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.

[Area51]

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

1,241 posted on 12/10/2003 12:26:02 PM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1233 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

Unfortunately Chancellor Palpatine seems to have gone fishing!

[concerned about politics]

All the DU people who you claim are here bashing Bush. Or did I misunderstand? That is your contention right? Name them.

Oh give me a break! Just go to the site. Why, You guilty?
Give me the names of all the FR members here, ok? Deal? Sheesh!
I can't believe a hung around for a stupid question like that.

[VRWC_minion]

One of your hero's is a supporter of CFR and one of your villians is also a supporter of CFR. One might conclude that your viewpoints are either insincere or ignorant.

[Who is John Galt?]

How did he violate this oath if all branches of the gov't agree to it ? Isn't that the esence of what is constitutional ? Hasn't this law met all the tests that a law must meet ? I dare say most laws on the books have not met this standard.

Then apparently you would consider the Sedition Act to have been 'constitutional:' President Adams agreed to it, the Federalist majority in Congress agreed to it, and the Federalist appointees on the high court agreed to it, to the point of prosecutiong and jailing 'violators.' The Sedition Act nevertheless violated the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Words have specific meanings, no matter what Bill Clinton or any other politician or political appointee might say. Like Thomas Jefferson, I prefer a written Constitution to the suggestion that 'if the whole government says its OK, it must be OK...'

;>)

[Dane]

Yep. He sure didn't need to sign it.

And if he didn't would the Pubs have withstood the barrage of attacks going into the 2002 midterm elections, where for the first time in a century the Pubs actually gianed seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election.

JMO, think long term instead of knee jerk. The Founding Fathers did.

[KantianBurke]

That's idiotic. The GOP did well in the 02 mid term elections due to their response following 9-11. Not due to CFR!

[Protagoras]

So it's BS. We knew that. There is none on this thread. You are goofy, as usual.

[jmc813]

But I do want at least a thousand more names on that ad.

Count me in.

[TankerKC]

Rita Cosby is reporting this is a huge win for Vic-President Gore...developing.

[WackyKat]

All the DU people who you claim are here bashing Bush. Or did I misunderstand? That is your contention right? Name them

Ask yourself this-what better way to disrupt than to claim others are disruptors and trolls and from DU and Democrats?

Think about it, and the identity of the real DU disruptor will be revealed to you

[TexasCajun]

Bush signs CFR!

Bush signs Prescription Drug Bill!

Bush tells Taiwan to forget freedom & independence!

I'm now convinced there is no differnce between the elite democrats and elite republicans!

Geezzz, I give up!!

[NYC Republican]

This is a DEADLY ruling...It is DANGEROUS...an unelected court has just said that our goverment can limit free speech...I am NOT saying this is the end of the the American Experience...but we may can see it from here.

I prefer to wait and see exactly what's in the 300 page ruling. I just think that it's going overboard saying we've become a dictatorship, lost our rights, etc (not your comments, but comments from others).

[Dane]

That's idiotic. The GOP did well in the 02 mid term elections due to their response following 9-11. Not due to CFR!

Correction, they did well by not vetoing CFR, IMO, or are you saying that Tim Russert and Co. would still not be harping today about GW's veto of CFR.

[Who is John Galt?]

I have already counted you out that you will be on my team.

Sorry, compadre: I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If you are on any other team, you won't find me volunteering to join...

;>)

[Spiff]

I have already planned a "stick it in their eye" ad that will deliberately violate this cr*p law. And, as you note, EVERYONE who places their name in the text of this ad WILL be an originator. I'm willing to put my name first, and in large type -- the way John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence so "King George can read this without his spectacles." But I do want at least a thousand more names on that ad. LOL.

Where do I sign up? I want my name on there too - the bigger the better. Come and get me and send me to the gulags, you robe-wearing fascists!

[NittanyLion]

Correction, they did well by not vetoing CFR, IMO, or are you saying that Tim Russert and Co. would still not be harping today about GW's veto of CFR.

Does politics trump the Constitution?

[Sabertooth]

*This was supposed to be a good strategic move, and it backfired.

**How do you know, Sabertooth? We're dealing with an unknown.

Well, I'm opperating with the belief that there should be freedom of political speech, and the assumption that others believe that as well.

Since this law is clearly a curtailment of free speech, we're left with two options:

1. President Bush thought that the SCOTUS would overturn all or more of this CFR legislation than they did. If so, the plan backfired.

Or 2. President Bush is comfortable with curtailments of political speech.

I wonder, though. The Democrats are pretty dumb. It's easy for Bush to pull the wool over their eyes. This could be a blessing for us in the future.

I think we need to get the rose-colored blinders off. The President is a human politician. He's got more character than most, but he's certainly fallible.

We need to resist the temptation to assume that every defeat or blunder is part of some grand strategy.

A lot of folks here hypnotized themselves into thinking that Bush was signing this to "take the Democrats' issues away." Now that it hasn't, we need to confront reality.

Granted, the 60 day thing sucks. No doubt. But the American people, those who don't pay close attention, are sick and tired of the political hate commercials on TV before an election. They really wanted this. The "people" really did support it.

No they didn't. This issue wasn't swinging elections.
The GOP flinched for no reason in passing this.

[VRWC_minion]

Then apparently you would consider the Sedition Act to have been 'constitutional

What a dumb question. Yes, of course it was.

The remedy to a law you dislike is to follow the constitution or revolution.

You have provided proof that we can enact bad constitutional laws and our constitution can still survive, correct itself and move on.

[concerned about politics]

So it's BS. We knew that. There is none on this thread. You are goofy, as usual.

You're so full of crap. The DU dorks are all over the place.
Normal people aren't this rabid. That's a Democrat trait.
You sound so very young. Are you even old enough to vote? You sound like a DUer. (Hey, how about that Brittney and Madona kiss? Really cool, huh dude?)

[MichiganConservative]

the DWI report regarding Bush was saved for maximum damage

Wasn't the Bush DWI thing released by a member of the Press? Wouldn't he be free to do that again, as the CFR law doesn't silence him.

we will still get the dirt dished to us, it will just happen months in advance

Maybe you'll know, but you probably know in advance anyway. Most people who vote don't even pay attention till a couple days before the election. They won't know what the media doesn't want them to know. And they'll get their news from MTV, not FOX. They're not called "useful idiots" for no reason.