Scott Walker's Union-Busting Law Overturned

Read the Judge's Complete Ruling Here

Huffington Post Story

The law, a crowning achievement for Walker that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void.

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.

The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.

Gov. Scott Walker's Official Reply:

The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5. Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.

Dana Brueck, spokeswoman for Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, was quoted in the Milwaukee Journal: We believe the law is constitutional. We are reviewing the decision, but we're planning to appeal.

And Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester) spoke for her Tea Party constituents when she ranted about the judge:

A judge living in the fantasy world of Dane County has decided they are going to substitute their singular opinion as opposed to the collective will of Wisconsin, through the Legislature and the recall process. We have litigated, reviewed and elected people because of Act. 10. In each case, they say the law works. And it is.

However, union representatives are delighted and see this as a great victory:

Walker's attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin's public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab. Now, a court has ruled that the essential provisions of Act 10, Scott Walker's draconian attack on public worker's right to collectively bargain, is unconstitutional.
~ Phil Neuenfeldt, President of the Wisoncin AFL-CIO Union, via CNN

The decision essentially creates the (2011) status quo for municipal employees and school district employees because it declared the essential provisions of Act 10 to be unconstitutional.
~ Lester Pines, attorney for the Madison teachers union, via Milwaukee Journal

This is a sound decision by the court that upholds what we were saying all along — that Act 10 violates constitutional rights.
~ Christina Brey, a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, via New York Times

This decision will help to re-establish the balance between employees and their employers. The decision gives us an opportunity to get back to the Wisconsin values of sitting down and working together to iron out differences, not taking away the constitutional rights of our citizens.
~ Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha), via Milwaukee Journal

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Joe Walsh and Other Loud-Mouth Louts

Sometimes idealogy has less to do with politics than the fact that someone is just basically an insensitive loud-mouth lout. It's as if these people grew up watching Archie Bunker and thought he was the perfect role model. What they seem to have missed is that Archie was never a lovable guy, but a caricature of an all-American bigot and the essence of loutishness.

Did I mention he was also written as a stupid character with little understanding of other peoples' lives and experiences? I think some of these politicians should realize that.

Here's Congressman Bill Young of Florida insulting a constituent who is asking a perfectly legitimate question about raising the minimum wage:

Constituent: Jesse Jackson Jr.'s passing around a bill around to increase the minimum wage to 10 bucks an hour. Do you support that?
Young: Probably not.
Constituent: Ten bucks and hour to give us a living wage?
Young: How 'bout gettin' a job?
Constituent: I do have one.
Young: Then why do you want that benefit? Get a job!
Constituent: I have a job!

Uh, Congressman Young? The point isn't the job, it's making enough money. You fail at logic. I'm surprised you didn't just call this guy "Meathead." And why shouldn't we all care about the minimum wage? You fail at sympathy for the American people, too.



Or how about Chris Collins, running for Congress in New York District 27? He obviously lives in a world of his own where it's okay to oppose health care because he thinks no one dies from cancer anymore. How con-veeeen-ient! Now he can hate Obamacare without feeling guilty.

Story from Think Progress

"People now don’t die from prostate cancer, breast cancer and some of the other things,” Collins said.
. . . In fact, over 28,000 men will die of prostate cancer this year. According to the American Cancer Society, “Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind only lung cancer. About 1 man in 36 will die of prostate cancer.”
Approximately 40,000 women will die from breast cancer in 2012. The American Cancer Society says it’s the “second leading cause of cancer death in women, after lung cancer.

Hey, get educated, bro.

The flip-side of that remark comes from the head of the New Hampshire Tea Party, who seems to understand that cancer kills, but he wants it to kill some specific people: the Supreme Court Justices who wrote the majority opinion ruling that gave the green light to Obama's Health Care program.

Via Raw Story

Merrimack, New Hampshire libertarian and Tea Party president Mike Malzone has gone further than others in his outrage, declaring in a Facebook post on the Merrimack Tea Party page, “I hope the (5 supremes) get colon cancer.”
When the post was met with outrage, Malzone backtracked a day later, while waxing lachrymose.
“I didn’t wish for anyone to die, but I said I do wish for them to feel our pain,” he said. “No one cares about me, they all make their promises and then go do what they g**damn feel.”

Boo-hoo. Call a Wahhhmbulance! Another narcissistic insensitive lout whining because the Supreme Court upheld the law of the land. But he also manages to remind us that there are terrible illnesses like colon cancer, which does kill if untreated, and that's why we need health care for everyone. So thanks for reminding us.

Finally for your inspection, we have Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL) who said his opponent, Tammy Duckworth, was not a "true hero" even though she is a double-amputee veteran of the War in Iraq. He compared her to John McCain, whom he says never talks about his military service, which just isn't true! Everyone knows all about John McCain's service in Vietnam and his time as a prisoner of war. McCain wrote a book about it, and talked about it the whole time he was running for president in 2008.

Huff Post Story

Duckworth lost both her legs after Iraqi insurgents hit her helicopter with a rocket propelled grenade in 2004. She is now challenging incumbent Walsh in Illinois' re-drawn 8th Congressional district.
"Now I'm running against a woman who, my God, that's all she talks about," said Walsh, a Tea Party freshman. "Our true heroes, it's the last thing in the world they talk about."

Angry Veterans responded on Walsh's Facebook, damning him and telling him to resign, some of them dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who thought he was completely out of line.

Did that stop him? Of course not - louts will never shut up. Here merely repeated himself:
Story Here

“Of course Tammy Duckworth is a hero. I have called her a hero hundreds of times in the past four months. Just like every man and woman who has worn the uniform, her service demands -- demands -- our utmost respect. That’s why I recognize our veterans at the beginning of every one of my public town halls. However, unlike most veterans I have had the honor to meet since my election to Congress, who rarely if ever talk about their service or the combat they’ve seen, that is darn near all of what Tammy Duckworth talks about.

Duckworth responded on the Martin Bashir show:

Yet another irresponsible comment from someone who's supposed to be a sitting Congressman. He's irresponsible in his words and he's irresponsible in his votes. Time and time again he votes against the people of this district, and he really disrespected 23 million veterans across this nation with those comments....
. . . He's lived up to his words that his district is not going to get squat from him, and he's in Washington to be a poster child for the Tea Party. He's lived up to that. I hope to win in November and I will be a servant to the people of the district. I've served this nation my entire life, lived up to my responsibilities, and I hope that I'll get the chance to continue to serve.

Later on Duckworth told Ed Schultz:

He's just trying to shift the focus away from the fact that he's done nothing in his two years in Congress other than be an extremist loud-mouth for the Tea Party....

Indeed!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obamacare Chaos as Republican Talking Heads Disagree

Health care is a big hot-button issue in light ofthe Supreme Court ruling so surely the Republicans had some agreed-upon talking points ready, right? At the very least, they could all get on board with the idea that the health care mandate is a tax - Obamatax - because at least their own Tea-publican base loves that idea, right? Am I right?

Wrong. They cannot get on the same page. Confusion reigns. They have a few memes like "Repeal and Replace" but beyond that each talking head seems to not know what the others are saying, so they are like a cross between a mythical Chimera with several heads and Dr. Dolittle's Push-Me-Pull-You. If what they babble about seems chaotic, what the public hears is mostly crickets chirping. There is no there there. They got nothin'.

Mythical Chimera = Republicans on Health Care

Mitch McConnell: Diabolically unable to show compassion, but also no plan.

* Repeal and Replace ~ Message Fail ~ Crickets Chirping ~ Empathy Fail *

Via Mother Jones ~ Mitch McConnell on Fox News

WALLACE: One of the keys to "Obama-care" is that it will extend insurance access to 30 million people who are now uninsured. In your replacement, how would you provide universal coverage?

MCCONNELL: Well, first, let me say the single the best thing we could do for the American health care system is to get rid of Obamacare....

WALLACE: But if I may, sir, you've talked about repeal and replace. How would you provide universal coverage?

MCCONNELL: I will get to it in a minute. The first step we need to take is to get rid of what is there....

WALLACE: But respectfully sir, because we are going to run out of time and I just want to ask, what specifically are you going to do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured?


MCCONNELL: That is not the issue....

WALLACE: You don't think the 30 million people that were uninsured is an issue?

MCCONNELL: Let me tell you what we are not going to do....

Cricket Chirping.MP3


Also too . . . Talking Point Chaos - Tax or Penalty, Penalty or Tax

WSJ: Is the Mandate a Tax or a Penalty

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) attacked the new law, saying it amounts to a “middle class tax increase” that’s largely going to affect Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

“It will cost the economy between 800,000 and a million jobs,” Mr. McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.”

. . . White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew hit back, saying that the new health-care law was a “penalty” that only 1% of the population who can afford insurance, but decide not to purchase it, will pay.

“The law is clear: it’s called a penalty. Second of all, what the Supreme Court ruled was that this law was constitutional,” Mr. Lew said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Everyone who has insurance–everyone who chooses to buy insurance–will not pay it.”

The Romney Campaign Agrees . . . with the White House???

* surrogate confusion *

CHUCK TODD (MSNBC): What you just said is that Governor Romney agrees that it's not a tax. But you guys call it a penalty.

ERIC FEHRNSTROM (TOP ROMNEY AIDE): The governor disagreed with the court. He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

TODD: So ... I think we're talking around each other. The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax, that's what you're saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax.

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not, that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That's correct.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Boehner: Unable to explain anything about the Republican health care plan, or which parts they will keep or discard.

* Repeal and Replace ~ Message Fail ~ Empathy Fail ~ It's a Tax! ~ Crickets *



CBS Transcript - Face the Nation, July 1, 2012

NORAH O'DONNELL: But access to affordable health insurance, but you're not saying you would be for a law that would prevent discrimination of those individuals?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: No, we just believe there is a better way to make sure that they have affordable access to quality health insurance.

NORAH O'DONNELL: So when you repeal this, what are you going to replace it with?


REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: I just started pointing out. We're going take a common-sense, step-by-step approach that puts in place the kind of policies that will make our-- our health insurance system more what I call patient-centered and lower cost. The only proposal out there last year that would lower the cost of health insurance came from Republicans. Why? Because we've got policies that really will help bring down the cost of health insurance. It's clear that Obamacare is increasing the cost of health insurance for all Americans and making it virtually impossible for small employers to hire new workers.


Cricket Chirping.MP3

NORAH O'DONNELL: How does it make it hard for small employers to hire more workers?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Because they're being required to either provide health insurance or pay a fine. Well, I'm sorry, a tax. It's now a tax since the court said it was a tax.

NORAH O'DONNELL: Chief Justice John Roberts said it was a tax.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): He-- even though, the President had tried to admit for, you know, over a year that it wasn't a tax and nobody believed it and now we know it. But it-- it's getting in the way of employers hiring new workers. Because of these increased costs of government-run health insurance and the fact that, if they don't, they have to provide a tax, so employers--

~~~*snip*~~~

NORAH O'DONNELL: Why not, then, if you like some of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act, why not work with it rather than ap-- repeal the whole thing.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): No, no, no.

NORAH O'DONNELL: Even Mitt Romney said--

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): No, this has to be-- this has to be ripped out by its roots. This is government taking over the entire health insurance industry. The American people do not want to go down this path. They do not want the government telling them what kind of insurance policy they have to buy and how much they're going to pay for it and if you don't like it, we're going to tax you. It has to be ripped out and we need to start over, one step at a time.

NORAH O'DONNELL (overlapping): And so you say so-- so-- so to heck with all these provisions like additional preventative care for children, for women--

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): All of them. All of-- we can-- we can replace. While we replace this, we can have a common-sense debate about which of these provisions ought to stay and which ought to go.

Supreme Drama ~ Roberts Vs. Kennedy

Yesterday CBS News dropped a stunning bombshell when they published insider information about the machinations of the ACA Health Care ruling by the Supreme Court. The reporter is Jan Crawford, and everyone wonders who her sources are, whether clerks or the justices themselves. She says she had two sources - standard in most news stories. Maybe she just had some non-denial denials, as Woodward and Bernstein had while getting two sources in the Watergate case?

She reports that Chief Justice Roberts had originally sided with the conservatives to strike down the health care mandate, but Roberts didn't agree with Scalia and the others that they should strike down all of Obamacare. So he wrote his own opinion allowing the mandate as a tax, and the liberal justices got on board with it.

Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - often thought of as the "moderate swing vote" - was the one determined to bring Chief Roberts back to the fold, badgering him for weeks to flip again and strike down Obama's plan, described in the article as a "relentless" effort. In the end, the conservatives put out an "unsigned dissent" ignoring Justice Roberts' ruling - rather vindictive.

Therefore, the shunning of Roberts as a traitor began long before the public knew of the verdict. The fury of Republicans on Twitter and everywhere else must have come as no surprise after all. No wonder Roberts told reporters that he was planning to go to Malta to teach a class: “Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress,” he told reporters. “It seemed like a good idea.”

Indeed.

CBS: Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

Roberts focused the majority opinion on a much more difficult legal proposition: The tax power. But Roberts also would limit Congress' authority in future cases under the commerce power.

Roberts then engaged in his own lobbying effort - trying to persuade at least Justice Kennedy to join his decision so the Court would appear more united in the case. There was a fair amount of give-and-take with Kennedy and other justices, the sources said. One justice, a source said, described it as "arm-twisting."

Even in Roberts' opinion, which was circulated among the justices in early June, there are phrases that appear tailored to get Kennedy's vote. Roberts even used some of the same language that Kennedy used during oral arguments.

~~~snip~~~

The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

The language in the dissent was sweeping, arguing the court was overreaching in the name of restraint and ignoring key structural protections in the Constitution. There are clear elements of Scalia - and then, there is Justice Kennedy.

"The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril," the dissent said. "Today's decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it."

Rick Scott Says Florida Don't Need No Stinkin' Health Care

picture via firedoglake

No surprise that like Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Scott of Florida is saying "NO!" to Obamacare. Just remember that Governor Voldemort has health care through the state, plus he is a millionaire. He's also the former CEO of a hospital, so he's not anti-health care no matter what lies he tells now. But hey - no sweat off his bald head if he denies healthcare to the masses, right? He gets to decide who is worthy enough, just as he does with voting rights. [/snark]

Orlando Sentinal Story

"Florida is not going to implement Obamacare. We are not going to expand Medicaid and we're not going to implement exchanges," Scott's spokesman Lane Wright told The Associated Press on Saturday. Wright stressed that the governor would work to make sure the law is repealed.

Scott said the state will not expand the Medicaid program in order to lower the number of uninsured residents, nor will Florida set up a state-run health exchange, a marketplace where people who need insurance policies could shop for them.

"We care about having a health care safety net for the vulnerable Floridians, but this is an expansion that just doesn't make any sense," he told Fox host Greta Van Susteren on Friday.

Scott has gone back and forth on the issue after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Congress cannot withhold federal Medicaid funding from states that opt out of a requirement in the overhaul to expand coverage to those just above the poverty line.

More Video from Thursday at the Supreme Court

What a happy day it was! And congratulations to everyone who understood the ruling unlike CNN and Fox!

Obama's ACA Mandate Upheld as a Tax!!!!

OMG - what a morning!!!

CNN breathlessly announced that Obamacare had been overturned without even reading the ruling, and Fox followed suit. Meanwhile cooler heads announced that it was more complicated than that, and in fact, the mandate had been upheld!

Bottom line from #SCOTUS, Obama Administration wins.Challenge to #ACA fails.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 28, 2012

Via Talking Points Memo

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that the Affordable Care Act meets constitutional muster and can be allowed to continue its slow process of transforming the nation’s health care system.

Thursday’s historic decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, was by no means fait accompli. Though the consensus among constitutional scholars has always been that the law’s insurance mandate did not exceed Congress’ Commerce Clause powers, its opponents erected a counterargument that quickly became an article of faith on the right. In the end, Roberts decision upheld the mandate as an exercise of Congress’ taxing power.

Reaction from the Right is predictable!

Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 28, 2012

See more reactions and quotes:
SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare! Tea Party Heads Asplode!

Reading the Health Care Tea Leaves

Are there clues to what the Supreme Court ruling will be on President Obama's Health Care Plan? Possibly.

Most legal prognostications revolve around the fact that Chief Justice Roberts seems to have put himself in control of the Health Care verdict. Is that because Roberts hopes to salvage the tarnished legacy of the Court by handing down another reasoned impartial verdict? Or is it just that Roberts really has just been "bought out" by Big Pharma and wants personal credit for a huge Obama smackdown that will further damage his chances for reelection? Are there clues within the Immigration Ruling? Does the snidely tone of Scalia's dissent mean anything?

It's really a random crap shoot, and we might as well consult the Magic 8-Ball, but here are some of the possibilities predicted in the media:

The Hill calls Chief Justice Roberts the "Player of the Week."

Unlike Justice Antonin Scalia, Roberts appeared even-handed during oral arguments on the health law in March.
Democrats also noticed that Roberts sided with Justice Anthony Kennedy and liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor on the court’s ruling on Arizona’s border-security law.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has predicted the health overhaul will be held up on a count of 6-3, which would probably mean Roberts and Kennedy joining forces with the left-wing justices.
Still, the administration did not perform well during oral arguments and most legal experts expect the court to strike down all, or some, of the law.

Here's an assortment of tea leaves from ABA Journal:

The ACA Litigation Blog says a Roberts opinion is likely “marginally heartening to the challengers.” Forbes, on the other hand, says a Roberts opinion likely means the health law’s insurance mandate will be overturned.

Some experts who talked to Politico saw significance in the fact that Roberts joined Kennedy's opinion in the immigration case. One of them is George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen. "The nationalism in the Arizona case might be a harbinger of similar deference [to the federal government] on health care,” Rosen said.

But SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein told Politico it would be "totally wrong" to see a link between Roberts' stance in the immigration and health law opinions. “They’re very different cases," Goldstein said. "There are overlapping themes about states’ rights, but the federal immigration power is not the same as federal commerce power

Reuters: A Hint on Health Care?

Based on his past decisions and withering remarks from the bench during oral arguments, it's almost a foregone conclusion that Scalia would vote to strike down at least the core provision of the healthcare law that requires most Americans purchase to health insurance. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who wrote separate dissents in the Arizona immigration dispute Monday, are likely to be in that camp as well.
Roberts wrote no separate statement on Monday, a move that showed solidarity with the Kennedy majority. In addition, he likely is focusing on the healthcare dispute to be unveiled Thursday.
One thing is known: Roberts is concerned about the Supreme Court's place in history. He has spoken about the need to preserve the integrity of the bench in deeply polarized Washington and has touted the value of unanimous or near-unanimous opinions.

And finally, here's an interview with Laurence Tribe, professor at Harvard Law School, in which he says he believes the Health Care Law will be upheld. Via MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Laurence Tribe: I do think that the Court will surprise a lot of people when it probably upholds the affordable care act in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts .

Chris Jansing: You think it will be upheld in its entirety?

Tribe: I think it will be upheld in its entirety. Of course I can be wrong. Everybody can be wrong, I can be wrong but I do think it will be upheld. I do think that will be a partial antidote for the way people felt, not only after Bush versus Gore, but Citizens United, and other cases where the Court has reached further than it needed to to grab onto issues that were the middle of the political battle and then often not to act in a particularly judicious way. I think Justice Scalia in particular ought to consider the harm to the Court as an institution when he indulges his famous wit in order to stab the President.

Jansing: There are a lot of people who have written that they are concerned about the perception of the Court. In terms of its popularity it is down in the 40s, the most recent polls have shown that the American people have concerns about the Supreme Court being split much the way that America is divided politically. Are their concerns justified?

Tribe: I think justified to some extent. The Court, in a nation like ours where political and legal issues are mixed up and often intertwined, is often criticized. The people on the losing end often say that it was just politics but I think it's the Court's responsibility to act like a Court, to not reach out to issues not presented by the case, to not make comments about a recent press conference the President holds just to make a political point. When that happens it is not simply a matter of the law being politically charged but a matter of the Court being politically unwise.

It's critical that we not lose faith in our institution, bad enough when people, only 9%, one wonders who they are, have faith in Congress but when people lose faith even in Judges who are honestly trying to do a good job, then I think that endangers the institutional stability of the country.

Jansing: As someone who knows Justice Roberts , do you think he has, as has been reported, great concerns about the Court being viewed as too politicized, and his job to somehow right it?

Tribe: Well, I think he is certainly committed to the idea that the Court should-recognized as an institution that, as he put it during his confirmation hearings, is a kind of neutral umpire. There is no such thing as total neutrality when it comes to politically charged issues like abortion and the structure of political campaigns, but at least it's important for the judges not to basically take off their -- take off their robes and allow themselves to simply shoot off at the mouth, as some of them have begun doing. And I think that the Chief Justice is likely to be concerned about the place of the Court in history and is not likely to want the Court to continue to be as deeply and politically divide. That doesn't mean he will depart from his quite conservative philosophy. You can be deeply conservative and believe the Affordable Care Act is completely consistent with the United States Constitution, and I think that is most likely to come out on Thursday.

The Immigration Ruling Affects Alabama and Other States

Everyone is focused on Arizona because the Supreme Court ruling obviously applied specifically to their laws. But there are several other states with similar or identical laws on the books. In Alabama on the night before the ruling, there were protest marches and vigils in Birmingham. After the ruling, opponents in that state were optimistic that the "crackdown" on illegals would have to stop:

TPM story

Alabama’s law, critics say, goes further than Arizona’s when it comes to potential racial profiling. The Alabama law makes it illegal to rent property to illegal immigrants and forces state universities and schools to check the citizenship status of their students.

Advocates opposed to the Alabama law were elated by the ruling. It represents, in their view, a death blow to the legislation they believe is discriminatory and crippling to businesses that rely on immigrant labor.

“I’m jubilant,” said Shay Farley, legal director at Alabama Appleseed, a group that is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit aimed at to throwing out Alabama’s immigration law.  

“The Supreme Court today makes it clear that with respect to immigration enforcement schemes and regulation, that is the federal government’s job.”
Beyond the implications the ruling has on the law itself, Hispanic advocates told TPM Monday that the ruling could drive Hispanic voters to turn out against Republican legislatures like the one in Alabama.

“Any state legislature that is considering [Arizona-style immigration laws] like this will hear very loudly from the community,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

Mother Jones Story and Map

Along with Arizona, five other states—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—have similar "show your papers" laws on the books. Meanwhile, from 2010 to 2011, 30 state legislatures rejected bills modeled after Arizona's.

Graphic from MotherJones.com

Supreme Impatience as Possible Verdict on Obamacare Draws Near

I hate waiting for anything - patience is not my virtue! And in this information age with lightning-fast computers and instant tweets, it seems ridiculous to make people wait for weeks to hear the Supreme Court verdict. But this is "how it's done" so we wait. There's almost a sense of impending doom hanging in the air, no matter what the verdict is. I can't even imagine what's going to happen at that moment - heads explode, certainly. People cussing on Twitter and Facebook. Speeches, marches, anger - either side could be ticked off royally. Predictions are running rampant that the mandate will be struck down. What the Supremes will do with the rest of the Health Care Bill is anyone's guess.

UPDATE: It was "Or Nothing" - no ruling on Health Care today! See you next Monday!

NPR: Ruling Could Come Today

Word about which of its remaining decisions the court releases today should come just after 10 a.m. ET. The court's website is here.
We'll be watching for news from the court. So will SCOTUSBlog, which is always quick with updates.

From the LA Times

WASHINGTON -- Television cameras will surround the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, as they did Monday, anticipating something that may, again, not happen.
The momentous healthcare decision could be announced Thursday. Or not. All we really know is that it is extremely likely to be handed down by the following Thursday, June 28, when the court is expected to end its current term.

. . . The decisions are printed inside the ornate 1935 Corinthian-style building, and handed out to reporters as the justice who authored the opinion announces the decision from the bench shortly after 10 a.m. By tradition the senior justice goes last, so healthcare is likely to be the last decision announced on the day it comes down.

Only a few times in modern history have the results leaked ahead of time, once reputedly from a comment by a justice to a reporter, another time from a talkative printer.
The court is not meeting Friday, so if the healthcare decision does not come Thursday, the next opportunity would be Monday.

Daily Beast: How the Supreme Court Ruling Will Move Markets

Most academics are bullish on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the law’s cornerstone. There’s around a “10-to-1” chance of the provision’s survival, said Thomas Maguire, a professor of health economics at Harvard. But the market isn’t as optimistic.
“The market is pricing a 60% to 70% likelihood of the mandate being struck down,” said Michael Gregory, manager of two healthcare funds for an investment firm affiliated with Highland Capital Management LP.
According to six industry analysts and fund managers interviewed by The Daily Beast, Wall Street money believes that the individual mandate, if not the entire law, will be dumped.

Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes Cryptic Comments About Health Care Ruling

Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg made some rather mysterious comments about the Supreme Court ruling coming up in the next few weeks about Obama's healthcare plan. It's so cryptic because she doesn't want to give away the "surprise, so it's anyone's guess what she means by this. And she makes a broccoli joke? Well, I guess she can afford to joke with her pal Tony Scalia when their health care plan is guaranteed by the government. But what happens if Tony and the other Conservatives have "chopped off" insurance for millions of citizens and the peasants take to the streets in chaos? I'm sure the Judges can foresee that scenario and are buying airline tickets out of the country in expectation of a decision no matter which way they rule.

From Talking Points Memo

“The term has been more than usually taxing, some have called it the term of the century,” Ginsburg said. In the next few weeks, the court must decide around 15 cases, including the high profile cases over health care and Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Ginsburg called it “flood season.”
“As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending,” she said. “So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.”

Ginsburg cracked a joke about the health care case and the individual mandate. “If the individual mandate, requiring the purchase of insurance or the payment of a penalty, if that is unconstitutional, must the entire act fall?” she said, then offering up the alternative to throwing out the whole law because of the mandate. “Or, may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of the act?”

The reference to broccoli was a jab at critics of the individual mandate, prompting laughter from the liberal-leaning audience. The issue of “severability,” whether or not the rest of the law can stand if the mandate is struck down, is one of many questions the Court will rule on in the health care case. Critics have argued that the mandate would create a slippery slope, ultimately allowing the government to require Americans buy broccoli in the name of public health.

Ginsburg also spent time talking about the importance of dissents, causing Court-watchers to perk up. “I have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of dissenting opinions, noting in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and can propel legislative or executive change,” Ginsburg said.

 By Jen Sorenson of Slowpoke Comics

Ex-Justice Stevens Blasts Citizens United & Bush v. Gore

Yesterday, President Obama gave Retired Justice Stevens the Medal of Freedom Award in a group that included singer Bob Dylan, author Toni Morrison, astronaut John Glenn, Tennessee basketball coach Pat Summit, and the first woman Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.

Then last night, Stevens rose to greatness again when he made a speech in Little Rock, Arkansas, pointing to "cracks" in the 2010 Supreme Court Ruling known as Citizens United, which gives corporations the same rights as individuals and has led to secret Super Pac money used in elections. Stevens was a dissenter in the decision, and said that when President Obama criticized the ruling during a State of the Union Address, he was right on. In fact, President Obama's quote was the first line of Steven's speech! PDF Here

President Obama said in 2010:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests "“- including foreign corporations "“- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.’”

When the cameras panned over the Supreme Court Justices that night, Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "Not true." And Stevens made reference to that in his comments last night.



From American Bar Association Blog:

The majority opinion stated that the government may not restrict political speech simply because some speakers are disfavored. But “somewhat inconsistently,” Stevens said, the majority also said it was not reaching the question of whether foreign individuals or associations could be prevented from influencing the political process.

...“Justice Alito's reaction does persuade me that in due course it will be necessary for the court to issue an opinion explicitly crafting an exception that will create a crack in the foundation of the Citizens United majority opinion,” Stevens said. “For his statement that it is ‘not true’ that foreign entities will be among the beneficiaries of Citizens United offers good reason to predict there will not be five votes for such a result when a case arises. ...

“It will be necessary to' explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters.”

Story from USA Today:

Speaking to hundreds of people at a Wednesday night event in Little Rock, the retired justice said President Obama accurately criticized the ruling for reversing a century of law and allowing special interest groups to pump money into elections. He cited Justice Samuel Alito's reaction to Obama's criticism . . .

. . . He also pointed to televised debates when moderators try to allow candidates equal time to express their views. He said candidates and viewers wouldn't like it if there were an auction giving the most time to the highest bidder.

"Yet that is essentially what happens during actual campaigns in which rules equalizing campaign expenditures are forbidden," he said.

In answer to an audience question, Stevens also mentioned the Court's tainted legacy over the Bush v. Gore decision that essentially stopped vote recounts in Florida after the ill-fated 2000 presidential election and handed the victory to George W. Bush.

"I think you have to have confidence that the justices will do their best to not make that same mistake again," he said to laughter and applause.

Let's hope not, but thanks to Judge Stevens for reminding us that even the Surpreme Court isn't infallible and for giving us hope that some of these bad decisions might be overturned someday. Of course the only way to actually change the Supreme Court for the better is to keep Obama in the White House for four more years. We have no choice.