I recognize that the portion of the law the Court left intact, the “show me your papers” measure, was most certainly the most important. But the Court didn’t “uphold” that part of the law in any way. They basically let it work its way through the lower courts, based on actual enforcement actions, while saying they did not have the authority to pre-empt it at this time.
|By: David Dayen Monday June 25, 2012 11:25 am|
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Arizona’s SB1070 fits nicely with the Presidential election. In a bit of coincidental timing, Mitt Romney happens to be in Arizona today at a fundraiser. And he has basically lined up with the Arizona law, most of which was overturned today as pre-empted by federal oversight.
|By: David Dayen Monday November 1, 2010 6:59 am|
Yves Smith wrote the best explanation of the mortgage mess in 1000 words or less, and to her great credit got it published in the New York Times. It absolutely cannot be improved upon – it sums up the last several years of breaking the mortgage market, leading up to the current crisis, beautifully. (I’d add that Smith shares my view that a fundamental solution to this problem involves principal reductions.)
|By: David Dayen Friday May 14, 2010 5:25 pm|
If you were to ask me where Wall Street reform stands right now, I’d give it an incomplete. Well, actually I’d give it a C. There are some decent measures in the Senate bill, even a couple transformative ones, but overall some gaps in the regulatory structure remain, and the same financial oligarchs will have the ability to overrun the system, if in different ways.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday May 12, 2010 8:59 am|
|By: David Dayen Saturday April 17, 2010 12:00 pm|
FDL News asked Boxer if she would participate in the nullification of AB 32 if that was the only way to pass a federal climate and energy bill. “I do not support pre-emption,” Boxer said. She understood the need for clarity in trading systems, and that having one for California and one for the rest of the nation may be unwise. But pre-empting the entirety of AB 32 would reduce multiple standards for carbon reduction. “We’ll have to see how the bill is written,” Boxer said, hoping that it could be devised in such a way where California would be able to continue to pursue aggressive regulation of greenhouse gas emissions on their own schedule. Her initial bill was essentially written in that way.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday December 9, 2009 6:51 pm|
The House Rules Committee released a very tight rule, with basically no amendments, for the regulatory reform effort being headed up by Barney Frank. This did not please members of the New Democrats, who are notoriously friendly with banking lobbyists. So they threatened to vote against the rule. This is from Congress Daily (sub. reqd.): [...]