Via Volokh Conspiracy, I learn that the very long Supreme Court opinion just announced for McConnell v. FEC, has, according to the official opinion, the following line-up of Justices:
STEVENS and O.CONNOR, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA
Titles I and II, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which
O.CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and
BREYER, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA �305, and in which THOMAS, J., joined
with respect to BCRA ��304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). BREYER, J., delivered the
opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which STEVENS, O.CONNOR, SOUTER,
and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA
Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the
judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. THOMAS, J., filed
an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA ��311 and
318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA �318, concurring in the judgment in
part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect
to BCRA Titles I, V, and �311, in which opinion SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, II.A,
and II.B. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and
dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which REHNQUIST, C. J.,
joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA
�323(e) and BCRA �202, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA �213.
REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in
which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting with
respect to BCRA �305, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.
This isn't a parody. But it shows how the Supreme Court has become a new Congress. Each
Justice feels compelled to state for the public what his views are, no doubt making use
of his staff to do the actual writing. Or perhaps the staff (i.e., the clerks) are
the ones who want to be immortalized in print. Much of the opinion is "dictum"--
comments on aspects of the law not important to deciding the case at hand. This is a
very complicated law, but any individual case would be challenging only a part of it.
Treating it this way is as if the Court decided to examine the entire tax code because
someone challenged the depreciation rate on personal computers. But if the courts
think their job is to write laws, this is the way to do it-- examine the entire law,
treating what Congress and the President passed as a rough draft, and come out with a
big pile of paper to instruct the public as to how they can behave without going to
jail.
[permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.12.11d.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.