Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Vermont Campaign Finance Law Is Unconstitutional (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do we disagree? (0+ / 0-)

    The issue of overruling Buckley was not sufficiently briefed.  So Alito takes a pass.  That is hardly relying on stare decisis to uphold Buckley.  

    •  Had he... (0+ / 0-)

      just wanted to say "not sufficiently briefed," his concurrence would have been even shorter.  He's got a couple of paragraphs basically praising the doctrine of stare decisis, which just seems a bit odd.

      •  I interpret it as a bit of a slap at Scalia and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B

        Thomas.  They, of course, don't care about stare decisis.

        •  You are an optimist (if you like Buckley) (0+ / 0-)

          I read his opinion as pretty clearly allowing himself the latitude to say he wants to overrule in a case that squarely presents the issue.  Because it was possible to decide the case without reconsidering Buckley, he had no need to go further, and he is enough of a believer in restraint to not toss stare decisis out the window without even thinking about it, as Scalia and Thomas are willing to do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site