tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post4634483864962604558..comments2023-12-18T05:12:50.293-05:00Comments on LAW PROF on the LOOSE: Notable SleeperJon Siegelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05903271363747693689noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-17509521372508236192009-06-30T13:21:41.286-04:002009-06-30T13:21:41.286-04:00Good question. I don't know the answer either...Good question. I don't know the answer either, because I don't know the details of the case. You are correct that the Court generally avoids constitutional issues where it can, so either (1) they've decided that the statute applies and therefore can't avoid any constitutional challenges to the statute, or (2) they are looking for an opportunity to reach the constitutional issue and will depart from their normal practice for essentially political reasons. Yes, sometimes they do that!Jon Siegelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05903271363747693689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-5475265818289345832009-06-30T12:48:21.558-04:002009-06-30T12:48:21.558-04:00Doesn't the Supreme Court resist reaching cons...Doesn't the Supreme Court resist reaching constitutional issues unless necessary? I'm not that familiar with this case, but I thought it was a question of whether federal election laws applied to a documentary. How is the constitutionality of a prohibition on contributions from corporations and labor unions bound up in any decision the Court might make?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com