Blog

Well that was a letdown. Justice Stevens offered several brief points to the Senate about campaign finance reform, the meaning of the First Amendment, and how his colleagues on the Court would treat his proposed constitutional amendment. And then, he left. No questions. With Senator Ted Cruz sitting right there.

The only new bit is that he sought to draw a connection between Bluman v. FEC, which held that resident aliens could not vote, to Japanese aliens in the United States raising money to defeat FDR during World War II, to Sean McCutcheon who supported candidates from outside his district. In other words, to Stevens, politicians can only receive contributions from their constituents who vote for them. That would exclude, of course corporations, but also individuals from other districts.

Here are a few things I tweeted.

Justice Stevens offering advisory opinions to Senate on meaning of 1st amendment #scotus pic.twitter.com/Y4s9gyjE8i

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Stevens – First Amendment is into only limited by concerns about “corruption.”

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Former #SCOTUS Justice J. Paul Stevens: “Rules should create a level playing field” & “regulate speech” to give opponents fair playing field

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) April 30, 2014

Stevens – politicians would be happier if they didn’t have to spend so much time raising money.

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Stevens would distinguish between constiuents and others (corporations)

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Stevens talking about Bluman v. FEC (Kavanaugh, J.) – ban on resident aliens – “Canadian freedom”

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Former #SCOTUS Justice Stevens says court’s logic of justifying campaign finance regs only to prevent corruption is “fundamentally flawed”

— Michael Beckel (@mjbeckel) April 30, 2014

Stevens – interest of protecting speech of voters is more important than protecting speech of non-voters #Bluman

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Wait, Justice Stevens just compared campaign $ from wartime enemies in US to someone in WI contributing to an MI election? #darkmoney

— Steve Klein (@SteveRKlein) April 30, 2014

Stevens – Campaign funds used to finance Watergate burglars

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Central error is Buckley v. Valeo that denies Congress power to impose limitations on campaign expenditures #SCOTUS

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Former #scotus Justice J.P. Stevens at #dollarsandsense hearing: “Money is not speech” pic.twitter.com/BnruFnWup3

— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) April 30, 2014

Stevens – I did not arrive at Court to participate in Buckley, but I always thought Byron White got it right

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Shout-out to Skelley Wright – Buckley was “misguided.”

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Stevens proposes his Amendment to fix Buckley. @rickhasen #SCOTUS

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

I have confidence my former colleagues would not use the word “reasonable” to limit campaign speech (I don’t think they care what you think)

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Sorry, folks, former Justice John Paul Stevens will not be taking questions today. He just left.

— John Gramlich (@johngramlich) April 30, 2014

WTF. Stevens is not taking questions. You gotta be kidding me

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

NO QUESTIONS for Justice Stevens!? Talk about the rules of fair debate. He’s been excused.

— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) April 30, 2014

And then, as a treat, Ted Cruz opened up about the First Amendment.

– it is a different position to be on this said of the dais. @tedcruz

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Of all of the Justices, Stevens often disagreed with my client. None had more dangerous questions. @tedcruz

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Rep @tedcruz on Stevens: “No Justice’s questions as insightful, as friendly, and as dangerous” in his time before #SCOTUS. #McCutcheon

— Medill on the Hill (@medillonthehill) April 30, 2014

@SenTedCruz recalls arguing at #SCOTUS: “No Justice had questions “more incisive, more friendly & frankly more dangerous than J. Stevens.”

— Jess Bravin (@JessBravin) April 30, 2014

Would you be willing to tell the @nytimes that you can only speak about 9 candidates, or only candidates in NY. @tedcruz

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 30, 2014

Judge Friedman’s opinion, asking President Obama to grant clemency to a defendant in a drug case, is right out of The Case of the Speluncean Explorers:

The Court continues to believe that Byron McDade is a prime candidate for executive clemency. The sentence this Court was required to impose on Mr. McDade was unjust at the time and is “out of line” with and disproportionate to those that would be imposed under similar facts today. While the Court is powerless to reduce the sentence it was required by then- existing law to impose, the President is not. The Court urges Mr. McDade’s appointed counsel to pursue executive clemency on Mr. McDade’s behalf so that justice may be done in this case.

The lecture notes are here. The live chat is here.

Ted Cruz, a longtime Supreme Court advocate, and now United States Senator, will now be able to turn the tables, and pose questions of Justice Stevens during a meeting of the Committee on Rules & Administration Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. This should be entertaining.

The Sunday Times had a lengthy profile of the pursuit of animal-rights activists litigating to achieve legal personhood for animals. I was struck, in particular, by this passage, about the long-run process of accomplishing this goal.

No recent case better underscores the unique nature of Wise’s present endeavor than the one that seemed, at first, to most resemble it. In October 2011, despite Wise’s objections, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of five orcas at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, accusing the theme park of violating the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. The suit was dismissed by Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for Southern California, who wrote in his ruling that “the only reasonable interpretation of the 13th Amendment’s plain language is that it applies to persons, and not to nonpersons such as orcas.”

Wise was furious over what he considered the grossly premature timing of PETA’s case. After the judge’s decision, Wise called a PETA lawyer to “share his thoughts” with him. Natalie Prosin was on that call too. “She really let me have it afterward,” Wise said. “She said, ‘You acted like you were the professor and he was your student, lecturing him for over 30 minutes on why his case was so bad.’ I said: ‘I know. And frankly 30 minutes wasn’t nearly enough.’ It was idiotic to invoke the Constitution the first time around. You know maybe in 50 years, after you’ve already laid a foundation of courts recognizing that nonhuman animals could be considered legal persons under the common law. That’s precisely why we’re avoiding the federal courts.”

It was reminiscent of many other civil rights movements that are content in taking their time. Though the state-court, common law approach is quite unique.

A few of my students brought up the PETA SeaWorld case in class when we duscyssed the 13th Amendment. So the arguments are resonating, on some level at least.

I recently visited SeaWorld San Antonio, and was extremely unimpressed. I seem to recall the SeaWorld in Orlando being much bigger with many more exhibits of sea-life outside the of the shows. Plus the Shamu show was lame, as (due to the lawsuits) the trainers were not allowed to touch or even get in the pool with the whales. It was fun, but not as good as I remember.