I wanted to start this thread to keep tags and comments on one of the most important intuitions of the USA, and some of the cases they see.
Please at least listen to the oral arguments before commenting.
Supreme court Oral Arguments
This past two weeks we had two great cases.
The case regarding affirmative action
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
And the case regarding campaign limits McCutcheon vs FEC
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Please listen to the audio and post hopefully informative opinions.
My two cents.
On the affirmative action case. Poor Sotomayor was the only one grilling the defendants of the Law banning the use of alternative action. But you can see that it was a losing battle as it is hard to justify the passing of an amendment that basically prohibits using race as a factor, under the ground of been racial discrimination. Somehow it was bizarro world for me. "In order to have this law struck down under equal protections, we have to establish that the law in fact does not grant equal protection, but protected status, to race." this case seems so clear to me it may be decided on an avalanche in favor of the ban.
McCutcheon. The court is now caught on the position of separating two types of political speech, and the impact money has on politics. From citizens united, the outcome was that independent political speech (money) can not be stopped based on 1st amendment rights, since it does not create the appearance of corruption. Now they are facing when they have to deal with the appearance of corruption since it involves direct contributions to candidates and parties. I will be very disappointed if the limits are eliminated, since it basically opens the floodgate to the appearance of corruption. Or maybe the court will do a 180, and draw the line on the sand and upholds the limits, basically saying money that goes to the political system, can be capped, due to corruption. Or they may reverse citizens united and say money spend is not political speech, highly doubtful.
Please at least listen to the oral arguments before commenting.
Supreme court Oral Arguments
This past two weeks we had two great cases.
The case regarding affirmative action
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
And the case regarding campaign limits McCutcheon vs FEC
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Please listen to the audio and post hopefully informative opinions.
My two cents.
On the affirmative action case. Poor Sotomayor was the only one grilling the defendants of the Law banning the use of alternative action. But you can see that it was a losing battle as it is hard to justify the passing of an amendment that basically prohibits using race as a factor, under the ground of been racial discrimination. Somehow it was bizarro world for me. "In order to have this law struck down under equal protections, we have to establish that the law in fact does not grant equal protection, but protected status, to race." this case seems so clear to me it may be decided on an avalanche in favor of the ban.
McCutcheon. The court is now caught on the position of separating two types of political speech, and the impact money has on politics. From citizens united, the outcome was that independent political speech (money) can not be stopped based on 1st amendment rights, since it does not create the appearance of corruption. Now they are facing when they have to deal with the appearance of corruption since it involves direct contributions to candidates and parties. I will be very disappointed if the limits are eliminated, since it basically opens the floodgate to the appearance of corruption. Or maybe the court will do a 180, and draw the line on the sand and upholds the limits, basically saying money that goes to the political system, can be capped, due to corruption. Or they may reverse citizens united and say money spend is not political speech, highly doubtful.