You need us in that trough.

“The Republican Party’s suit was clearly prompted by its troubles in the 2008 election, in which Mr. Obama proved far more adept at fund-raising than John McCain. It is disturbing that the R.N.C. sees its salvation in clearing the way for corporations and other special interests to flood its campaign coffers once again.”

I missed this when it first went down, but the NYT just apprised me of it: On the verge of electoral oblivion — the retirements of Sens. Martinez, Brownback, Bond and Voinovich don’t help — the Republicans have filed two lawsuits aimed at overturning McCain-Feingold, apparently in the hope that they could then feasibly prostitute themselves back into power. (Feingold’s response.)

“In 2003, in McConnell v. F.E.C., the justices upheld the precise provisions the Republicans are now challenging…The McConnell decision should end the matter. But the R.N.C. seems to be hoping that because of changes in the court — in particular, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement by Samuel Alito — it can persuade the court to undo this recent and important precedent.” Hmm. I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

Sandra Seethes.

“It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.” Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor goes after judge-bashers on the right, quoting very intemperate remarks by Boss DeLay and Sen. John Cornyn. Kudos to her, although, as Ed ranted earlier today, this is all coming a bit late, isn’t it? I mean, where were Justice O’Connor’s concerns about avoiding such ends when she became the swing vote on Bush v. Gore (arguably for dubious personal reasons)? Like her fellow Arizonan John McCain, Justice O’Connor talks nice about standing up to right-wing power-grabs. But, also like McCain, when it was her turn to face them down, she didn’t walk the walk.

Courtside.

As Washington waits for word from Rehnquist, Senate Dems sit by the phone, and the Left arms for a Last Battle of sorts, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter muddies the waters by suggesting that the new Chief Justice be…Sandra Day O’Connor?

Endgame?

Here’s an independence day nightmare: “With the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the conservative movement has within its grasp the prize it has sought for more than 40 years: the control of all levers of the federal government.“

Yes, the right-wing fundies’ time is now, which is why they are already trying to spike Alberto Gonzales as too moderate and imploring Dubya to pick the “right” kind of conservative. Meanwhile, as the two parties gear for battle (despite talk to the contrary) and Dems reconsider the filibuster, Senate Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter contemplates his own legacy, which, if past behavior is any indication, likely means rolling over on command.

Big Doings.

It’s on…Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announces her retirement. “Because she is a moderate, her departure gives President Bush a major opportunity to alter the direction of the court if he so chooses.” Round 1 looks to begin July 8. (Possible contenders.)

It’s not easy being green.

A defeat for medicinal weed is a victory for federal authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause in today’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling upholding federal laws against marijuana. Wrote John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion, “[t]he Controlled Substances Act is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case.” (The losing side consisted of Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas.) This is a tough one. I think prosecutions of sick people seeking medicinal marijuana to alleviate their daily miseries are grotesquely ill-conceived, but, then again, I’m not for rolling back federal power to pre-Civil War levels, either. And, for what it’s worth, “some lawyers who have followed the controversy closely predicted that the ruling, while disappointing, would not bring sweeping changes, since most marijuana prosecutions are undertaken by state and local officials rather than federal authorities.“

Portending the Nine.

“Indeed, former administration officials say all of the names on Mr. Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court are considered strict constructionists who are closer to Justice Scalia than to Justice O’Connor.” The New York Times tries to figure out if Dubya can actually remake the Supreme Court along “strict constructionist” lines as feared and concludes that, yeah, he probably can.

Woohoo!

By a vote of 5-4 (Justice O’Connor the swing vote as expected), the Supreme Court upheld the McCain–Feingold soft-money ban today in McConnell v. FEC. Well, Scalia may call this a “sad day for the freedom of speech,” but I for one think this is great, great news. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” as the majority put it, but at least the highest Court in the land has now recognized the corrosive impact of unregulated loot on the political process. This decision will hopefully do much to disentangle the pernicious conflation of speech and money in Buckley v. Valeo, and set the stage for continued meaningful campaign finance reform in the years to come. While McConnell v. FEC doesn’t eliminate the bad taste of Bush v. Gore, it is a huge step in the right direction by this Court.

Split Decision?

As noted yesterday, the Court heard arguments this morning on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). And, in spite of reformers’ earlier hopes, it seems Chief Justice Rehnquist was predisposed against the law, meaning that the fateful decision is probably in the hands of Justice O’Connor, as per usual. Politically speaking, I’d think this Court would have to uphold reform after thrusting themselves so deeply into the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but I guess we’ll see. (Speaking of which, on a side note, conservative zealot Ted Olsen apparently referred to his friend and fellow Richard Mellon Scaife patron Ken Starr as “Justice Starr” during the proceedings, telling him he’ll “have to wait” for his spot on the bench. Sorry, Ken, not in a million years.)