Bits & Pieces (Monday Night Open Mic)

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Kevin S. Willis

Apparently, Obama Girl is becoming disillusioned with Barack. And doing it to the tune of “You’re The One That I Want” from the hit musical Grease! 

 

 

Kind of unspecific, but certainly not as head-over-heels as Obama Girl’s 2008 videos.

Ancient Japanese Fart Scrolls. Nuff said.

Why do Tiger’s Have Stripes? Alan Turing figured it out years ago!

ABC tours the Foxconn’s factory that makes all the groovy Apple stuff.

As a call back to a recent discussion a brief history of Coke cans. There was once a 32 oz can with a cone top and a bottle cap that required a bottle opener, like the classic glass bottles.

Filed under: Bits and Pieces, Obama | Tagged: , , | 257 Comments »

Citizen’s United II

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Mike

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog posted over the weekend about the upcoming challenge to the Montana SC decision upholding a ban on corporate expenditures in state elections. While the case itself is likely not going to be all that exciting (the Citizens United majority will assuredly reverse the MT SC), the inside baseball look that Goldstein provides on Ginsburg/Breyer’s grant staying the MT SC decision is very interesting.

An excerpt:

What, then, does Justice Ginsburg’s statement tell us? First, these two Justices at this stage recognize a square conflict between the Montana Supreme Court’s decision and Citizens United. They “vote[d] to grant the stay” because the state supreme court was “bound to follow this Court’s decisions” – ipso facto, the state court’s ruling did not follow Citizens United. If these two strong opponents of Citizens United see that conflict, then presumably the Citizens United majority does as well. That means that the state’s argument that its law is distinguishable because it “imposes far different obligations” than did the statute in Citizens United has no traction for a potential majority as a ground for distinction, though perhaps it could be a basis on which Citizens United could be “modified.”

Second, look to what Justice Ginsburg does not say. The statement indicates no sympathy for the claim that this case does not present an appropriate opportunity to consider the question presented. So there is no interest in the state’s contention that, with respect to these petitioners, “the Act operates as no more than a disclosure law of the sort this Court has long upheld.” As a result, the state has to work from the understanding that certiorari is certain to be granted, and the case is going to present the question whether Citizens United should be overruled or modified.

Third, and most important, the statement seemingly identifies the argument that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer think has the best chance: “whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway” or instead should be “withdrawn or modified.” That argument should be based on the practical evidence of “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | 29 Comments »