[EL] McCutcheon reaction and a question

[Pscrsc]

Dear all,

Benjamin is correct in quoting Roberts below, but I think the Chief Justice
is exaggerating.  The law has long given a direct appeal to the Supreme
Court ‹ it dates back to the 74 FECA ‹ but it didn't require a decision on
the merits here.  The lower court case was dismissed on summary judgment,
and the Supreme Court was only required to review that dismissal here.  The
typical process is to correct the lower court's reading of Buckley and then
send the case back for an actual trial (at which point, the Court could then
issue the decision it gave us yesterday).  Likely, the Justices simply
didn't want to delay such a ruling and instead wanted to let the new regime
get underway as soon as possible ahead of the midterms.  In any event, I
think it's notable that Roberts finds it necessary to bolster his point here
with citations to the oral argument at several points in his opinion.  The
Justices themselves apparently saw enough discretion in the procedural
posture of the case that they opted to ask the parties about their options.

Becky Curry

-- 
Rebecca Curry, J.D., Ph.D.
Lecturer, Advanced Degree Program
Berkeley Law School
215A Boalt Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200

rcurry at law.berkeley.edu


From:  Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
Date:  Thu, 3 Apr 2014 14:58:57 -0400
To:  "Shockley, John" <shockley at augsburg.edu>
Cc:  "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject:  Re: [EL] McCutcheon reaction and a question

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, ³we ha[ve]
no discretion to refuse adjudication of the case on its merits,² 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

_______________________________________________ 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/a95957f9/attachment.html>