Final rulings.
I think Citizens United was okay, but today's campaign finance ruling was much more hinky. Kagan's voice comes out in dissent. "Except in a world gone topsy-turvy, additional campaign speech and electoral competition is not a First Amendment injury." I'm tired of simplistic statements of what CU stands for, but whatever this opinion means (and it will lead to more confusion in determining what public financing laws are okay) leads me to think that the critics have some degree of truth in their scorn. Not that I find it pleasing that each side is spitting at each other.
It was apparent that a California law that banned the sale of certain types of violent video games being sold to minors would fail, the only question is how badly. Interesting result. Scalia led the way, Alito/Roberts rested more on vagueness, Thomas dissented on his understanding of original understanding's limited protection of minors and Breyer on his pragmatic view that this wasn't too much of a limitation on freedom of speech. The statement that free speech is "principally to protect discourse on public matters" troubles me if it has any bite, but the idea children on their own have First Amendment (and others?) interests me.
Two other rulings, one unanimous (doesn't look that notable), one split various ways with Ginsburg (according to Scotusblog) orally dissenting, suggesting it is of some importance. It concerns personal jurisdiction, which can be important given it determines who gets to go to court, but Breyer/Alito's concurrence also limited the reach of the opinion. The Supreme Court also accepted more cases (such as concerning GPS) and Scalia had a chance to show some spleen in a dissent there. Not that big of a final day, really.
The Supreme Court goes on break and I wait a few months for my annual Cato Supreme Court volume.
I think Citizens United was okay, but today's campaign finance ruling was much more hinky. Kagan's voice comes out in dissent. "Except in a world gone topsy-turvy, additional campaign speech and electoral competition is not a First Amendment injury." I'm tired of simplistic statements of what CU stands for, but whatever this opinion means (and it will lead to more confusion in determining what public financing laws are okay) leads me to think that the critics have some degree of truth in their scorn. Not that I find it pleasing that each side is spitting at each other.
It was apparent that a California law that banned the sale of certain types of violent video games being sold to minors would fail, the only question is how badly. Interesting result. Scalia led the way, Alito/Roberts rested more on vagueness, Thomas dissented on his understanding of original understanding's limited protection of minors and Breyer on his pragmatic view that this wasn't too much of a limitation on freedom of speech. The statement that free speech is "principally to protect discourse on public matters" troubles me if it has any bite, but the idea children on their own have First Amendment (and others?) interests me.
Two other rulings, one unanimous (doesn't look that notable), one split various ways with Ginsburg (according to Scotusblog) orally dissenting, suggesting it is of some importance. It concerns personal jurisdiction, which can be important given it determines who gets to go to court, but Breyer/Alito's concurrence also limited the reach of the opinion. The Supreme Court also accepted more cases (such as concerning GPS) and Scalia had a chance to show some spleen in a dissent there. Not that big of a final day, really.
The Supreme Court goes on break and I wait a few months for my annual Cato Supreme Court volume.