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.

[Revel]

"SCALIA SUMS IT UP -

Justice Scalia, in his opinion, writes, "This is a sad day for freedom of speech." He then adds, "Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography...tobacco advertising...dissemination of illegally intercepted communications...and sexually explicit cable programming...would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government.""

That guy is my Main Man! He is one of the only justices actually capable of legal thought.

[Who is John Galt?]

From the more rational side of the high court:

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography... tobacco advertising... dissemination of illegally intercepted communications... and sexually explicit cable programming... would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national party use of soft money to fund issue ads that incumbents find so offensive."

-Justice Scalia

---------------

"The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.. Nevertheless, the Court today upholds what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War. With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection."

"Because the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office... our duty is to approach these restrictions with the utmost skepticism and subject them to the strictest scrutiny."

"In response to this assault on the free exchange of ideas and with only the slightest consideration of the appropriate standard of review or of the Court's traditional role of protecting First Amendment freedoms, the Court has placed its imprimatur on these unprecedented restrictions. The very purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail..."

-Justice Thomas

---------------

"The First Amendment guarantees our citizens the right to judge for themselves the most effective means for the expression of political views and to decide for themselves which entities to trust as reliable speakers. Significant portions of Titles I and II of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA or Act) constrain that freedom."

"These new laws force speakers to abandon their own preference for speaking through parties and organizations. And they provide safe harbor to the mainstream press, suggesting that the corporate media alone suffice to alleviate the burdens the Act places on the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens."

-Justice Kennedy

----------------

"... (P)olitical parties often foster speech crucial to a healthy democracy... and fulfill the need for like-minded individuals to ban together and promote a political philosophy.... When political parties engage in pure political speech that has little or no potential to corrupt their federal candidates and officeholders, the government cannot constitutionally burden their speech any more than it could burden the speech of individuals engaging in these same activities."

"[The Court] should not be able to broadly restrict political speech in the fashion it has chosen. Today's decision, by not requiring tailored restrictions, has significantly reduced the protection for political speech having little or nothing to do with corruption or the appearance of corruption."

-Chief Justice Rehnquist

[FreeReign]

That guy is my Main Man! He is one of the only justices actually capable of legal thought.

How do we get more of his types?

[ModernDayCato]

Hi Lion,

I actually stopped posting after I was unfairly banned for a day, and I am generally disgusted with FR and what it has become.

For about half a second today I actually gloated, rushing here to see what all the people who bludgeoned me for taking W to task when he signed this nightmare had to say for themselves.

I haven't seen a single comment from the usual suspects who told me that I was naive and single minded, and that I didn't see the political brilliance in W's abandoning his oath of office. And anyway...the USSC would strike it down.

I wish they had been right, and gloating made me feel even worse.

And it's nice to see some of my old pals here, even if we didn't always agree.

[Destro]

Coupled with the Supreme Court decision of a few days ago that said the people were not intended as a militia and thus do not have the right to bear arms means that we just witnessed the end of the constitution of our forefathers.

The Republican party is also dead. I just realized I am a slave.

[Huck]

Would the President send in the federal military to occupy the State?

I wouldn't rule it out.

[Revel]

"We don't need you in congress, we need you to replace Justice O'Conner."

Oh Heavens...don't do that. I like a lot of what Congressman Billybob says. But as I understand it he is not pro-choice. I need the peace of knowing that any new USSC apointie puts a high vaule on innocent life. It is a core issue with me. And it is gurarnteed by the decleration of independence.

[tpaine]

Justice Scalia observed:
"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."


Almost two centuries ago, a Jeffersonian republican asked a simple question:
Is the Constitution supreme over the court, or the court supreme over the Constitution?


_____________________________________


jwalsh07 wrote:
To be specific, Marshall made it up and tried to force it on MAdison and Jefferson. Madison and Jefferson told Marshall where to stick Marburys commission.

---

Actually Scalia is wrong and so are you two.

Marshall said that acts repugnant to our constitutuion are void.
IE, -- the simple words of the Constitution are supreme over ~everyone~ ; -- courts, legislatures, and the executive.


Marshall didn't 'make it up' he reasoned that:

"-- it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. ---
--- Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
John Marshall, 1803

_________________________________________


Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm


-1,508-

---

Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means?' Or are you suggesting that the Constitution says 'that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution?'
If Mr. Scalia missed something in that regard, I will be happy to stop quoting him...

-1,518-

---

Scalia missed the fact that we didn't 'make it up'.. Just as I said above, - and repeat below:


--- Actually Scalia is wrong and so are you two.
Marshall said that acts repugnant to our constitutuion are void.

IE, -- the simple words of the Constitution are supreme over ~everyone~ ; -- courts, legislatures, and the executive.

Marshall didn't 'make it up'. -- Read his opinion in M v M.

[Who is John Galt?]

I haven't seen a single comment from the usual suspects who told me that I was naive and single minded, and that I didn't see the political brilliance in W's abandoning his oath of office. And anyway...the USSC would strike it down....gloating made me feel even worse.

Nevertheless, you were most certainly right.

Sorry to say...

;>)

[Revel]

"Yup, we know this is the plan. So, preemptively we need to sue early and sue often. Turn this into a giant fireball of litigation. That is the inevitable direction, so better get in front of the action now."

It might work except that all of it would end up before the Scoutus. We would loose again.

[Congressman Billybob]

Three comments on your proposed ad:

1. You have to have a FEDERAL candidate involved in the ad, so the station MUST run it.

2. Get 1,000+ people involved, not just a few hundred.

3. Coordinate with all others, including me, who are running FEC-in-your-face ads. The impact is geometrically better for multiple ads -- but they all have to hit the media on the SAME DAY.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry," discussion thread. (ChronWatch used a longer title than my original.)

[Revel]

"Watch those spasmodic, knee-jerk reactions when tempted to judge someone without knowing the facts.

Ed"

Not hard to pick out the liberals who have an R in front of there name is it ? They do what liberals do. Attact others with rediculous accusations while not being able to defend there postions.

[Howlin]

I think you really mean Republicans. But if not then how about a list of conservatives that you have gotten(or helped) into office?

Not that it's any of your business, but just so I can show what a creep you are for asking:

Candidates I have personally donated AND worked for:

Presidency

1964 - Barry Goldwater
1968 -- Richard Nixon
1972 - Richard Nixon
1976 - Gerald Ford
1980 - Ronald Reagan
1984 - Ronald Reagan
1988 - George H.W. Bush
1992 - George H.W. Bush
1996 - Robert Dole
2000 - George W. Bush

Congress

Representative Howard Coble: '84, '86, '88, '90, '92, '94, '96, '98, 2000, 2002

Represenative Richard Burr '94, '96, '98, 2000, 2002

Represenative Lindsey Graham '98, 2000

Senator Jesse Helms '72, '78, '84, '90, '96

Senator Elizabeth Dole 2002

Senator Lindsey Graham 2002

[NittanyLion]

I remember you specifically from the CFR threads. Some folks have seen the light and changes their opinion of this terrible law, but unfortunately many have not.

[nicmarlo]

Please ping me to any "report" you may make to FReepers on the understandings of the SCOTUS opinion....I would much rather hear what you think than the incompetent t.v. talking heads. Thanks.

[nicmarlo]

Do the 999 names of individuals who sign the ad have to live in your same state?

[GeronL]

OK, OK

your all forgiven

[DarkhawkVII]

I'm sorry that this essay isn't perfect, a lot of grammar problems, I'm sure, but I had to post it.

A breaking article off of Free Republic’s site reports that a majority of the McCain Finegold Bill (2002) has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Once again, legislation is layered upon legislation. Of course this all stems from our definition of Democracy, but I see a paradox. I am also not sure why President Bush signed this legislation, maybe to keep power, maybe to be able to get along better with Democrats, or maybe to remove a potential issue that the Democratic party would have with him by not signing it.
I only hope that President Bush was hoping that the Supreme Court would strike the bill down. I’m simply perplexed, not angry with Bush’s decision, and maybe a little disappointed too.
The paradox I see is with our country’s actions not being consistent with our attitudes. We have the attitude that the liberty, the very freedom of speech is sacred. Even though it is clear that libel and slander are clear limits, we pass this bill clearly and unjustly limiting our free speech.
For better or worse, the Court has expanded Federal power, the Court has expanded the Court’s power, but for worse, the Court has taken a step in a lethal and undermining direction.

[Who is John Galt?]

Actually, Mr. Justice Scalia is correct: “[The Federal high court] made it up.” The Constitution nowhere delegates to the court the power to determine what the Constitution means.

“The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant.”

Melvin I. Urofsky, Marbury v. Madison - Background and Explanation

But let’s go to the “horse’s mouth” – Mr. Justice Marshall’s opinion:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.“

“...(I)t is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated [the Constitution] as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.”

Quite obviously, Mr. Justice Marshall wanted to have it both ways: he gave lip-service to the Constitution “as a rule for the government of courts,” but also claimed (with no obvious constitutional basis) a power “to say what the law [including the Constitution] is.”

That, my friend, is like telling your kids that they have to obey the rules – and then letting them write the rules...

;>)

[Revel]

"You're wasting your breath! That concept is way too hard for the Bush bashers on Free Republic to understand. They'll vote their "principles" in the next election, and seal our doom as a nation! You'd better start practicing your "Hail Queen Hillary!" Bush bashers"

That argument is growing thin and tiresome and it is becoming obvious that it is disaterous as well. I bet Hillary could not have gotten half of this accomplished. We would be having FR march for justice # 27 by now. We might be in a position by now to get a real conservative in office. Principles are what America has always been about. It always should have been.