ACS Panel Discussion: The Filibuster and the Pace of Judicial Confirmations

What is the current status of the filibuster? Where did it come from, and what are its future prospects? What other Senate rules are responsible for slowing down the confirmation process? What are the distinctions between the use of the filibuster in the nominations context and elsewhere? A panel of experts discussed these questions and more.

This program was the second in a new ACS series, The Future of the Courts: Nominations, Confirmations, and the Pursuit of Justice. This series of programs features experts on the courts examining issues such as the importance of the courts, the status of judicial vacancies, and the confirmation process.

The panel discussion featured:

  • Moderator, Sarah Binder, Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution
  • Makan Delrahim, Shareholder at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP and former Staff Director and Chief Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee under then-Chairman Orrin Hatch
  • Martin Paone, Executive Vice President of Prime Policy Group and former Democratic Secretary in the United States Senate
  • Matthew Yglesias, Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund

ACS Panel Discussion - Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, and the Road Ahead

In a 5-4 decision issued on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that limitations on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections violate the First Amendment. The Court struck down a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act that banned corporations and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. In so doing, the Court overruled its 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and generated substantial controversy-President Obama mentioned the decision in his State of the Union address and both the House and Senate have held hearings on the topic. Many questions linger in the wake of the decision. Does the decision represent a victory for the First Amendment or an opening for corruption of elections? What are the merits of mechanisms being considered by Congress as ways of dealing with the decision? In practical terms, what does the decision mean for corporations and unions? What does the overruling of Austin suggest about the Roberts Court and its relationship to precedent? These questions and others were discussed by a panel of experts in campaign finance law.

The panel discussion featured:

  • Moderator, William P. Marshall, Visiting Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, UNC Chapel Hill School of Law
  • Jan W. Baran, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
  • Laurence E. Gold, Of Counsel, Lichtman, Trister & Ross, PLLC; Associate General Counsel, AFL-CIO
  • James S. Portnoy, Chief Counsel, Corporate & Government Affairs at Kraft Foods
  • Joseph E. Sandler, Member, Sandler, Reiff & Young P.C.
  • Monica Youn, Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law.