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
Date Written: February 19, 2010
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: Suggested Citation