It’s been said that a president is a glorified spokesman, navigating the country’s discussion in his favor while trying hard to hide his faults.
But today proved how relevant the presidential powers can be when the five Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. Supreme Court nominees “reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had refused to allow the Citizens United decision,” according to The New York Times. The 2010 landmark decision prohibited limiting independent political spending by corporations and unions. The Times wrote:
Citizens United is the Supreme Court’s most controversial decision since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It has been criticized for contributing to a political landscape awash in money, and its critics welcomed the possibility that the justices might revisit the decision. But experts in election law said there was little reason to think any of the justices in the majority had changed their minds.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in today’s decision’s dissent:
“Even if I were to accept Citizens United, this court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the state had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations.”
The Supreme Court did, however, earn back some of its dignity when it struck down three of the four main provisions of SB1070, Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation, and in effect struck down parts of copy-cat legislation in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah. Among the provisions it negated were warrentless arrests of “deportable immigrants,” deeming an immigrant a criminal if they fail to carry federal registration papers and outlawing immigrants who seek or accept work without authorization. It upheld the right of police to demand papers from someone who they suspect is undocumented, but only in Alabama and Arizona.
So it’s OK to be a bigot in Alabama and Arizona but nowhere else? What a confusing day to be an American.
This article appears in Jun 20-26, 2012.
Creative Loafing, please read *exactly* what police are allowed to do in the upheld provision of the Arizona law. What you just stated? That’s one of the three parts that were struck down. When you read what the distinction is and comprehend it, please print a retraction of the above article.
Why would CL print a retraction, Roux!? The Supreme Court did exactly as this writer said: It struck down “warrentless arrests of ‘deportable immigrants’…” and “…upheld the right of police to demand papers from someone who they suspect is undocumented…” What’s inaccurate about this?
The inaccuracy is under what circumstances that the police can ask for documentation of citizenship. Because they still can, if another condition has been met.
Stop your crying lib. That’s the problem with you libs, if something doesn’t go your way, well, then the those responsible MUST be dunces. Now put your big girl pants on and join grow up.
Don’t worry your pretty little empty head Ms McKenzie. After Thursday you will really have something to get your boxers in a wad over.
What’s that about Thursday? Pokey, proven wrong YET AGAIN.
Pokeinthenose:
I guess you were wrong.