Supreme Court Doubles Down On Citizens United

[boutons_deux]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Doubles Down On Citizens United

The Supreme Court just announced a 5-4 decision striking down Montana’s ban on corporate money in elections. The decision was handed down without hearing oral argument on the case, meaning that the five conservative justices were not even open to hearing arguments that their election-buying decision in Citizens United might have been wrongly decided.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...tizens-united/

Repugs/VRWC ing about "states' rights"?

America is ed and un able.

[boutons_deux]

2 Texas billionaires give $20M to super PACs

Two Texas billionaires are now the largest donors to active federal super PACs, or political action committees, together giving more than $20 million in support of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the GOP since the fall of 2010 through May 31.

Harold Simmons of Dallas — owner of Contran Corp., a holding company — is the largest contributor nationwide to give to super PACs still active in the 2012 presidential election. Simmons and his company gave $13 million to pro-Republican group American Crossroads and $800,000 to pro-Romney Restore Our Future, federal campaign finance reports show.

House builder Bob Perry of Houston comes in second for GOP-related campaign contributions. Perry gave $2.5 million to American Crossroads and $4 million to Restore Our Future.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz1yob9U6QP

[FromWayDowntown]

On the same morning, the Court (with Justice Kennedy writing for the mostly liberal majority) strikes down most of the Arizona immigration law, but ultimately upholds the allowance for police to seek identification when reasonable su ion exists as to the detainee's immigration status.

Seems more like the law is upheld in the most substantive way, from a red team perspective; having most provisions of the law struck down is a positive outcome for the blue team.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

[boutons_deux]

"liberal majority"

?? not for decades to come.

[FromWayDowntown]

"liberal majority"

?? not for decades to come.

"mostly"

in this particular case, the majority is Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. That particular majority is "mostly liberal."

[ElNono]

I expect both red/blue teams to spin any ruling into 'victory' in these high profile cases (that includes Barrycare)...

[elbamba]

On the same morning, the Court (with Justice Kennedy writing for the mostly liberal majority) strikes down most of the Arizona immigration law, but ultimately upholds the allowance for police to seek identification when reasonable su ion exists as to the detainee's immigration status.

Seems more like the law is upheld in the most substantive way, from a red team perspective; having most provisions of the law struck down is a positive outcome for the blue team.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

This deserves its own thread. This was a huge win for the Obama administration. Most red-staters who believe this was a win for Arizona do not realize that police alredy had the authority to check immigration status, that is the only reason that this provision was not overruled.

[boutons_deux]

"mostly"

in this particular case, the majority is Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. That particular majority is "mostly liberal."

"just balls n strikes, ma'am" Roberts ain't in no way liberal. He's a classic top-down, pro-ins ution, hyper-conservative Catholic papist authoritarian.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

what a surprise that is

Those three are as nuts as it gets.

[boutons_deux]

...

[cheguevara]

corporations are people too

they have feelings

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Supreme Court justices struck down the majority of Arizona's strict immigration enforcement law today, but upheld the most controversial provision that allows police to seek proof of immigration status.

The court ruled the federal government has broad, undoubted power over immigration law and the status of immigrants.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said “the federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled.”

But the ruling allows police to stop, detain and question a person believed to be in the country illegally — a provision opposed by Latino and immigration rights groups.

“The truth is, ‘show me your papers' laws harm citizens and noncitizens alike,” said Krystal Gomez with the American Civil Liberties Union in Brownsville. “It's impossible to enforce these laws without racial profiling.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...#ixzz1yp9ZhlmD

As if AZ, NV, TX, etc GAFF about harassing Brown-Americans.

[cheguevara]

tbh the most controversial part was making it a crime(felony?) for illegals to be in the state or for them to look for jobs. that was struck down

[boutons_deux]

My guess is the Arpaio and his goons will, in retaliaton, greatly increase harassing brownies.

[scott]

"just balls n strikes, ma'am" Roberts ain't in no way liberal. He's a classic top-down, pro-ins ution, hyper-conservative Catholic papist authoritarian.

Christ, how bad at reading comprehension are you?

[scott]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

[TeyshaBlue]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

lol.

[MannyIsGod]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

The judges were just fixing the actions of those activist legislators tbh.

[LnGrrrR]

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

Is there any doubt that Scalia has no principles whatsoever? Original intent my arse.

[boutons_deux]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

[scott]

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

Translation: "When my side does it, it's the right thing. When their side does it, it's activist judges"

Red and Blue teams, you aren't so different.

[boutons_deux]

Translation: "When my side does it, it's the right thing. When their side does it, it's activist judges"

Red and Blue teams, you aren't so different.

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

[scott]

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

1) You are aware that laws, even when Federal, and even when "clear", can be uncons utional, right?

2) Clear to who? You?

[boutons_deux]

1) You are aware that laws, even when Federal, and even when "clear", can be uncons utional, right?

2) Clear to who? You?

if they are uncons utional, then annulling them is still not "activist."

clear to courts.

[boutons_deux]

...