n.b. - get talking on twen! check out the case docket and follow
supreme court seating:
8 6 4 2 1 3 5 7 9
R D R R (jgr) R R D D
citizens united case
bcra (bipartisan campaign reform act) prohibiting corporate sponsored advertising aimed at proving/disproving candidates. issue is 'what does the 1st amendment protect?' consenters: "1st amd't is to protect free market place of ideas" dissenters:"
no third party standing (you can't freelance other's injuries, except 'best friend doctrine' of death penalty cases)
zone of interest requirement - a plaintiff's complaint must fall within the zone of interest
organizational standing - if an org represents multiple parties interests, it's an efficiency argument that they can have standing
valley forge christian college - tax payers are suing for the state having given a former hospital building to the college.
what's the issue with that? the court determines it should be a tool of last resort, and says that a tax payer complaint is at odds with the standing requirements for having a vested injury in the case or controversy.
what's the state's injury in fact? (maj.) flood of its lands (dis.) not parens patriae/ not representative, but instead is discussing state-owned land
n.b. -- when you have the majority, you don't have to answer to the dissent.
what's the causation? (maj.)
what's the remedy? (maj.) decrease and reduce emissions from new cars (dis.) conjecture to think that reducing new cars will help
how do we explain how there was a majority and that they were able to be more lenient in the issues of standing when the litigant is a state? taking care of the states is the special solicitude
federalism values are being used in the furtherance of federal activity to sway Kennedy's vote
see dissent ch. V: "don't fall for the federalism stuff - this case should be about art. III standing doctrines which are about separation of powers: until things are the right things to adjudicate, they're not. if you want to do away with global warming, talk to your legislature but don't bring it to the court."
what is being said when we say that something isn't the court's job? we're respecting the separation of powers and justiciability.
No comments:
Post a Comment