[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has a favorite sentence. He explains why he is likely to reaffirm and reinforce Citizens United's decision when it is upheld in the Supreme Court.
This sentence appears in a 1976 decision of the Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. It was, wrote Judge Kavanaugh in 2009, "perhaps the most important sentence of all Court jurisprudence on campaign finance."
In 2013 and again last year, he went further. "
He was referring to this:" The concept that the government can restrain the speech of certain elements of our society in order to improve the relative voice of others is totally foreign to the First Amendment. "
The Rich People The Supreme Court said in 1976 that" the equalization of the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections, "said the Court, did not justify the limitation of spending 19659002] In 2010, in his majority opinion of Citizens United, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy quoted the phrase admired by Justice Kavanaugh and stated that it also applied to the expenses of corporations and Unions.
"The Protection of Ded", wrote Judge Kennedy for a majority of five judges, "does not depend on the speaker's financial ability to engage in public discussion."
In dissent, Judge John Paul Stevens wrote, "This elegant sentence can not stand the weight that our colleagues placed on him." There may be good reasons, he wrote, to allow "restrictions on speech of some in order to prevent some drown the lot "[19659002Ladivisionsurlaquestiondesavoirsilegouvernementaunrôleàjouerdanslaréglementationdesdépensessurlediscourspolitiqueavecuncôtéfavorisantlalibertéetl'Autrel'égalitéanimeunegrandepartiedudébatcontemporainsurlesensduPremieramendementCequisembleévidentc'estquelejugeKavanaughestducôtélibertaire
The Judge Kavanaugh hopes to replace Justice Kennedy, who has already been examiner. There is no particular reason to think that he would reproduce the idiosyncratic jurisprudence of his former boss, which included a mixture of commitments
. But there is every reason to believe that a Kavanaugh judge would continue to support one of his former boss's flagship projects. : dismantling campaign finance laws that limit the ability of individuals and groups to spend money to influence elections.
The decision to fund Justice Kavanaugh's most interesting campaign, Bluman v. Federal Electoral Commission, appears to reverse the opposite trend. less at first sight. Writing for a panel of three judges of the Federal District Court in Washington, he said that two foreign citizens living in the United States on temporary work visas could not spend money to appeal to the United States. election of American politicians. the decision, Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, wrote. The first is that it is difficult to come to terms with Citizens United. Judge Kavanaugh's decision to harmonize with Citizens United is difficult because the majority opinion of Judge Kennedy said that "the first amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech. based on the identity of the speaker. "
President Barack Obama has certainly read Citizens United to allow spending by foreigners." I do not think US elections should be funded by the most powerful interests of the United States, or worse, by foreign entities ", he said in his speech on the state of the Union 2010.
They could be limited because they were not members of" the American political community (The American companies, he wrote, were part of this community.)
At the same time, he created an important exception, on the one hand, he said, a federal law prohibiting most foreign nationals to contribute to the elections or to spend money to promote their election was constitutional, but he said that foreigners remain free to spend money to "defend interests – 39, that is to say di scours that do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate. "
This leaves room for many legal expenses. Refound the banned express plea ("Vote for Trump") into an authorized plea ("Trump wants to help American workers").
In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Judge Kavanaugh's decision in a four-word summary. This decision undoubtedly surprised Judge Stevens, who had withdrawn from the court
"The appeal undoubtedly provided the court with an appropriate opportunity to explain why the president had misinterpreted the law." court opinion in Citizens United, "said Justice Stevens. in a 2012 speech "The court instead took surprising action to simply assert the district court without comment and without dissent."
In that same speech, Justice Stevens pleaded for equality, noting that the Supreme Court on each side. In the presidential debates, he said, moderators are trying to give candidates comparable opportunities to express their points of view.
"The candidates and the public would certainly have thought that the value of the debate would have suffered if the moderators had, according to Justice Stevens, still hoped, he said, to re-examine" the rule of the rule ". Congress can not "restrict the rhetoric of certain elements of our society in order to improve the relative voice of others," he said, citing the sentence that is Kavanagh J.'s first amendment.
Source link
