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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[oceanview]

I am waiting for one of the people here to post that they have more judicial prudence then Scalia and Thomas!

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Let me get back to your #1238 in a moment. Something called "work" is getting in the way. :((

[concerned about politics]

Meanwhile, we can either rant or figure out ways to get the message out. I prefer getting the message out.

So. What did the 300 pages actually say? What exactly did the court keep or dump?

[VRWC_minion]

It's quite evident, except the most partisan blind, that Republicans are doing nothing to limit the government, are doing nothing to 'roll back decades of government largesse'

As far as spending goes, its obvious that Bush is spending to buy out the comepetition in order to plant the seeds which will reign in the federal gov't in Education and Medicare and eventually SS. The liberals see what he is doing clearly enough.

[El Gato]

The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

If true, it's time.

[Moby Grape]

No, not Freudian...I chose the name EARLY in the first Clinton term...and, that is one "honor" that the boy recieved that he deserved...being impeached...I have thought of changing the name, since it doesn't really fit current frame of reference, but then those that dislike me would think it someone else being a jerk.

[borkrules]

Like you, I also felt the decision not to veto this piece of dung was a mistake, BOTH as a matter of political strategy AND as a constitutional issue.

This steaming pile is clearly unconstitutional. Bush knew, or should have known that.

Many feel that he decided not to poke a stick in McCain's eye by vetoing it, and instead left it to the Supremes.

But the cold, hard fact of the matter is that NO ONE outside of the Beltway, NY Media Corporate Offices and McCain's Arizona office gave a rat's ass about this issue or this stoopid bill.

Sure, Bush would have weathered a phony political "storm" concocted by the liberal media, who all recognize a nice boost for their opinions, but that would have been over in two weeks.

McCain was a paper tiger then, and Rove should have known it.

Now, we all have to figure a way out of this mess. I'm not abandoning Bush. All Presidents get a mulligan or two. But this is a big time slice into the woods from a guy who's been playing out of the rough a little too often for my tastes, at least as regards domestic policy issues.

[fly_so_free]

The Supreme Court Justices High Rulers of the USA USSA have spoken.
You will not exercise free speech 60 days before an election.

President Bush made a HUGE MISTAKE in signing CFR. I had a feeling this was going to happen. It should have NEVER been sent to the Supreme Court in the first place- should have been vetoed. Looks like "under God" is going to be removed from the Pledge next. Since the premise of CFR is that candidates can't be criticized in ads, it doesn't seem far fetched that Freeping will be outlawed soon too. The justices who voted for this are unfit to be on the Supreme Court. Here is another example of our growing problem with Judicial Tyranny. What can be done now? What a disappointment. I hope President Bush gets the message that it is dangerous to pass off anything to a Judicial branch that is becoming intoxicated with its own power.

I think if nothing else , McCain needs to go. He's no republican. Let him join the democrats officially.

Argurgarghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

[Congressman Billybob]

The criminal penalties for violating this insane law include possible fines and incarceration. When going to jail is a possibility, the defendants are entitled to a JURY trial. I am willing to gamble my freedom on the probability that at least one member of that jury will respect the First Amendment as written and REFUSE TO CONVICT.

When the time comes, like JimRob's first trip to Washington to protest the Clintons in the White House, I hope 1,000 or more of my closest friends will decide to stand with me.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[Dane]

You make some good points. However, I also see that it is a chance to fix a few things.

My basic question earlier in this thread of if the California recall would have happened without the internet has gone unanswered.

Seems like some(not the people pinged) just like to use FR to rant, IMO.

[JCEccles]

Free speech says nothing about value. Using terms of derision such as "knee jerk" and "foamers" evidences laziness, a lack of intelligence, or both. You are certainly free to display the same on this board. You are not free to insist that value must be attached to it.

[Protagoras]

So we may now safely add Sean Hannity to the list of hysterical knee-jerk foamers along with Rush Limbaugh, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. I anticipate George Will and Cal Thomas will join their ranks in due time. I'm honored to find myself on the same side of the debate with such an august group of shallow, irrational, emotion-soaked critics of this legislation.

The very same people who supported Rush no matter what will now have to excoriate him. I love watching these people run in circles and pull their hair out while they accuse everyone else of doing it.

[Judith Anne]

Okay.

[Dolphy]

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.

If I weren't in the office, I'd be joining you, Howlin. I'm not afraid of the fight, I just am unable to stay on this thread long enough to have it right now. Those dishing sound no better to me that those at the Dem debate last night, cherry picking their issues while denying the accomplishments of this President.

[Who is John Galt?]

That's a good idea.

Maybe so. He would win the support of a lot of 'moderates' by advocating free speech rights (something almost everyone supports), and it might help break the log-jam in the Senate regarding his judicial nominees. If he's really willing to hammer on this, he can produce a good piece of work...

;>)

[El Gato]

And people think it's not important for Bush to be reelected?

We have GOT to get some of our people on THIS Supreme Court!

Why would that make any difference? He did sign the thing.

[concerned about politics]

You are not free to insist that value must be attached to it.

Nah. I put no value on it. I didn't even think about it.

[JCEccles]

I didn't even think about it.

You've convinced me.

[Mo1]

O geez, I just realized that didn't come out the way I'd intended.

I promise not to hold it against you ;0)

...

[Dane]

The very same people who supported Rush no matter what will now have to excoriate him. I love watching these people run in circles and pull their hair out while they accuse everyone else of doing it

LOL! Huh, kinda of interesting you bring up Rush now.

Oh I forgot, you were claiming that he should be in jail, the millisecond after the Enquirer story came out.

Nevermind, people on FR already know you have a one track mind.