Thursday, January 11, 2018
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand
it's a statutory. But there are many
democracies that require you to vote, right?
Australia, it's -- you get a fine if you don't
vote. And other places. And I have certainly
seen it proposed it would be a good idea, given
the low voter turnouts in our country, that we
adopt something like that as well. Now, you
think that would be unconstitutional?
MR. SMITH: Well, I think there's a pretty persuasive argument to that effect in the National Libertarian brief that was filed in this case, filed by Wilmer. I think, basically, they said it's a First Amendment act. And, just as you have a right to vote protected by the First Amendment, a right not to vote because you don't want to vote for any of those candidates would be protected as well, I would think. In any event, it -
Wilmer can feel proud of themself today.
Oh that's WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center,1875 Pennsylvania Ave, 60 State Street.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-980-bsac-LibertarianNationalCommittee.pdf
That's a nice brief! It focuses on the constitutional aspects of the case, that I felt were missing in the oral argument.
MR. SMITH: Well, I think there's a pretty persuasive argument to that effect in the National Libertarian brief that was filed in this case, filed by Wilmer. I think, basically, they said it's a First Amendment act. And, just as you have a right to vote protected by the First Amendment, a right not to vote because you don't want to vote for any of those candidates would be protected as well, I would think. In any event, it -
Wilmer can feel proud of themself today.
Oh that's WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center,1875 Pennsylvania Ave, 60 State Street.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-980-bsac-LibertarianNationalCommittee.pdf
That's a nice brief! It focuses on the constitutional aspects of the case, that I felt were missing in the oral argument.
Comments:
Post a Comment
