On Tuesday, the preliminary transcript of the Supreme Court Case McCucheon v. FEC was officially released. In the midst of this historic case about campaign finance reform, our generations-old tradition of joining an exclusive eating club was brutally attacked time and time again. Don’t believe me, see the comments from appellate lawyer Erin E. Murphy:
“Bicker’s aggregate contribution limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process.”
Bicker is harming the political process? Sounds fishy. Turns out that when bicker was mentioned in the proceedings, what was really meant was the BCRA or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Due to what was apparently a court reporting error, the initialization was typed out and spelled as the familiar bicker that Princetonians know and love.
Perhaps the Supreme Court used the same Microsoft speech technology that the Princeton emergency response operator used Tuesday night when it erroneously said the alleged gunshots were heard near the “National Hall area.”
But how great would it have been to hear the Court discuss, “…all of the prophylactic measures that Bicker contains”?