[EL] McCutcheon reaction and a question

[Benjamin Barr]

John,

>From *McCutcheon* itself: "McCutcheon and the RNC appealed directly to this
Court, as authorized by law. 28 U. S. C. §1253. In such a case, "we ha[ve]
no discretion to refuse adjudication of the case on its merits," Hicks v.
Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, 344 (1975), and accordingly we noted probable
jurisdiction. 568 U. S. ___ (2013)."

 Forward,

Benjamin Barr


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Shockley, John <shockley at augsburg.edu>wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> Unlike Rick, I haven't read the McCutcheon opinion, but I've got a
> reaction and a question:  Considering all the possible cases the Supreme
> Court could take (on First Amendment issues and everything else), I find it
> fascinating that the five majority justices would decide that whether a
> federal ban on contributions over the $123,200 limit ($246,400 for a
> couple) would merit hearing as one of their few cases this year.  This is
> obvious a very important right (of free speech!) for the five justices.
>
> My question is this:  Will any members of this listserve now plan to take
> part in this very important right the Supreme Court has given to ALL of
> us?  At the larger level, I also wonder what percent of the American people
> will actually be able to use this new right?
>
> Yours,
> John Shockley
> Augsburg College (semi-retired)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140403/05082836/attachment.html>