What to Expect from the Supreme Court this Week

by: tmess2

Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 11:28:40 AM EDT

By Friday, the Supreme Court will have recessed for its three-month summer vacation (unless something very unexpected happens).  Between now and then, it has several significant decisions to make.  For those trying to figure out what will be happening this week (i.e. when they need to take a quick look at their favorite network news site or this site), here is what will happen as best as can currently be determined.

The Supreme Court will be in session on Monday at 10:00 a.m. EDT.  They have not yet announced any additional sessions for this week.  Normally, they would have announced such sessions by yesterday.  That does not mean that they will not announce on Monday that there will be an additional session, just that for now the omens are that Monday will be it.

The first order of business on Monday will be the announcement of the orders of the Supreme Court.  The orders are the weekly list of which cases they have accepted for argument and which cases they have turned down.  For the first three months of arguments in the next term (October, November, December), review has to be granted now to give the parties enough time to brief the case.  At this point, 20 cases have been granted argument for next term.  There are 32 argument spots in the first three months of next term.  While this Court has been historically stingy on granting review, a mere seven arguments per session (with seven sessions total) would probably set a modern record.  At the top of the list of possible grants out of Monday are the Bullock case out of Montana (a challenge by the Montana Supreme Court to Citizen's United) and the latest round of the Mount Soledad Monument case.

After the announcement of the orders, the announcement of decisions begins.  Decisions are announced by the Justice who issued the opinion (in rare cases by the Justice who wrote the plurlity opinion when there is no majority opinion).  This consists of the Justice reading a brief summary of the opinion.  If there is a dissent, the Justice who wrote the dissent has the option to read part of the dissent from the bench.

Decisions are read in the reverse order of seniority.  While we do not know for sure who has each of the remaining cases, there are two potential tea leaves. 

First, cases are assigned by the senior Justice in the majority.  (The Chief Justice is considered to be the most senior.)  For all practial purposes, that means that opinions are assigned by Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Scalia or Justice Kennedy.  (Technically, Justice Thomas or Justice Ginsburg could be the senior Justice in the majority, but this rarely happens.  In 2010, Justice Thomas was the senior Justice in one case).

Second, in assigning cases, the Justices responsible try to keep the workload balanced.   As a result, with most opinions decided, we can guess at who has the remaining opinions -- barring reassignment when a Justice loses the majority after the opinion was assigned.  (This may have happened to Justice Sotomayor in October when she was not the author of the majority opinion in any case but ended up concurring in the Judgment in Compucredit.)

First up would be Justice Kagan.  She is one of two Justices who did not have any cases in February yet.  My hunch (given comparative workload prior to February) is that is it slightly more probable that she was assigned Alvarez (the stolen valor case).  If so that case would be the first issued on Monday. 

The next Justice up would be Justice Sotomayor.  However, it looks unlike that Justice Sotomayor has any cases still outstanding.   

Could Citizens United be Reversed?

by: DocJess

Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 06:41:10 AM EST

Nothing has had as much affect on this years Republican primaries as the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. It has, in no uncertain terms, corrupted the political process. Demos undertook a study to find out where the money came from, who it went to, and how much of it was completely secret. That study can be found here. Amoung other findings:

"Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people."

The study also found that 93% of the itemized contributions raised by super PACs came in contributions of $10,000 or more, with more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more. Source

Amazing, isn't it? 

The original intent of banning corporate contributions dates back more than 100 years, when the robber barons used to control things. Back then:

Montana voters supported the state's law against corporate spending in local politics in 1912, when copper barons and mining interests dominated the state. Montana lawmakers, who at that time appointed the state's two U.S. senators, received kickbacks, and judges were bribed.

That Montana law against corporation contributions stood until last Friday, when SCOTUS put it on hold. There was a suit against Montana from some companies that want to influence elections that made it all the way to the Supremes, who basically put a "temporary hold" on the Montana law until they decide whether to accept the full case or outright overturn Montana law based on Citizens United.

Remember that Citizens United allowed corporate spending because it did not cause corruption, nor the APPEARANCE of corruption. Um, the Supremes majority was WRONG on both counts. Two justices agree with that assessment.

In Friday’s order, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer said the upheaval in the world of campaign finance since the Citizens United decision does not bear out the majority opinion.

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ” Ginsburg wrote.

“A petition for certiorari [from those challenging the Montana court’s decision] will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.” Source.

Look no further than Florida to see the impact of huge Superpac funding changing the outcome of the election. Had Mittens secret donors not flooded the airwaves in Florida, there's a high probability that Newton Leroy would have won. (Especially if he'd held it together during the debates.)

In a land where the right screams about deficits, deficits, deficits above all else, think what it would mean if those people so rich they can write multimillion dollar checks for candidate advertising instead paid taxes at the pre-Shrub tax cut rates. The deficit would be smaller, they wouldn't notice the money out of their pockets, and this would be a better country for it. I don't know how rank and file Republicans feel about things, I can't even imagine thinking or feeling like them, but I'm betting they're pissed that a candidate they don't want is being pushed down their throats by corporate interests. 

Want to do something as we wait this out? Sign Senator Sander's petition for a Constitutional amendment against corporate financial influence in elections. It reads, in part:

The Saving American Democracy Amendment states that:

• Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
• Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
• Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
• Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

We at DCW feel so strongly about it that a link to the petition is on the bottom of every page. Please sign, please tell your friends. This is America....I read somewhere that it is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. I don't remember seeing the word "corporation" in that document. 

Son of Citizens United

by: tmess2

Tue May 31, 2011 at 21:57:43 PM EDT

Last Thursday, in a little noticed decision, a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the federal law that prevents corporations from directly contributing to the campaigns of candidates.

The case itself is a criminal case in which a corporation is alleged to have reimbursed employees who gave to the campaign committees of Hilary Clinton when she was running for re-election to the Senate in 2006 and for the Democratic nomination in 2008.  The counts involving the hiding of the source of the contribution remain intact.  Most of the decision involves explaining why the challenge to the counts involving hiding the source of the contribution were frivolous.

However, starting on page 42 of the 52 page opinion, the District Court turned to the one count (out of seven) that charged the improper use of corporate money (the source of the reimbursement) to effectively contribute to a campaign.  After analyzing the lengthy case law on campaign contributions, the District Court found that the essence of Citizens United was that there was no difference between corporate speech and corporate conduct and the speech or conduct of a real live breathing human being for First Amendment purposes.  As such, if an individual would be able to make contributions to a candidate (up to the level permitted by statute), then it was unconstitutional to impose a different rule on corporations. 

It should be noted that for prudential reasons (i.e. not wanting the current Supreme Court to rule on this issue or this holding to have effect beyond Virginia) it is unlikely that this case will be appealed further.  However, as the District Court notes another District Court (in Minnesota) has opted not to extend Citizens United in the absence of the Supreme Court expressly overruling all of its prior cases on the limitations on corporate involvement in politics.   The Minnesota case, however, is likely to be appealed.  The clock is now ticking.