DIVISION OF LABOR

Sometimes I edit cases for class use. Editing my own cases has several advantages: it gives me a deadline for preparation of my lecture on the case at hand; it helps me to learn about the case in detail; and it allows me to highlight the areas that are particularly valuable in the context of the particular course.

I think I'll let someone else edit the BCRA case, though. From the syllabus (pdf file helpfully provided by Rick Hasen), here's the breakdown of the opinions:

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.

I can't help thinking about Sheldon Goldman's [Joseph Goldstein's -- thanks Josh!!] argument in The Intelligible Constitution that the Justices should write opinions that are more easily digestible by interested laypersons. Of course it's not the Court's fault that they've produced a lumbering cargo ship of a ruling here. They were asked to rule in a speedy fashion on a lumbering cargo ship of a law. Nonetheless, it's hard not to be discouraged when faced with the task of actually trying to understand such an opinion.

MORE (12/11/03 1:32 p.m.): Brett Bellmore writes in a discouraged vein and from another perspective:

Hey, they COULD have (And should have.) just concisely said, "Congress shall make no law... doing exactly this.", and eviserated the monstrosity. Instead of forcing people like me to start studying up on pirate radio, so we're prepared when the next shoe falls. As it surely shall.

I noted above why I think that the more gloomy explanations of the decision miss the mark.

Archie Mazmanian writes:

As I read the breakdown posted I thought of Abbott and Costello's routine "Who's on first ..." and the Homer and Jethroe song "I'm my own grandpa". There ought to be a way to enjoin all this joining.

I suppose we could rewrite the Abbott and Costello skit: "Who's on Title I. . ." And the second could read, "I'm my own dissenter."