One of these days, 10:00 a.m. is going to roll around and we're going to get the PPACA decision. Until then I have to be content with movement on this case.

 

The Court met yesterday to decide whether to take up this case. If they voted to do so, then the case won't be heard until 2013. If they decide they like where things are after the Citizens United decision, and thus not take this case up, we'll probably hear about that next week.

It seems actually fairly surprising that the Court didn't announce anything regarding this case this morning, which this writer interprets currently as the court simply not knowing what it's going to do with this case. If they were going to hear the case, they would normally have announced that today, if they were going to summarily reject the case, they would have announced that today.

The US Supreme Court has issued a stay of Montana's law. Based on the current court calendar, it is unlikely that the Supremes will hear the case before this year's election, and then they can rule it unconstitutional next year.

summarily reversed 5-4, no new certs.

summarily reversed 5-4, no new certs.

They reversed Citizen's United?!

They reversed Citizen's United?!

 

No, the MT court decision. Reversed without briefings or argument.

 

edit: short opinion and dissent, I'll post links once they're up.

 

on a positive note, the court ruled 5-4 against life sentences for juveniles.

Edited June 25, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Damnit, totally got self confused based on thread title and your post.

Well, at least they didn't make anything worse.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf

The opinion is short and says little. The dissent is short and points out the stupidity of the original CU supposition that independent campaigning isn't corrupt or give the appearance of corruption, which is stupid on its face.

What's funny (sad) is that the overturned Montana law is a 100-year-old law enacted directly in response to a wealthy copper baron essentially buying his way to power. But the 5 justices don't even want to reconsider the possibility that their base assumption that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" is wrong.

What's funny (sad) is that the overturned Montana law is a 100-year-old law enacted directly in response to a wealthy copper baron essentially buying his way to power. But the 5 justices don't even want to reconsider the possibility that their base assumption that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" is wrong.

Or...they know fully well that assumption is wrong, but they have other priorities.

Oh the tale of unintended consequences.

 

A court full of "Conservative" Judges strikes a blow to States rights.

 

The Supreme Court knows more about Montana than the people of Montana.

Or...they know fully well that assumption is wrong, but they have other priorities.

well duh

 

eta: or admitting that you were very, very wrong on a case that's been heavily criticized since you decided to massively expand its scope and then rule the way you did isn't exactly easy to do.

Edited June 25, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

well duh

 

eta: or admitting that you were very, very wrong on a case that's been heavily criticized since you decided to massively expand its scope and then rule the way you did isn't exactly easy to do.

Do you really think "candidates hanging out with billionaires writing checks for millions of dollars with no disclosure" wasn't exactly what the majority 5 wanted?

Do you really think "candidates hanging out with billionaires writing checks for millions of dollars with no disclosure" wasn't exactly what the majority 5 wanted?

 

Probably. Plus we get the added benefit of unions' political fund-raising abilities being likely crippled (again, in an overly broad ruling granting relief no one was asking for in last week's ruling against the SEIU)!

Probably. Plus we get the added benefit of unions' political fund-raising abilities being likely crippled (again, in an overly broad ruling granting relief no one was asking for in last week's ruling against the SEIU)!

Which is exactly what you'd do if you were trying to design a system that would benefit corporate interests the most. It's intelligent design at work!

Oh the tale of unintended consequences.

 

A court full of "Conservative" Judges strikes a blow to States rights.

 

The Supreme Court knows more about Montana than the people of Montana.

 

The supreme court is looking pretty bad