Page 33 - Second Amendment Case News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Candidates is a first amendment fundamental right. it says that i was quoting buckley i'm sure or citing buckley to that effect. then the question becomes what level of scrutiny should we apply to that case? buckley suggests it's something less than strict strikeout me in the first amendment context for contributions. that's the instruction that i as lower court judgev in the first amendment context. but this was an equal protection challenge okay, saying it's not just contributions it's the inquality of contributions that's the problem here that this system favors major party candidates over ...

Norm scrutiny context. i had two great opinions -- >> okay. i did read it. >> i'm almost done. >> okay. i understand that. here's the deal. the other judges were happy just decided on the narrow basis, right? so you write the concurrent opinion to bring up this other issue. i think again about justice white, who you have -- is your mentor or was your boss. there's a law review articles from the dean of tulane time and time again, justice white avoided broad theoretical basis where a regular rationale would suffice. >> i'm almost there, senator. so i point out this conflict in the supreme court...

You wrote a concurrence to your this move, if as you i ply in your concurrence, or you don't imply, you say, it could have titanic real-world implications when it comes to rules, 13,500 cases since 1984. in your book you say you don't overturn precedent unless accepted and a firmed by courts and people have reliance on the decision. so my question is, why in -- you're concurring. senator feinstein asks you about the facts of the case. in the concurring opinion, you say "there's an elephant in the room with us today. sorry, guys. i wasn't referring to the republicans. "we have studiously worked...

Latest updates on this topic from reliable sources.

Because colorado couldn't meet even rational basis test. forget about whether it's strict scrutiny or something close to strict scrutiny. it couldn't meet rational basis test because colorado couldn't articulate any good reason, maybe there is one out there, i don't know, but i said they have articulated nothing. >> let's continue on now with some other cases because it is a bit of a pattern. not a concurring opinion, but in the hobby lobby case you found the corporations were legal persons and could exercise their own religious beliefs. for me when it comes to campaign finances opens up the p...