Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

It will be kicked down by the Supreme Court. This is political manuevering. Bush really is smarter than all of us...Ummm...well maybe...Ummm...I'm gonna go watch Bonzana now.

BigMack

[JCEccles]

Ah, personal accusations.

Not unlike labelling critics of this monstrosity of an opinion "foamers" and "hysterical"?

[finnman69]

How can anyone tell whether a communication reaches 49,000 people, 50,000, or 51,000?

Likely determined by ratings. If this isthe case a small local radio station with limited wattage likely could still run ads.

[MineralMan]

"It's the people's bill."

Bush signed it. He was wrong to have done so, even if it would have become law anyhow. Sometimes, principles are important. I expect our President to act on principles.

[Howlin]

You're coming very close to calling me a liar; I said I didn't remember what I said, isn't that enough for you?

Need some more?

[Howlin]

Not unlike labelling critics of this monstrosity of an opinion "foamers" and "hysterical"?

Who did that?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Not unlike labelling critics of this monstrosity of an opinion "foamers" and "hysterical"?

Or principled.

[Sir Gawain]

Cutting off one branch won't kill the tree.

[E.G.C.]

I have read all about this issue and I know a whole lot more than you think I do.

And as to your comments about the first amendment, obviously you don't know diddly squat about it.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!

That part of the first amendment was violated with the passage of this law and this outrage has been upheld by these sorry lazy miserable good for nothing goons in black robes.

Read up on the first amendment. I know a lot more about it than you think.

This bill isn't what you think it is.

[NittanyLion]

You're coming very close to calling me a liar; I said I didn't remember what I said, isn't that enough for you? Need some more?

I'm not calling you a liar at all, just saying that in my experience you get very invested in these threads, and it drives you to say things you don't mean. I held out the possibility that this is occurring on this thread.

Take it for what it's worth.

[Sabertooth]

You are assuming that all Congressmen and Senators would have voted the same way when the bill was returned for an override. McCain was gearing up for a huge PR push, and I think that an override was a distinct possibility.

Not a very strong one. CFR didn't get 60% in either chamber, and the likelihood that Bush wouldn't have been sustained by enough Republicans to sustain his first veto stretches credulity.

As I said, I didn't agree, but I understood the reasoning. So sue me. The law is constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, regardless of our opinions.

And the law would not be Constitutional if it had been vetoed. It wouldn't be a law at all.

I did not expect this to be upheld. Neither did the President. Neither did Congressman Billybob, nor Mitch McConnell.

I did. I thought this failure to veto was a reckless gamble.

So, we can all whine and froth at the mouth, or we can start figuring out ways to get our message out and also figure out ways to get this law reversed.

How about we look at why we lost on this in the first place?

We lost because we chose not to seize the victory available to us in the form of a veto. The "strategery" failed.

Rethinking is in order.

[NittanyLion]

You must feel so good right now, huh?

I'd feel a lot better if we didn't have to live with this terrible law.

[concerned about politics]

Ignore the trolls, Howlin. Their goal is to out Bush, obviously. No matter what he does, they're here to destroy him anyway.
Wait until we see what the court has decided before even bother with the rabid kooks who have no idea themselves. Maybe they'll just start eating their own.

[JCEccles]

I'm not accusing you.

[mrsmith]

Thank you very much. That's very, very generous of you to find and post the relevant law!

(To tell the truth... I now wish I'd kept my musing about the future to myself!)

[JCEccles]

Add "rabid kooks" to the list of epithets.

[Miss Marple]

I agree re-thinking is in order. Presidents make mistakes, and I think this was one.

Now, while we are saddled with this for the time being, we need to think of ways to get around it and also work on getting people in the general population understanding what this means and get this provision repealed.

Or, we can just whine here and do nothing constructive.

[Howlin]

I'm sure you'd much prefer that those of us who don't think the world has come to an end or that the president should be impeached would just leave this thread so you all could have a jolly old time, patting yourselves on the back, telling each other how right you were, and discussing how you'll not vote for this man again because of your principles.

And yet, you all openly mock this man who is doing the best he can. Better than anybody else out there. You're openinly discussing denying him your vote in hopes that he won't win reelection in 2004, you know, to teach us "not real conservatives" a lesson.

And you have the nerve to sit here and talk about what WE are doing to this party and country?

Don't be misled: just because I'm one of a few on here doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people out there who agree with me. They just don't want to take the crap you all dish out. I guess I am the stupid one.

[Sir Gawain]

I'd feel a lot better if enough people in this country were smart enough to vote traitors out of office. The country is doomed because the people are stupid and don't care. Turn off the lights before you leave. The party's over.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Not unlike labelling critics of this monstrosity of an opinion "foamers" and "hysterical"?

Or rabid kooks.