RNC Loses in RNC v. FEC Soft Money Challenge

[kpete]

Source: Election Law

More Breaking News: RNC Loses in RNC v. FEC Soft Money Challenge

The unanimous opinion of the three-judge court is here https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1953-102. The judges (written by Judge Kavanaugh, who wrote the Emily's List case) that the RNC's claims are barred by the Supreme Court's opinion in McConnell, which as a lower court the three-judge court must follow. On page 15, the Court writes:

In due course, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to clarify or refine this aspect of McConnell as the Court sees fit, and to consider the RNC's challenge to § 323(a) in light of the RNC's pledge to no longer grant preferential access to soft money contributors. As a lower court, however, we do not believe we possess authority to clarify or refine McConnell in the fashion advocated by the RNC, or to otherwise get ahead of the Supreme Court.



Read more: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/015577.html

[alfredo]

1. We know how the gang of five will vote

[quiet.american]

2. Yep. nt

[wordpix]

8. +1 don't even bother with the Supreme radicals

[OnyxCollie]

3. Whatever happened to Tom DeLay?

Wasn't he pulling a stunt like this?

[alfredo]

6. Who gives a shit? As long as he leaves us alone, I don't care.

[OnyxCollie]

9. Thanks for the response.

Very informative.

[alfredo]

10. He creeps me out. The guy is sick in the head

[CLANG]

4. More liberal judges legislating from the bench

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[annabanana]

5. kickity kick!. . . . . . n/t

[Dappleganger]

7. K&R