Corporations are people, too

What does it mean that a doctrinaire conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court just eliminated the evolving theory of campaign finance reform? Well, it means a lot of things -- none of which bode particularly well for the future of elections in the United States -- but maybe it will finally force the right wing to stop labeling judges they don't like as "activist." And maybe, just maybe, it will convince U.S. citizens that who they elect to the White House really matters, since the five conservative justices who formed the 5-4 majority were nominated to the court by conservative Republican presidents. Maybe it's the term "conservative" that needs an overhaul, since the conservative majority voted to invalidate decades of jurisprudence aimed at protecting the society's interest in free elections while trying to place practical limits on campaign contributions. That's about as activist as it gets at this level! The ruling overruled two earlier Supreme Court decisions limiting the role of corporations and associations, like labor unions, in election campaigns -- a 1990 ruling upholding the constitutionality of placing limits on corporate campaign spending and the 2003 decision upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, more commonly known as the McCain-Feingold law. McCain-Feingold barred corporations from paid political advertising on television and radio for or against individual candidates in the last 60 days before a general election. In the abstract, of course, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (No. 08-205) was inarguably correct. “If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, according to the New York Times, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” It's hard to argue with that, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the decision. But as Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out in his 90-page dissent, the majority had erred by treating corporate speech as equivalent to human speech. "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court's disposition of this case," Stevens wrote, joined by the other three members of the more-liberal wing, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Stevens read his dissent from the bench. In a way, the division on the court reflects the division in U.S. politics, where members of the two major parties in Congress seem almost irreconcilably at odds about the country's major challenges. Perhaps as a reflection of that divide, U.S. President Barack Obama was unusually critical of the Supreme Court in a statement after the ruling. “With its ruling today,” he said, “the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Obama called on Congress to respond 'forcefully' to the ruling, perhaps by rewriting the invalidated law in a constitutionally acceptable manner. But it's hard to see, at least at this moment, how that can possibly be accomplished.

April surprise! Bill of Rights wins one at Supreme Court

What are we to make of today's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding limits on the ability of police (read "government) to search vehicles without a warrant? Could it be that we have finally reached the point where the nation's highest court, despite its cadre of radically conservative justices, is going to honor the promise of the Bill of Rights against the whims of the executive branch? Were the reversals of overly restrictive Bush administration-era detainment policies, which signaled that this court was taking its constitutional responsibilities seriously, just the beginning? In fact, the 5-4 ruling in Arizona v. Gant (No. 07-542) did not really break any new ground, according to the New York Times, but restored a measure of balance to warrantless searches involving motorists. "Although we have recognized that a motorist’s privacy interest in his vehicle is less substantial than in his home,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the 5-4 majority, “the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection.” The ruling upheld an Arizona Supreme Court decision in a case involving drugs found in a car that was routinely searched after the driver had been arrested and physically detained. Perhaps more importantly, the ruling reversed the high court's 1981 decision in New York v. Belton, which had been seen as a controlling precedent for the past 28 years. In Belton, a case involving four defendants in a car stopped by a single police officer on the New York Thruway, the court held that a search without a warrant was legal if done soon after an arrest. But Stevens said Belton applied only when an immediate search is necessary for the safety of the officer or to preserve evidence. In an unusual split, Stevens was joined in the majority by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the court's most conservative justices, and by David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, joined as expected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy. But Stephen G. Breyer, one of the court's most liberal justices, also joined the dissent. Breyer indicated at oral argument in October that he did not want to disturb the Belton precedent after 27 years.

Change in U.S. stance on Cuba coming soon

The new administration in Washington plans imminent changes in the relationship between the United States and Cuba, raising hope that one of the worst yet most enduring blunders in U.S. policy could be ending. According to a report Saturday in the New York Times, the lifting of some restrictions on travel and sending money from family-to-family in Cuba is imminent. The United States imposed those limits as part of a 1960s-era trade embargo imposed after Fidel Castro, a communist, seized control of the island nation off the coast of Florida. Relations between Cuba and the United States have stayed tense since then, including, of course, during the Cuban Missile Crisis when John Kennedy was president, but Castro's retirement last year raised hopes of some kind of reconciliation. Announcement of the changes is expected before U.S. President Barack Obama attends a Latin summit in Trinidad and Tobago on April 17, the Times said. The changes are not expected to include a lifting of the entire embargo, just an easing of its terms, the newspaper reported. Lifting of the entire embargo would require an act of Congress. Obama discussed relaxing the embargo during his successful 2008 campaign.