Independent Special Prosecutor v. Kisswani (2024): Difference between revisions

Administrator (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Administrator (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 52: Line 52:


===Concurrence===
===Concurrence===
Associate Chief Justice Lobbezoo filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Bidari, focusing on the flaws in the Court's earlier decision in [[Parikh v. University Elections Commission (2012)|''Parikh v. UEC'' (2012)]]. While agreeing that ''Parikh'' did not control the present case, Lobbezoo went further, characterizing Parikh's free speech analysis as "deeply flawed" and criticized it for "inhabiting a law-free zone."
Associate Chief Justice Kenichi Lobbezoo filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alex Bidari, focusing on the flaws in the Court's earlier decision in [[Parikh v. University Elections Commission (2012)|''Parikh v. UEC'' (2012)]]. While agreeing that ''Parikh'' did not control the present case, Lobbezoo went further, characterizing Parikh's free speech analysis as "deeply flawed" and criticized it for "inhabiting a law-free zone."


The concurrence identified several specific problems with Parikh's approach: it invoked ''Buckley v. Valeo'' but adopted an inconsistent approach; relied on precedents unrelated to the Free Speech Clause; suggested that legislative intent to restrict speech favored a restriction's constitutionality; implied speech restrictions were acceptable as long as some expression remained; and subordinated constitutional rights to policy judgments of "nine unelected students."
The concurrence identified several specific problems with Parikh's approach: it invoked ''Buckley v. Valeo'' but adopted an inconsistent approach; relied on precedents unrelated to the Free Speech Clause; suggested that legislative intent to restrict speech favored a restriction's constitutionality; implied speech restrictions were acceptable as long as some expression remained; and subordinated constitutional rights to policy judgments of "nine unelected students."