserved full briefing at the very least. SCOTUS had already stayed the state court decision, so no "harm" would come from letting this case proceed in the usual course. So yeah, fuck this decision.

And here we are. Corporations = people and spending money = speech. That was the law before Citizens United, but now any restrictions on such "speech" are scrutinized harshly enough that they're almost guaranteed to fail.

Where actual speech is concerned, the standard argument goes that the cure for bad speech is good speech. So what do you do when a group of corporations spend half a billion dollars on an ad campaign smearing the president with abject bullshit in order to elect sociopathic lunatic "Mitt" (false name) Romney? Well, you just counter with speech of your own. All you need do is spend half a billion of your own money on a counter-campaign.

Don't have half a billion dollars? Well, get a job, ya lazy prick!

In the meantime, you might want to ask unions to help with your counter-campaign. Of course, the unions might not be all that flush either. Last week's 7-2 decision in Knox v. Service Employees Int'l Union, Local 1000 (pdf, 48 pages) went largely under the radar. Justice Alito verbally reamed a public sector employees union for charging fees to non-member employees of "union shops" and using some of those fees to fund political efforts. Absent express consent, that violates the non-members' First Amendment rights, you see. The legal principles aren't new, but the vitriolic ass-chewing was something rarely seen in a majority opinion.

Of course, that's only fair. After all, a corporation must obtain express consent from all its stockholders before using their money on polit ... oh, wait, no they don't. The corporation can spend its owners' money on whatever political issue its wingnut directors and officers deem appropriate.

Yeah. Helluva country we've got here, eh?

Originally Posted by ChuckF

ETA: Opinion by Kennedy. 5-3. Scalia would uphold the whole thing.

That comes as an extraordinarily pleasant surprise.

Also, lol Scalia. That dissent is a pretty good read. Dude isn't even pretending to be something other than a partisan Republican hack anymore.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Is there some ridiculous obscure case law that I'm unaware of?

Thing is, SCOTUS justices have to self-police on recusal issues. There's no higher judicial authority to bring the hammer down when they fuck up (intentionally or negligently). At least three justices in the Bush v. Gore majority had serious issues with 28 U.S.C. § 455, but no one recused and no one got in any trouble over it.

You can always ask that the House of Representatives impeach and the Senate remove a wayward justice based on want of "good behaviour," but that just doesn't happen. Besides, have you seen the composition of the House Judiciary Committee lately?

[ChuckF]

Today is the day. Should be around 10:15 EST.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Today the Court decided to hear United States v. Alvarez, which involves whether and to what extent the government can criminalize false claims of having received a medal or decoration during military service. 's prior discussion of the Stolen Valor Act and the Ninth Circuit case that SCOTUS just agreed to review is available here.

The 9th is upheld (i.e. the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional) 6-3. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in dissent.

[ChuckF]

Here it comes.

According to SCOTUSBlog, individual mandate survives as a tax. Roberts joins.

[Sauron]

CNN reporting that mandate was struck down.
SCOTUSblog reporting it survived.

Someone will have to retract their comments.

[ChuckF]

SCOTUSblog reports the ACA survives intact, except for a limitation on the fed's power to terminate Medicaid funds.

[Sauron]

SCOTUSblog:

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

[BrotherMan]

Struck down! Upheld! My mother! My sister!

[ChuckF]

WaPo says upheld. This opinion must be a damn beast if it takes this long to get the holding right.

[Sauron]

Seattle Times reporting mandate was upheld:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ealthcare.html

While CNN still thinks it was struck down:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28...law/?hpt=hp_t1

[ChuckF]

Wow, if the court upheld the opinion and CNN embarrassed itself on a huge story, what a good Thursday that would be!

[Sauron]

And now CNN tries to un-screw the pooch by issuing a correction.

[ChuckF]

Gee, I wonder if anybody got a screenshot of it!