• 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

• Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’
• Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy • Trying to wrap his head around the idea of sending a text message, as part of a case on sexting involving the . He’s not the only justice who doesn’t understand this newfangled technology. Fellow Justice Antonin Scalia showed off the fact that he’s old by saying this gem: “Could [the plaintiff, Sergeant Jeff] Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Because cell phones have printers. These people, by the way, are setting the law of the land, yet they don’t know what the heck they’re talking about. Should we be nervous? source

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an important case. This may be one of the most important cases that we see in our lifetimes, because it’ll have a direct effect on who gets elected, what laws get passed, and who can say what during an election. It’s such an important case that the dissenting opinion is as important as the decision itself. So, here goes.

The case at hand:

• It was about a movie that trashed Hillary Clinton. The producers of “Hillary the Movie,” which was designed by a highly-funded conservative nonprofit political organization to smear the then-presidential candidate, wanted to show the film during the 2008 primaries, but couldn’t because of campaign finance laws (most notably, one passed by John McCain and Russ Feingold back in 2002). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had a narrow scope, and dealt with a small part of campaign finance law.

Key points in campaign finance reform:

• 1971 The Federal Election Campaign Act passes, requiring campaigns to report hard-money contributors to their campaigns, but leaving the door for “soft money” contributions wide open.
• 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce was decided by the Supreme Court, a key decision which upheld the longstanding restriction on corporate speech that could influence elections.
• 2002 The McCain-Feingold Act passed, which limited so-called “soft money” contributions and limited the broadcast of corporate and non-profit political messages near elections, passes.

Main points of the majority opinion:

• Chilling political speech Anthony Kennedy’s opinion argues that the “speech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment” is getting frozen with current campaign finance laws, despite their good intentions.
• Broad, not narrow Instead of focusing on the narrow view of Citizens United, the court decided to widely interpret the law, rendering nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws and judicial rulings useless.
• Corporate ad crazy The court decided to overturn some of the most important elements of Austin and McCain-Feingold, so now we can be barraged with annoying political ads all the way up to election day!

Why John Paul Stevens is awesome:

• 89the age of John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court’s oldest justice and also its most liberal
• 90 number of pages of pure, unadulterated dissent from Johnny boy; not bad bro source

The main point of his (mostly) dissenting opinion:

• The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.
• John Paul Stevens • In his lengthy, massive dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, probably the most dramatic decision the court has made in at least a decade, due to the impact it has on the electoral process. He apologizes for the length for the document before leaping in. But he really had to. This thing is huge – it’s nearly twice the size of the opinion it refutes. source

What does all this mean for you, ShortFormBlog fan?

• one Corporate influence is once again going to be a major factor in political campaigns. And they won’t have any limits on their speech.
• two You’re going see more ads on TV in the days leading up to major elections. The ads could be from corporations or nonprofits.
• three If Fred Thompson runs for president again, TNT can air repeats of his episodes of “Law and Order” all the way up until election day. source