Tuesday Roundup: Roberts Court Doesn't Like This Pesky "Precedent" Thing

The Supreme Court made big news yesterday when they decided to open the door to corporations and unions running politically-charged advertising around elections time. The ruling, written by Chief Justice Roberts on a 5-4 split, overturns a similar ruling a few years ago by the Supreme Court. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, among other things, bars corporate entities from using money to broadcast ads running near an election that names a specific candidate or candidates. In 2003, the ruling upheld the restriction, but stated that the law could be challenged on a particular application. Chief Justice Roberts decided to change that, stating that the restriction was too strict and that McCain-Feingold could only be used to block ads if there is "no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

Ironically, though the majority of the court was in agreement with seeing the specific case in question go to the defendants — who ran an ad in 2004 telling viewers to call Wisconsin's two Democratic senators (and names the two, one of which is, ironically, Russ Feingold) to tell them not to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees — it seems that few on the court other than Justice Roberts were fans of the actual implementation. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas wrote in a concurring decision that the test was "impermissibly vague" and that they should have just shot down the whole provision prohibiting ads close to election time, and Souter and the dissenters said that the decision guts the intent of the campaign reform bill, as soft-money corporate contribution rules are now easy to circumvent and hard to challenge. I'm sure that some day I'll be amused when reading in history books that the legacy of the Roberts court was overturning decided matters of law and replacing them with decisions which were practically impossible to enforce. Right now, though, it doesn't seem all that funny.

But at least he'll be taking the blame for his own mistakes, I suppose — which is more than one can say for the White House. Much to Josh's chagrin, more and more is coming out regarding Cheney's overpowering levels of influence on the President's domestic policy decisions. Quote of the Day: "The president is 'the decider,' as Bush puts it, but the vice president often serves up his menu of choices." The Washington Post article gives a number of examples of Vice President Cheney leveraging a level of power that most Americans would likely expect to lie only in the presidency. It's a little discomfiting, and it's even more so that this is all coming out as presidential campaigns come into full swing. The office here is of two opinions: some hold that the President is using the twilight of his presidency to shore up his legacy by claiming as little of it as his fault as possible; I, however, see little gain in his distancing himself from domestic policy, as any negatives in history books will probably deal more with his failures in foreign policy, and the domestic policy pushes can at least be seen as red meat for modern Reagan Republican big-government conservatives.

Well, maybe not all of it. After all, the whole attorney scandal business doesn't look too good, does it? Yet another smoking gun has turned up in what's starting to look like the aftermath of a John Woo flick. An "unusual" letter has turned up from the Justice Department, by way of Assistant Attorney General Alex Acosta, telling a federal judge in Ohio that he should permit a challenge of the credentials of 23,000 mostly black voters. The challenge was brought forth by Republicans who had sent a mass mailing to Democratic-leaning minority districts and put names whose letters were marked undeliverable on the list to challenge. This "vote-caging" scheme was eventually shot down by federal courts and the Ohio Secretary of State — not that I imagine it bothers the Justice Department that they were once again working to circumvent the laws they're supposed to enforce; I'm sure if they were going to have some sort of conscience about that, it would've shown long ago.

The Department of Energy will give $2 million to help develop a testing site for wind energy near Corpus Christi which will allow for testing cutting-edge, longer turbine blades. The estimated $20 million project is expected to start operating in 2009, and will cement Texas' current position as the nation's top producer of wind energy. The article is heavy on the ramifications for business development from making Texas a leader in wind energy, and light on environmental benefits, but then again, as Texas progressives, I imagine we're all used to that. We're pretty much okay with environmental benefits being couched in whatever pro-business language they need to be to get them enacted.

Finally today, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram takes a swipe at Perry for handing out vetoes hand over fist like they were Sam's Club food samples. Perry apparently plans to tour the state to discuss how little the Lege did, and how "new leadership" needs to step up in the House and Senate that can actually get something done. I have the funny feeling that Craddick and Dewhurst are going to be bitterly returning Perry's "BFF 4Ever" bracelets. Not that the FWST does any cheerleading for Craddick and Dewhurst or anything, but they do help themselves to a heaping serving of Bash Perry, pointing out how Perry's more than happy to shoot down things that Texans' representatives in the Lege did get passed, in some cases overwhelmingly, as they clearly "got it wrong and he's seemingly the only one in Austin who can see things clearly." They also give a shout out to Texas Monthly, pointing out that Perry made an appearance right along with Craddick and Dewhurst in their "Ten Worst" Austin lawmakers list. I'm sure Perry will be writing the FWST a sternly worded letter, as soon as he gets back from his international tours to pick up contrived awards from foreign business interests.