[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/30/14

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Regarding this:
 
The Court has shown no such deference when it comes to the need for  
campaign finance regulation or to protect the voting rights of racial minorities  
and others. The Roberts Court has overturned or limited every campaign 
finance  law it has examined (aside from disclosure laws). It has struck down a 
key  provision of the Voting Rights Act. How much deference did Congress get 
in those  cases? None. 
Well when is Congress wise and entitled to deference? When the Court  
agrees with Congress’s approach. Let’s call that “faux deference,” to go with  
the “f_aux-nanimity_ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_a
bortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html) ”  of the rest of the term. 
Rather than deference, a much better argument could be made for scepticism  
when it comes to Congress writing campaign finance laws.  After all, with  
campaign finance laws, members of Congress are writing the rules for their 
own  election specifically and when citizens can criticize them  generally. 
There are no subjects that they are more intensely  self-interested. 
Ironically, "reformers" should know this.  Some of them believe that  
members of Congress thirst so strongly for campaign contributions that they  
would sell their votes for just a few hundred dollars.  If this is true,  then 
surely they would write campaign finance laws to benefit themselves.   Jim 
Bopp
 
In a message dated 6/30/2014 1:05:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_#HobbyLobby: When is  Congress “Wise?” When the Court Agrees with Congress
’s Wisdom_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62877)   
 
Posted on _June 30, 2014 8:50  am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62877)  
by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

 
Near the end of Justice Alito’s majority opinion in the _Hobby  Lobby_ 
(http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf)  case today, he 
writes that it is not the Court’s job to question the  “wisdom” of Congress in 
using the compelling interest test in RFRA, but the  Court applies that 
RFRA test strongly, and in a way which shows the Court  apparently giving great 
deference to Congress’s judgment about how to balance  the government’s 
interest in generally applicable laws with the accommodations  of religious 
freedoms. It reminded me of Justice Scalia’s pleas in _Windsor  _ 
(http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf) last term for deference to 
Congress on the need for the Defense of  Marriage Act. 
The Court has shown no such deference when it comes to the need for  
campaign finance regulation or to protect the voting rights of racial  minorities 
and others. The Roberts Court has overturned or limited every  campaign 
finance law it has examined (aside from disclosure laws). It has  struck down a 
key provision of the Voting Rights Act. How much deference did  Congress get 
in those cases? None. 
Well when is Congress wise and entitled to deference? When the Court agrees 
 with Congress’s approach. Let’s call that “faux deference,” to go with 
the  “f_aux-nanimity_ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_a
bortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html) ”  of the rest of the  term.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140630/41c752a9/attachment.html>