So, if I understand Antonin Scalia correctly, states are sovereign when it comes to excluding suspicious people from their borders, but not when it means excluding suspicious corporate money from their borders.
Scalia in SB 1070 dissent:
Today’s opinion…deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.
Unsigned opinion (with which Scalia concurred) reversing the Montana Supreme Court:
The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does.
My favorite analysis of this included the phrase “Citing materials taken from the Internet as recently as last Friday, the Scalia opinion…” Always a good sign when a Supreme Court Justice is trolling the Internet for evidence.
Update: I had meant to add in this bit about Scalia:
Now, within days of the historic ruling, Scalia is releasing a new book in which he finds fault with a Roosevelt-era Supreme Court decision that forms a critical part of the legal undergirding for the health care reform law. For Scalia, that’s a dramatic turnaround, because he has previously embraced the premise of that decision [Wickard v. Filburn] in an opinion he authored in 2005 that supporters of the Affordable Care Act have frequently cited.
Wickard was good enough for Scalia in 2005 when it was all about the Federal Government outlawing the growth of marijuana in someone’s backyard, but now it’s anathema when it might favor health care.
Update 2: And now we know why Scalia was so foaming at the mouth mad on Monday. The conservatives had won over Kennedy on health care, pretty much completely, but had lost Roberts, of all people.