[jeltz25]

The SC has ordered a special argument to decide whether McCain-Feingold should be gutted and McConnell overruled in large part. I doubt they'd take such a step if they weren't serious about doing so. Usually when they order rehearing to ask if a case should be overruled, it ends up being overruled. WHy didn't they just overrule it now? Probably because the case didn't explicitly raise the issue so if they're going to take such a big step they want to do it the right way and have a full argument on it.

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.

[xjcsa]

Yep, I read this the same way.

[Blogger]

Terrific!!!! There is hope yet.

[abb]

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.

[raybbr]

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.

How did W "get rid" of O'Connor?

Didn't he put Alito on AFTER he tried to put Meiers on?

[VA_Gentleman]

Hell yes McCain-Feingold should be gutted. I suggest the Supreme Court read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

[willgolfforfood]

I don’t think W got rid of O’Connor.

[BP2]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Wiki)

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?’”

[Venturer]

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.

[Tzimisce]

Congress shall make no law(s) respecting an establishment of religion, or (and) prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or (and) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or (and) the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -First amendment (with some liberal corrections...)

[miele man]

If McCain/Feingold is overturned and I hope that it is, what will be the effect upon 527 funding organizations?

[counterpunch]

W is the one who signed the piece of garbage into law in the first place.

[Straight Vermonter]

Bush should have just vetoed the damned thing.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Man I sure hope they scrap that abomination called McCain-Feingold.

[mysterio]

Good, toss it.

[windsorknot]

W shouldn’t have signed the danged thing in the first place.

[publana]

This has turned out to be a great day.

[Postman]

“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?

[bamahead]

!

[Nik Naym]

"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. "

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.

[PhiKapMom]

I hope so!

[In Maryland]

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.

[DanZanRyu]

Wonder how McCain will react to his pet law going to be trashed. Ironically, Mccain own pet law hindered his ability to fundraise his presidential campaign.

[matthew fuller]

Now does this mean that McCain is going to go away?

[2ndClassCitizen]

O’Connor upheld racial prejudice.

May the bit(h rot in hell for that.

[SunkenCiv]

The Court has held that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205) will be reargued on Wednesday, September 9 at 10 a.m.

That's okay, it's still legal for the Demwit majority in Congress to give taxpayer funds directly to Obama's campaign organization.

[MARTIAL MONK]

203, which this involves, is the section that bars corporations and unions from using funds from ther own treasuries for electioneering purposes. This would include ads or phamphlets that contain the names of candidates. This was the Snow - Jeffords amendment. There was a lot of language which attempted to bar corporations and unions from circumventing the prohibition and it looks like that is what this is about

The original bill was carefully written to meet constitutional objections that the court had laid down. When this section was added it raised few eyebrows because corporations and unions are creations of the State and heavily regulated anyway.

204 is the Wellstone Amendment which regulated advocacy groups like the NRA or the Sierra Club. This is the one most people, including President Bush, had an objection to. It was introduced by Senator Wellstone but passed with the open assistance of McConnell and Lott and other Republicans who wanted a poison pill that the Supreme Court would strike down, voiding the whole law. McCain fought against the Wellstone Amendment and voted against it.

Unfortunately for McConnell the bill was made severable so that if one section were struck down the others would remain standing. And then the Supreme Court upheld both the law and the Wellstone Amendment. McConnell and Lott had gambled with our first amendment rights and lost.

It is likely that, if 203 is struck down, 204 will follow. The other financing restrictions will remain standing.

[Repeal 16-17]

The Court is asking if it should overrule, in whole or in part, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. F.E.C. (2003). The Court did this in the current term in Montejo v. Louisiana (asking if it should overrule Michigan v. Jackson (1986)). IMO, this order, like in Montejo, is a clear signal that there are already five votes in favor of overruling.

[April Lexington]

McCain - Feingold. Now here are a couple of great Americans! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skinkinthegrass]

...a Kentucky Ping.
McCain-Feingold & McConnell

[skinkinthegrass]

...a Kentucky Ping.
McCain-Feingold & McConnell

[rabscuttle385]

The Juan McCain Truth File. "I have great respect for Al Gore." —John McCain, October 2, 2008 FR Keywords: mccaintruthfile, mcqueeg, mcbama Please tag all relevant threads with the aforementioned keywords. This can be a very high-volume ping list at times. To join the ping list: FReepmail rabscuttle385 with the subject line add  mccaintruthfile. (Stop getting pings by sending the subject line drop mccaintruthfile.)   Republican Commissar’s Warning: By joining this ping list, you may be subjected to the delusional rants and ramblings of McCainiacs, of "moderate" Republicans, of pragmatic conservatives resigned to voting for the lesser of two Democrats, and of countless RNC shills who simply want to meet a new overlord.

[SuperLuminal]

"But reading the tea leaves, McCain-Feingold is finished. "

Forget tea leaves....Forget the SC....I'm waiting for the day McCain and Feingold are finished!

[2harddrive]

YES!!! Let FREEDOM ring!