BRIDGE, 5-Card Majors v. 4-Card Majors: Citizens United

Cardozo Law Review de novo, pp. 242-244, 2010

3 Pages Posted: 1 Mar 2010

See all articles by David C. Weiss

David C. Weiss

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: February 19, 2010

Abstract

Bridge is a team game in which teammates subtly exchange information in an effort to play their best “fit” given the cards in their hand. This Commentary implies that Citizens United was similarly a case of two divided “teams” subtly exchanging information with one side trying to manipulate procedural rules to decide the case on narrow, prudential or statutory grounds, while the other side worked the same rules to tee up a major constitutional decision.

The Commentary thus discusses Citizens United from the perspective of a newspaper column discussing one of the oldest debates in contract bridge: whether a player should open the bidding when holding a 4-card major (four hearts or four spades), or should only open with a 5-card major (five hearts or five spades). Analogizing minor suits (clubs and diamonds) to statutory or prudential arguments, and major suits (hearts or spades) to constitutional claims, the Commentary summarizes Citizens United, demonstrating the back-and-forth of the respective “teams.”

Keywords: Citizens United, Citizens United v. FEC, Bridge

Suggested Citation

Weiss, David C., BRIDGE, 5-Card Majors v. 4-Card Majors: Citizens United (February 19, 2010). Cardozo Law Review de novo, pp. 242-244, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1555123

David C. Weiss (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN

No Address Available

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
156
Abstract Views
987
rank
188,122
PlumX Metrics