Court Signals Trouble for Campaign Law

The Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, September 9, 2009 | Matthew Mosk

[dr_who]

A central pillar of federal election law appeared to be crumbling Wednesday as government lawyers faced tough questioning at a special Supreme Court hearing about whether limitations on corporate and union campaign spending violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

[dr_who]

Hope this law will go down and McCain's defeat will encourage him to retire.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

"I just wish one of these critics on the Supreme Court had ever run for county sheriff," the Arizona Republican said.

John, I wish you would run for county sheriff. You'd lose, and you would be unable to do any more damage to the Republic.

[dr_who]

Good point!

[Paladin2]

"After the arguments, Sen. McCain left the court in disgust, calling the tenor of the justices' argument "very disturbing."

I find Juan and Juanabies to be quite disturbing too.

[Repeal The 17th]

From the article:
“Election-law experts had predicted the case could bring a dramatic change
to campaign finance rules, and undercut a central piece of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law.
Twice before, the court under Chief Justice John Roberts had picked off
small portions of the McCain-Feingold law and declared them invalid,
and going into Wednesday’s arguments, many viewed the case as an uphill battle
for the nation’s new solicitor general, Elena Kagan.”

[JLS]

McCain’s defeat? What are you talking about? McCain’s support of this law was all abut ingratiating himself with the MSM. No court decision can overturn that success on McCain’s part.

[Paladin2]

Juan needs to be schooled by Sheriff Joe.

[dr_who]

Perhaps, but he wouldn’t be sitting in on the case unless he had a great deal at stake.

[Mogollon]

Yes that would be a great end for McCain...his land-mark bill going down in flames.

[muawiyah]

Fascists spouting fascism as a solution to all our problems of civility and manners send a chill up and down my spine.

Free Speech must be liberated.

[JLS]

Right I was somewhat kidding. I don’t view McCain as wanting to run other peoples lives and opinions like the current gang in power in DC. But he wants to be liked and their is also the incumbent protection nature of this.

[BGHater]

‘Supreme Court hearing about whether limitations on corporate and union campaign spending violated the First Amendment right to free speech.’

Yeah, it’s gonna be a great victory for ‘free speech’ when man made creations, ie unions, corporations, groups, etc, are bestowed ‘rights’.

A sad day for the Republic.

[bicyclerepair]

Juan should retire. Series.

[jjw]

Yeah, it’s gonna be a great victory for ‘free speech’ when man made creations, ie unions, corporations, groups, etc, are bestowed ‘rights’.

yeah, cause we know unions, corporations, and groups are run by martians and puppy dogs

[qwertypie]

Lawmakers should not be intimidating the justices. They should not even be commenting on current cases. It doesn’t get any more unethical. McCain IS insane.

[Repeal 16-17]

Expect Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. FEC (2003) to be overruled and Freedom of Speech to be reaffirmed, unless Justice Kennedy pulls a Casey-like change of heart

[dr_who]

Indeed, watch him. Our rights depend on such weaklings.

[vamoose]

I don’t think it was the “tenor” of the justices arguments that were disturbing to McCain, it was the arguments them self.

[paul544]

Justice Sotomayor in her debut seemed almost immediately to be in the minority in the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. In her first question from the bench, Justice Sotomayor asked noted First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams whether changing the law now would "do more harm than good," a position many campaign finance reformers have taken.

So much for that...

[dr_who]

What, you’re surprised that Sotomayor is a standard-issue lefty?