Thursday, February 02, 2017
Gorsuch is considered a reliable scalia replacement. but that won't be 100%.
one area where they likely differ is anonymity. scalia hated it.
in cases such as mcintyre, doe v reed, citizens united, he railed against it.
no reason to think goresuch shares this bias. we also don't know much about kagan or sotomayor's stance.
so a case that took on 'stand by your ad', for example, might have promise, but i lack the objectivity to make this assessment well. more generally, i think the court will now be more willing to protect against compelled speech.
I don't think Goresuch has had cases directly on point.
update: found one.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2017/01/17/judge-neil-gorsuch-writes-sophisticated-concurring-opinion-striking-down-colorado-contribution-limit-disparity/
In a case about anonymity and the free expression rights of registered sex offenders and kidnappers,
Judge Gorsuch followed the distinctions of Victoria Buckley v ACLF (1999). In that case, which involved Coloradans petitioning for marijuana legalization, the court allowed disclosure (under Buckley v Valeo) but found a disclaimer - a mandatory nametag to be worn by petitioners - to be unconstitutional under McIntyre. Even Justice Scalia agreed.
Similarly Gorsuch's panel narrowed the statute to allow disclosure but not disclaimer.
Right now I'm having trouble sorting out how Scalia voted in ACLF. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-930.ZO.html,
It may not be as I remember it.
If I have it right, he joined the majority opinion and neither the cuncurrences or dissents, so he's the only one? who didnt write seperately (except kennedy?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._American_Constitutional_Law_Foundation,_Inc.
note to self: wikipedia doesnt have much on aclf.
one area where they likely differ is anonymity. scalia hated it.
in cases such as mcintyre, doe v reed, citizens united, he railed against it.
no reason to think goresuch shares this bias. we also don't know much about kagan or sotomayor's stance.
so a case that took on 'stand by your ad', for example, might have promise, but i lack the objectivity to make this assessment well. more generally, i think the court will now be more willing to protect against compelled speech.
I don't think Goresuch has had cases directly on point.
update: found one.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2017/01/17/judge-neil-gorsuch-writes-sophisticated-concurring-opinion-striking-down-colorado-contribution-limit-disparity/
In a case about anonymity and the free expression rights of registered sex offenders and kidnappers,
Judge Gorsuch followed the distinctions of Victoria Buckley v ACLF (1999). In that case, which involved Coloradans petitioning for marijuana legalization, the court allowed disclosure (under Buckley v Valeo) but found a disclaimer - a mandatory nametag to be worn by petitioners - to be unconstitutional under McIntyre. Even Justice Scalia agreed.
Similarly Gorsuch's panel narrowed the statute to allow disclosure but not disclaimer.
Right now I'm having trouble sorting out how Scalia voted in ACLF. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-930.ZO.html,
It may not be as I remember it.
If I have it right, he joined the majority opinion and neither the cuncurrences or dissents, so he's the only one? who didnt write seperately (except kennedy?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._American_Constitutional_Law_Foundation,_Inc.
note to self: wikipedia doesnt have much on aclf.
Comments:
Post a Comment
