Posted on 06/29/2009 8:15:33 AM PDT by jeltz25
The Court has held that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205) will be reargued on Wednesday, September 9 at 10 a.m. The Court has issued the following written order: “The parties should address the following question: ‘For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?’
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
But reading the tea leaves, McCain-Feingold is finished.
Another big win, and thanks to W for getting rid of O'Connor and putting a strong conservative like Alito who will do the right thing.
Yep, I read this the same way.
Terrific!!!! There is hope yet.
IMO, McCain-Feingold doesn’t amount to much anymore. The interweb thingy has completely gutted the Dinosaur Media Order of Things. They don’t dictate what or when information is distributed.
How did W "get rid" of O'Connor?
Didn't he put Alito on AFTER he tried to put Meiers on?
Hell yes McCain-Feingold should be gutted. I suggest the Supreme Court read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
I don’t think W got rid of O’Connor.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an ongoing legal case in which the United States Supreme Court will decide whether a politically charged film can be defined as a "campaign ad" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This case is an appeal from a lower court case of the same name from 2008, in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act.
Background
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, wanted to run television commercials promoting its film Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton. In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the commercials violated the provision in the McCain-Feingold Act restricting "electioneering communications" 30 days before primaries and clearly had no other purpose than discredit Clinton; Citizens United argued that the film was fact-based and nonpartisan. The Supreme Court docketed this case on August 18, 2008, and heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009. A decision is expected sometime in the early summer months of 2009. On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9, and address the following question at oral argument: ‘For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?’”
I have trouble praising Bush for the destruction of McCain-Feingold—if that is what this does.
President Bush should have vetoed it in the beginning.
If McCain/Feingold is overturned and I hope that it is, what will be the effect upon 527 funding organizations?
W is the one who signed the piece of garbage into law in the first place.
Bush should have just vetoed the damned thing.
He kept his word. He wasn't going to take on the fight, particularly since it would have largely been against his own party (plus the media would have been damning him even harder than they did).
Exactly what part of "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States" did W not understand?
It was his sworn duty to veto it. He failed to do so because of politics. That kind of says it all doesn't it?
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on February 14, 2002 with 240 yeas and 189 nays including 6 members that did not vote. Final passage in the Senate came after supporters mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to shut off debate. The bill passed the Senate, 60-40 on March 20, 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush on March 27, 2002.
Also as noted in the text quoted from Wiki above you'll note the bill wasn't passed until W had been President for over two years. How exactly did he campaign in 1998 for passing the bill?
TS
Yeah, Bush won so much good will by signing away our First Amendment rights, didn’t he?
Other than tax cuts, every legislative victory Bush won advanced the Left’s agenda, not the Right’s.
Ted Kennedy’s education bill, McCain-Feingold, the most massive entitlement expansion since LBJ (MediCare Rx), creation of a bloated new department of Big Brother (DHS).
Doing the Democrats’ bidding still didn’t stop them from making fun of him for 8 years, it didn’t win him any support from them on his own agenda that never went anywhere, and it didn’t gain him their respect.
I work at a Christian non-profit. We are very limited in what we’re able to blog about or publish, because of this law.
funny how bipartisanship means the right submitting to the left, but not vice versa.
I assume you mean 2000.
Every time Bush was asked about this during the campaign he said exactly what I stated above. He didn't like the legislation but would sign it. He wasn't going to put up a stink over this one.
In 20/20 hindsight Bush is excoriated for this (as he is everything else).
But back then there was NO upset over his stance because people were so desperate to get Bush in over Gore, the degenerate state of the military being the main reason.
Much of the troubles we have today have their roots in the inaction of one GWB.
Good, toss it.
W shouldn’t have signed the danged thing in the first place.
Wow. You sure missed some biggies. Everytime Bush got funding for the WOT he majorly advanced the cause of the Right.
Not to mention Kyoto, the Int'l Court, Pro-life causes (again and again), competition in the private sector for public jobs, giving Gov't lands over to the private sector, missile defense, judges, etc. etc.
You sure have narrow blinders.
I assume you mean 2000.
Ummmmm. If your're a Presidential Candidate you start campaigning at least two years before the year in which the President is elected. So, no, I meant 1998. When W was showing up at campaign events and in debates with the bill's eventual sponsor - John McCain.
Speaking of revisionist history since the bill wasn't passed until 2002 - more than two years after his election how exactly did he campaign on the stance.
I provided a link to inform you of the date and vote on the legislation. All you have left Freepers with to evaluate your stance is your opinion. Links please.
TS
I'm not sure what you mean. You act as though candidates don't campaign on legislation that's obviously coming up in their tenure.
Campaign finance was coming thru the pipeline. They asked him about it. What's your point exactly. You think he was never asked about it?
If legislation comes up in '11 to extend tax cuts Osham wasn't asked about it during the campaign?
He didn’t have a veto-proof majority.
Your right on that score...he took the cowards way out and expected the supreme court to overturn...it didn’t
First, he should have done the right thing regardless.
Second, you are incorrect. The bill passed the senate 59-41. It’s unlikely another 7 senators would have changed their votes.
Kyoto was voted down 99 to 0 by the Senate under Clinton.
There was almost zero opposition to the WOT. And I wouldn’t exactly call the WOT an ideological agenda.
The one area where Bush did not cave to the Democrats was on Iraq (seen by many as separate from the WOT). But again, this is Commander-in-Chief stuff, not an ideological agenda. And it did come with yet another huge pricetag.
Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on wars may at times be a necessity, but it is not the centerpiece of a conservative platform.
This has turned out to be a great day.
“Another big win, and thanks to W for getting rid of O’Connor and putting a strong conservative like Alito who will do the right thing.”
The thanks are certainly well deserved but would it be too picky to point out that if repubicans hadn’t passed and if W had vetoed that Mc-F POS legislation in the first place, overruling it wouldn’t be necessary?
You've got to be kidding.
Just last year Pelosi was threatening to hold back funds in a big way. Bush won a major fight against her to get the funds.
The WOT was a huge fight for years. Where have you been exactly?
Are you talking WOT, or Iraq?
!
And years later it came up again in a big way under Bush. One of the first things he did in his Presidency was deep six the entire idea which helped squelch debate for most of his Presidency.
YGTBSM!
BUSH signed the damned thing into law, and you want to give him credit for putting in Supreme Court justices who MIGHT overturn it? Please pull your head out of your @$$, you seem to be short of oxygen.
You don’t know that the War on Terror includes Iraq?
Taking a stand against something the entire Senate had already rejected unanimously is not a profile in courage.
Kyoto was not a legislative victory for Bush, it was a legislative defeat for Clinton.
Note to all Republicans, and especially all RINOs...this strategy does NOT work, and never will. It is well past time to take a true stand for Conservative Principles.
I hope so!
“funny how bipartisanship means the right submitting to the left, but not vice versa. “
+++++++++++++++++++
Aint that the truth. Forget that! Time to stand and fight..
“Much of the troubles we have today have their roots in the inaction of one GWB.”
+++++++++++
You’re assuming no responsibility from Rs in Congress and the whole leftist machine? What of the media brainwashing crew? Come on - spread the love...
Certainly it is when global momentum is building for the opposite mentality.
Bush totally retracted us from the treaty Gore had signed. Sure, Congress had not ratified it but to pull us out completely was something that had to be done by the President. A RINO (McCain?) would never have done it.
It caused quite an uproar at the time, though conservatives with BDS won't give him any credit now.
When discussing Iraq and the WOT, we typically separate them as two different (but loosely connected) things.
We do this precisely because they are treated as such.
Few Democrats have given any opposition to the war in Afghanistan or the broader WOT, which primarily consists of logistical support and cooperation with foreign governments on tracking terrorist cells, and seizing their assets.
The Democrats have given a lot of opposition to the war in Iraq, and are very adamant that it is not part of the WOT.
So when we’re talking about Bush’s legislative victories over Democrat opposition, since one is opposed and the other isn’t, we cannot lump them together. Bush won several hard fought legislative victories on Iraq, but never had any real opposition to the WOT. You are masking this fact when you treat them as the same.
Why didn’t they overrule it now? There is actually a good explanation contained in Kennedy’s opinion today in the firefighters case. The Court prefers to settle cases within the confines of that statue in question (as it did today within Title VII - they did not consider the equal protection clause of the constitution, because they were able to adjudicate the case before them on the basis of title VII itself). This rehearing suggests that the court cannot decide the case simply on the merits under McCain-Feingold, and therefore are going to look at the constitutionality of the law itself. BIG win for us - if we had won the Hillary case on the merits, it would essentially say McCain-Feingold permits pay per view showings. But they are apparently going to consider the constitutionality of the law itself. It’s now a first amendment case rather than a McCain-Feingold case.
Bush was supposed to be our last defense against the leftward march of congress. And he sat by in silence, never even lifting his veto pen.
Yes, I would call that inaction by its very definition, and I would fault Bush for failing as our watchdog. The buck stops with the president, remember?
“Second, you are incorrect. The bill passed the senate 59-41. It’s unlikely another 7 senators would have changed their votes.”
++++++++++++
Incorrect! :) Would have needed another 8 votes, to get to 67, as two-thirds are required to overturn a pres. veto.
Actually, the global trend right now is to reject and rescind Kyoto style regulations.
Ah, so because Democrats don't consider Iraq part of the WOT we also do not consider it part of the WOT even though Al-Queda, Hamas, not to mention the MSM all had major offensives there?
In reality, Iraq was the major front in the WOT for years. Quit drinking their Kool-aid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.