[EL] McComish (and let's stop calling it that) Decided

[BZall at aol.com]

I recall an earlier ABA Tax Section Political Subcommittee meeting shortly  
after the passage of McCain-Feingold, and echoing the discussion of what to 
call  McComish, I proposed calling the legislation the "Bicker Act", but 
lost out to  "Bick-Ra".
 
And on the same occasion, one of the author's staffers stopped the  
constitutional discussion by saying "We won. You lost. Get over it." Don't think  
that is how it's turned out.  
 
Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani,  LLP
11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
Rockville, MD 20852
301-231-6943  (direct dial)
_www.wjlaw.com_ (http://www.wj/) 
bzall at aol.com



_____________________________________________________________
U.S.  Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this  communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be  used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal  tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another  party any
tax-related matter addressed  herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The  information contained in this communication may be confidential, is 
intended  only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally 
 
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon  
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney  
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the  
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,  
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original  
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank  you.
______________________________________________________________   

 
In a message dated 6/27/2011 11:38:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
heather.gerken at yale.edu writes:

 
Rick  has been citing a bunch of the heated language from the opinions.  I, 
 too, was struck by the vituperative language.  It may be because of a  
nascent rivalry between Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan.  But I  think 
it has more to do with the current state of campaign finance doctrine.  We 
are not witnessing a doctrinal framework moving gradually toward the  middle 
ground.  We are witnessing a doctrinal death match, and the  language of the 
opinions reflects that fact.  For those interested, the  post is here: 
_http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/06/campaign-finance-and-doctrinal-death.htm
l_ 
(http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/06/campaign-finance-and-doctrinal-death.html)    
 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110627/b3db1b6c/attachment.html>