The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on September 09, 2009, 02:01:44 PM
-
Posted by David Kopel:
Justice Stevens Loves the NRA:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252521881
At least today he did. This morning the Court heard reargument in
Citizens United v. FEC. At issue is section 203 of the McCain-Feingold
campaign speech restriction law, which prohibits corporations and
unions from buying TV ads (and communicating in certain other media)
which mention a federal candidate during the 60 days before a general
election, and the 30 days before a primary. During oral argument last
spring, the government had asserted that it would be constitutionally
permissible for Congress to outlaw corporate/union speech in any
medium (e.g., a book) during the pre-election speech restriction
period.
The Court asked for re-argument and supplement briefing on whether it
should over-rule the relevant part of McConnell v. FEC (2003)(which
had upheld McCain-Feingold) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
(1990)(corporate speech can be suppressed in order to relatively
amplify other voices).
Scotusblog provides a [1]summary and analysis from Scotusblog. As
Scotusblog explains, the Court seemed unanimous that the relevant
portion of McCain-Feingold was constitutionally defective, and the
question was whether the Court could address the problem in a narrow
way, while preserving some of the precedents in question.
The [2]NRA brief had argued that the Court should over-rule
Austin/McConnell to the extent that they ban advocacy by non-profit
corporations funded by individuals, or the Court should over-rule both
cases as applied to all corporations. Justice Stevens liked the NRA's
first alternative. However, it appeared that five Justices wanted to
go further.
The briefs are [3]here. Among them are briefs from two other groups
which made me proud to be a member: [4]Cato Institute (focus on right
of association, and anonymity); [5]Cato supplemental brief (stare
decisis principles support over-ruling Austin and part of McConnell,
and returning to the 1976 Buckley precedent); ACLU Supplemental (the
Court should find section 203 of McCain-Feingold facially
unconstitutional; this would over-rule part of McConnell, and would
not require the Court to over-rule Austin).
References
1. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-two-precedents-in-jeopardy/#more-10669
2. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuNRASupp.pdf
3. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/sept09.shtml#citizens
4. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuCATOInst.pdf
5. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuCATOInstSupp.pdf
-
the Court seemed unanimous that the relevant
portion of McCain-Feingold was constitutionally defective,
As was the authors of the bill....
Another brilliant move by a RINO and a Liberal Idiot, exemplifying bi-partisanship.....
I'll be much better after I throw up,....