Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Mixed bag at SCOTUS

Visual source: Newseum

The New York Times has two editorials, one on each of the Supreme Court's landmark decisions yesterday. First up, the editorial board takes on Citizens United, again, in the context of the Court's decision to summarily strike down Montana's ban on corporate influence in elections:

If the justices were at all concerned about [the influx of money in the 2012 cycle], they could have used the Montana case to revisit their decision and rein in its disastrous effects. The only conclusion is that they are quite content with the way things worked out. [...]

Congress can ' and should ' require disclosure of secret donations. The Internal Revenue Service should crack down on political organizations that pose as tax-exempt 'social welfare' organizations to avoid current disclosure rules.

But, for now, the nation's highest court has chosen to turn its back as elections are bought by the biggest check writers.

Next, the New York Times editorial board turns its eye to the immigration decision and focuses on the fact that the "papers please" provision was upheld for now:

Justice Kennedy's opinion noted that allowing the provision to stand for now 'does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.'

But in allowing the section to stand, the majority bends over backward not to deal forthrightly with the racial context of Arizona's immigration efforts. The majority should have struck it down as well.

A pending lawsuit against S.B. 1070, including this section, could become a compelling challenge on the basis of discrimination. The Justice Department should ensure that the state's application of this section is as careful as the Supreme Court said it expects.

Over at The Washington Post, the editors focus on the parts of the Arizona immigration law that were struck down:

With good reason, the Supreme Court said that 'detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.' State police, the justices said, have no business jailing illegal immigrants simply for being unlawfully present in the country, without authorization from federal authorities.

The justices expressed some faith that state courts would deem it unreasonable for authorities to hold a jaywalker for a lengthy detention while trying to verify his immigration status. But there is ample reason to believe that such practices are common in parts of Arizona and may become more so now that the law's 'show me your papers' section has the court's provisional approval. [...]

In the meantime, the court's ruling may mark a milestone in the American debate over the dysfunctional immigration system. After an initial flurry of Republican-sponsored copycat legislation inspired by the Arizona law, states seem to have lost some of their zeal for hounding and harassing the country's 11 million undocumented immigrants. Now the justices have held up a cautionary hand, warning state lawmakers against further poaching on the federal government's turf.

Pete Wallsten at The Washington Post puts the immigration decision in context and explains why it's such a headache for the GOP:

The quandary for Romney and the GOP is clear from recent polling. The Arizona law is very popular with whites and independent voters, according to data from the Pew Research Center, while many GOP strategists think their party has little chance for success in battlegrounds such as Colorado, Nevada and Virginia if Romney doesn't win close to 40 percent of Hispanics.

The tension among Republicans over immigration has been a years-long struggle and became a point of contention during the GOP primaries, when Romney sought to win over skeptical conservative voters by attacking leading rivals for their more liberal immigration views.

The Philadelphia Daily News examines the Court's decision to strike down mandatory life without parole guidelines for juvilenes:

The Supreme Court is not excusing young people who commit murder ' or juveniles who were sentenced not because they murdered but because they were with someone who did ' and neither are we. But the court decision is eloquent in recognizing that "youth is more than a chronological fact," but a time of immaturity, irresponsibility, "impetuousness and recklessness." By outlawing the mandatory sentence, it requires sentencers to consider the age of the convicted. [...]

Pennsylvania has the highest number of juveniles in the country serving life without parole for second-degree, or felony, murder.  [...] That's not to say they will all be freed, but mitigating factors ' like a child's background or other difficulties ' may now be taken into account. We feel there's a double tragedy in a child or youth who murders, but the essential death penalty of a life-without-parole sentence mitigates at least one of those tragedies.

It also sums ups its "disdain" for the Court's campaign funding decision as follows:

The court declined to reconsider its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which granted corporations personhood, with First Amendment rights. We're stealing from a site called "Create Real Democracy" to sum up our disdain for this decision. Here's an excerpt:

"We'll believe a corporation is a person when:

Arizona deports one.

Texas executes one.

Massachusetts marries two of them.

The U.S. government issues one a Social Security number.

The CIA extradites one to Guantanamo.

One sacrifices its life in military service."

Over at TIME, Patience Haggen explains why the Supreme Court left us hanging on a healthcare decision:

Justices can change their vote or call back their opinion up until the moment the opinion is formally announced. So it's possible'but unlikely'that as the recess date approaches, the justices' final decision may still be up in the air.

More likely though, the justices are lobbing emails back and forth (or knocking on each others' doors for a face-to-face chat) to resolve the finer points of the formal opinions that will become historic legal precedent.

Chief Justice John Roberts usually chooses not to postpone announcement of decisions once they're ready, Denniston says, whereas earlier Chief Justices might have avoided announcing too many high-profile decisions on one day, aware that some of the decisions will inevitably get short shrift in the media.