Subject: Re: BCRA on the Supreme Court's agenda Thursday, sort of
From: Roy Schotland
Date: 5/13/2003, 3:01 PM
To: Rick Hasen
CC: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu

Query Rick's "hope to see the government defendants, the BCRA sponsors, and/or the Adams' plaintiffs move to expedite consideration."
    a) What's the minimal time youall believe appropriate for briefs, reply briefs ... and for the Court to read them?
    b)  In Buckley, CtAppeals decision came down Aug 15, SupCt argument was Nov 10 and decision was Jan. 30.  (How much better off we'd be if the BCRA lower court had drawn upon the Buckley lower-court's schedule and process-- see appendix to CtApls decision.)
    c)  There are obvious advantages to getting SupCt decision ASAP.  But maybe some disadvantages too?  What of the possible advantages in not expediting, and so having argument when Term opens in order to assure that SupCt has plenty of time to ruminate and vent before argument?  Also, by then they could have an infinity of pages from Hasen et al that, in all seriousness, would add value to whatever they get in the briefs.
    Onwards!  roy

Rick Hasen wrote:

  I understand from conversations with a reporter that the Supreme Court has two BCRA items on its agenda when it meets on May 15. These are motions from the McConnell plaintiffs and from the government defendants to dispense with the printing of the lower court opinion as an appendix. Given the bulk of the opinion and its easy accessibility, this seems like a reasonable request. Apparently not on the agenda is McConnell's request to have his typewritten jurisdictional statement accepted in lieu of the usual printed document. (Why didn't McConnell just print up his jurisdictional statement? As I noted here McConnell filed his papers within hours of the 1600 page decision likely to gain the advantage (such as it is) of being the first named plaintiff (now appellant) in the Supreme Court.)
 

Also apparently not on the agenda is any consideration of expediting consideration of the appeal. Why not? As I indicated here, the Court appears to be waiting for a party (or all the parties) to file a motion to expedite consideration of the case. I hope to see the government defendants, the BCRA sponsors, and/or the Adams' plaintiffs move to expedite consideration. 

-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html

--
Roy A. Schotland
Professor
Georgetown U. Law Ctr.
600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
phone 202/662-9098
fax        662-9680 or -9444