Major corporate law firms are now paying recent Supreme Court clerks, many of whom are only two years out of law school and can be as young as 28 years old, a $280,000 signing bonus simply for showing up to their first day of work. That’s in addition to base salaries around $185,000 for the first year out of clerkship and a year-end bonus in the five figures. Lawyers who clerked for lower federal court judges can earn signing bonuses as high as $60,000, and that’s also in addition to base salaries and bonuses similar to their colleagues who clerked for a justice.

Lest there be any doubt, these kinds of big dollar payments can have a significant impact on the shape of U.S. law. Federal law clerks are overwhelmingly drawn from the nation’s top-performing law students, and excellent attorneys can often change the outcome of court decisions. Simply put, there is a reason why every conservative official in the country wants to hire Republican superlawyer Paul Clement to present their most constitutionally indefensible arguments. The kinds of law firms that can afford to pay six figure recruitment bonuses primarily represent major corporations and other well moneyed clients, not the kind of ordinary Americans who are already at a disadvantage in this Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia District heard arguments Friday on an appeal in the Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission case. A district judge ruled in March that outside groups engaging in signficant “electioneering communications” — ads run near federal elections that mention candidates but do not explicitly tell viewers to elect or defeat them — must disclose the donors funding their efforts. The impact of this ruling is limited, because most groups have exploited a loophole allowing them to circumvent the rules. Nevertheless, one group impacted by this decision has thus far failed to identify its big-money donors.

After years of failing to enforce disclosure rules mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as McCain-Feingold), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) successfully sued the Federal Election Commission, demanding that it do so. The FEC said in July that it would enforce the ruling, retroactive to the date it was issued. Until such time as a court overturns the ruling, the Commission ordered, all reports of electioneering communications made from March 30, 2012-onward would need to include disclosure of all donors to the group who contributed $1,000 or more. As ThinkProgress reported, that meant just one group would have to amend its earlier filings to name its donors: Freedom Path. An officer for that Utah-based 501(c)(4) committee, which spent thousands of dollars on ads praising Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Mitt Romney, told ThinkProgress at the time that his group would have to consult with their legal counsel before making a statement on whether it intends to comply with the new rule.

Six weeks later, Freedom Path has not yet amended its reports. The Federal Election Commission’s report analysis division has not contacted the group to ask for additional information. The Commission has taken no enforcement action against Freedom Path to date, though it does not make ongoing enforcement investigations public. As a result, voters cannot determine who was truly speaking in the group’s advertising, even though this disclosure is currently required by law. Freedom Path did not respond to multiple emails and phone messages asking for comment.

Just one group — Mayors Against Illegal Guns Action Fund — has reported a new electioneering communication expenditure since the FEC’s July order. It did identify its donors in its filings.

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told ThinkProgress that any group that’s making significant electioneering communications is “required by law to disclose their donors. All groups should be doing so… It’s important [and] the FEC needs to enforce that law.”

But, he added, “Equally as troubling, or perhaps even more troubling, is the fact that many [501](c)(4)s are now playing a game of inserting very brief mention of express candidate advocacy at the end of their ads seemingly for the purpose of avoiding donor disclosure… They game the system and maintain the anonymity our deep pocketed donors by simply inserting a few words at the end of the ad, where they’re barely noticeable.”

The DISCLOSE Act — which would have required donor disclosure for those more overt “independent expenditures” allowed by the controversial Citizens United ruling — was blocked by Senate Republicans in July, on two party-line votes.

As Colorado voters prepare to consider a November ballot initiative to legalize and regulate marijuana, their governor, John Hickenlooper (D-CO), has come out against the initiative in no uncertain terms. Hickenlooper’s office released a statement decrying the amendment as harmful to children. Amendment 64 would allow the state to regulate and tax cannabis in the manner it currently handles alcohol. The NAACP has endorsed the initiative out of concern for the disproportionate impact petty drug possession charges have on the lives of young African Americans.

While acknowledging the injustice of felony charges for petty possession, the governor vaguely suggested there are other ways besides legalization to handle the problem:

Colorado is known for many great things — marijuana should not be one of them. Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation. It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are okay.

Federal laws would remain unchanged in classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance, and federal authorities have been clear they will not turn a blind eye toward states attempting to trump those laws. While we are sympathetic to the unfairness of burdening young people with felony records for often minor marijuana transgressions, we trust that state lawmakers and district attorneys will work to mitigate such inequities.

When ThinkProgress asked the governor’s office what alternative legislation Hickenlooper would support to address these “inequities,” a spokesperson said he was unaware of any pending proposals. During Hickenlooper’s tenure as Mayor of Denver, the city legalized petty possession of marijuana for anyone over 21 years old, though police can still make arrests based on state law. A majority of Denver Republicans voted to support Amendment 64, which is very similar to the city initiative.

Amendment proponent Mason Tvert called the statement “one of the most hypocritical statements in the history of politics” due to Hickenlooper’s former ownership of the Wynkoop Brewing Company brewpub in Denver. The governor’s stance also puts him at odds with 47 percent of Colorado voters who currently support legalization. Even vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is staunchly against marijuana legalization, felt the need to declare his support for states’ rights on the issue during a visit to the state.

However, Hickenlooper’s statement also shows some pragmatism in warning the federal government “will not turn a blind eye” toward state legalization. The Justice Department has cracked down on Colorado’s state-sanctioned medical marijuana program in the past year and shows no sign of relenting.

A New York federal district judge on Wednesday blocked a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that could be read to authorize the federal government to indefinitely detain people who were “substantially” or “directly” “supporting” the Taliban, Al Qaeda or its allies. The plaintiffs in this case included journalists and writers who feared that their reporting about Al Qaeda or the Taliban might subject them to detention under this law.

The government argued that the provision merely restated its existing detention authority, and did not impose any new burdens on the First Amendment. But District Judge Katherine B. Forrest rejected that assertion outright, pointing out the “logical flaw” in “stating an intention not to expand authority when Congress has set forth what is, in fact, new and broad authority,” the scope of which the government was not willing to define:

The Government did not–and does not–generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: it prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights. To the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to encompass protected First Amendment activities, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.

A key question throughout these proceedings has been, however, precisely what the statute means–what and whose activities it is meant to cover. That is no small question bandied about amongst lawyers and a judge steeped in arcane questions of constitutional law; it is a question of defining an individual’s core liberties. The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention–potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity–and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2). Understanding the scope of § 1021(b)(2) requires defining key terms. At the March hearing, the Government was unable to provide definitions for those terms.

Forrest temporarily blocked the law in May. In its arguments before that decision, the government “was unable to provide … any assurances” that the law “would not in fact subject plaintiffs to military detention” for engaging in writing and other activities protected by the First Amendment. She said the government later changed its position, but would not state that covered First Amendment activity was protected under the law.

Wednesday’s ruling has been rightly hailed by many commentators as a rare civil liberties victory at a time when limits on government national security power are few and far between. But the decision makes an assumption about the NDAA that some have questioned because an amendment to the law seems to suggest that it was not as broad as Judge Forrest suggests. American University law professor Steve Vladeck laments at Lawfare that Forrest assumes the NDAA confers the power to detain U.S. citizens, even though “the entire point of the Feinstein Amendment was to quell concerns that the NDAA might covertly authorize the detention of U.S. citizens or other individuals within the United States.” Vladeck worries that this assumption distracts from “real and serious” concern about the potentially broad and unknown scope of the law’s impact on non-citizens detained and arrested outside the United States.

This rare victory for civil liberties in a national security case could be short lived, as the government has already filed an appeal to the Second Circuit.

The words “tea party” are not normally associated with moderation and restraint, but a group known as the Asheville Tea Party is extreme even by tea party standards. The Asheville Tea Party published a lengthy rant comparing President Obama to Hitler (sample quote: “Hitler took control of the banks….Obama took control of the banks. Hitler installed Socialized medicine….Obama’s Administration passed Socialized medicine.”). They devote an entire section of their website to “Sharia, The Threat.” They offer a list of resources focused on the “communist take over of America” (sample article title: “How Many Members Of The U.S. Congress Are Self-Declared Socialists?”). And they are hosting an event tomorrow keynoted by a sitting North Carolina Supreme Court justice:

Justice Newby is a major benefactor of wealthy conservatives’ largess. A super PAC formed earlier this year to raise unlimited sums of money to keep Newby on the bench, and another group led by North Carolina retail mogul Art Pope already dropped $72,000 to support Newby’s reelection bid.

Nevertheless, Newby’s decision to keynote an Asheville Tea Party event is surprising given the Asheville Tea Party’s unusual understanding of the Constitution. In a statement released shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, the Asheville Tea Party declared that “We need new representatives in Raleigh dedicated to states rights and nullification who will stand up and prevent onerous federal mandates thurst upon us.” Nullification is an unconstitutional doctrine which claims that states can simply decree that federal laws will no longer apply within their borders. It was very much in vogue during slaveholder efforts to retain power in the 1830s and segregationist efforts to retain power in the 1950s and 60s, but it is explicitly rejected by the Constitution — which provides that duly enacted federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

One of the most basic tasks the two political parties must perform every four years is identifying 538 people loyal to their nominee, who will cast the only votes that truly matter in the presidential election when the Electoral College convenes to choose the next president. Apparently, Team Romney may have failed in that task:

At least three Republican electors say they may not support their party’s presidential ticket when the Electoral College meets in December to formally elect the new president, escalating tensions within the GOP and adding a fresh layer of intrigue to the final weeks of the White House race.

The electors – all are supporters of former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul – told The Associated Press they are exploring options should Mitt Romney win their states. They expressed frustration at how Republican leaders have worked to suppress Paul’s conservative movement and his legion of loyal supporters.

“They’ve never given Ron Paul a fair shot, and I’m disgusted with that. I’d like to show them how disgusted I am,” said Melinda Wadsley, an Iowa mother of three who was selected a Republican elector earlier this year. She said she believes Paul is the better choice and noted that the Electoral College was founded with the idea that electors wouldn’t just mimic the popular vote.

While it is certainly amusing that the Republican Party is apparently no better at identifying faithful Electoral College candidates than they are at selecting prime time convention speakers who won’t carry on a conversation with a chair, the real lesson here is that the Electoral College is a really bad idea. If a majority of the American people vote for Mitt Romney next November, than his voters have a right to expect Romney to be sworn in as president and Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan to be sworn in a vice-president. The people’s choice should not be thwarted because an obscure group of Ron Paul activists infiltrate an antiquated selection process.

Several states signed onto an effort to effectively neutralize the Electoral College known as the National Popular Vote compact.