A majority of the court seems to think that public criticism of high-dollar donors is the real threat to the First Amendment.

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 2010, “without which democracy is doomed.” Scalia would be aghast by arguments on display at the Supreme Court on Monday in American for Prosperity v. Bonta.

Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court should have been a cementing triumph for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. With the ascendance of six conservative justices—including his own former clerk, Amy Coney Barrett—Scalia’s form of textualism seemed poised to become the Supreme Court’s permanent approach to interpreting the law. Instead, in Tuesday’s oral argument, that passing of the torch faltered as his successors embraced an even more radical brand of textualism.

Jennifer Brady, a centrist Democrat and former English professor at Rhodes College, can’t reconcile two things: her strong admiration for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett – one of the top two students she had in 36 years of teaching – and her deep concern about Senate Republicans pushing through her nomination so late in an election year.

Jennifer Brady, a centrist Democrat and former English professor at Rhodes College, can’t reconcile two things: her strong admiration for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett – one of the top two students she had in 36 years of teaching – and her deep concern about Senate Republicans pushing through her nomination so late in an election year.

This Abridge News topic aggregates four unique arguments on different sides of the debate. Here are the quick facts to get you started:

THE QUICK FACTS

Antonin Scalia didn’t get into Princeton University. That’s one of the many things I didn’t necessarily expect to learn reading On Faith: Lessons from an American Believer, a new collection of reflections and speeches by and about the late Supreme Court justice.