After last year's blockbuster cases involving gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court gathers on Monday to start work on the new term's cases, which cover campaign finance, abortion, affirmative action, and more. Despite the government shutdown, the court will forge forward on opening oral arguments for these cases. <\/p>\n
Case:McCullen v. Coakley <\/p>\n
Dates: No date set yet. <\/p>\n
Basic Facts: A Massachusetts law creates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, within which political protests from non-clinic workers are not allowed. <\/p>\n
Major issues at stake: The case is a mix of first amendment free speech rights and abortion questions. InHill v. Colorado (2000), the court by a 6-3 vote upheld a similar Colorado law because it was \"content neutral,\" i.e. it did not explicitly favor pro-choice or pro-life protestors. Now, the challengers argue that allowing clinic workers to speak within this buffer zone, but restricting all others, means that only the clinic's point of view will be heard, thereby restricting the opponents' free speech. <\/p>\n
Case: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission <\/p>\n
Dates: Arguments begin tomorrow, Oct. 8. <\/p>\n
Basic Facts: Supported by the Republican National Convention, Shaun McCutcheon is challenging the constitutionality of the aggregate limits on political contributions, which currently makes $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to parties the maximum possible donation in any two-year election cycle. <\/p>\n
Major issues at stake: McCutcheon would like the limitations thrown out because he argues the limits violate free speech, as the court has long found political spendingto be equivalent to speech. On the other hand, the intention of donation limits are to democratize political support, so that rich individuals cannot have too much influence on an election. The 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the constitutionality of those limits, but that precedent will now be put to the test.Slate's Richard Hasencompares McCutcheon v. FEC to Citizen's United in its implications for opening political contributions to the wealthy few, andwrites that this one \"will be bigor huge.\" The Hill'sStephen Spaulding suggestively asks,\"Will the Supreme Court make it easier to bribe politicians during the midterm elections?\" <\/p>\n
Case: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Link: After last year's blockbuster cases involving gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court gathers on Monday to start work on the new term's cases, which cover campaign finance, abortion, affirmative action, and more. Despite the government shutdown, the court will forge forward on opening oral arguments for these cases. Continue reading
\nFree Speech, Campaign Donations, and Abortion: The Supreme Court's New Term<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"