» There’s one particularly amazing line in this story: ”In some cases, he said, the FBI sought court orders to obtain permission to turn the devices on briefly — only in order to locate and retrieve them.” If you remember, the FBI had to stop using tracking devices as the result of a Supreme Court ruling that ruled that the practice was illegal without a warrant. So everyone, have a small chuckle at the fact that FBI can’t find some of its GPS devices.
@shortformblog colbert should argue for citizen’s united at scotus. that would be a great civics lesson.— josh sternberg (@joshsternberg) February 18, 2012
Inspired by Josh’s tweet above, a question for you guys: If Stephen Colbert were to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court, what should he say to keep corporate influence in politics alive? He’s been running a comedy SuperPAC for months, so he’d be perfect for this case. What sort of line of argument would you imagine him taking?
Judge Reinhardt does not hold there is a right to same sex marriage, only that CA had no rational reason to take away the label of marriage for use by gay and lesbian couples after the state had had already given it. By crafting the argument in this way, and making the case that the only reason for passing Prop. 8 was anti-gay animus, Judge Reinhardt has given Justice Kennedy a way to decide the case without embracing a major holding recognizing a right to same sex marriage generally.Rick Hansen • Regarding the nature of the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling on Proposition 8 earlier today. Hansen is suggesting that Judge Reinhardt cast the ruling in an intentionally narrow sense so as to make it easier for Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s most notorious swing voter, to uphold it on appeal. The distinction we made earlier could thus affect the future of gay marriage in California. In short, court rulings often possess a strategic, as well as a legal, foundation. source (via • follow)
The President opposed the Citizens United decision. … He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending. But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.Obama campaign manager Jim Messina • From a blog post on BarackObama.com, titled “We Will Not Play by Two Sets of Rules.” In it, Messina attempts to explain why the Obama campaign, despite stated opposition to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (and ostensibly Super PACs themselves), will be playing the same Super PAC game as the GOP candidate this year. This strikes us as a hard sell, especially to independents — saying President Obama needs to use a corrupted system in the hopes of ending said system doesn’t seem like an argument that would have much appeal to those not already extremely trusting of his administration. source (via • follow)
All of them are good and all of them are bad.Ron Paul, when asked to name his favorite Supreme Court justice. Mitt Romney, conversely, named four — Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
And The fight over gay marriage rolls on: The California Supreme Court has ruled that opponents of gay marriage may defend the state’s ban, better known as Proposition 8, in court proceedings. Typically the task of defending such a state initiative falls on officials like the governor or attorney general, but both Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris have refused to do so, voicing opposition to the marriage restriction. This is broadly viewed as a table-setting sort of ruling — there’s a growing air of inevitability that the gay marriage issue is bound for the U.S. Supreme Court, where a ruling could impact the institution all across the country. source