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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Beck_isright]

(edited by the 9th Circuit) and the other (edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit) have prevented me from expressing my opinion here on (edited by the 9th Circuit). If you think that the (edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit) has been destroyed, then obviously you have no idea of the power of the (edited by the 9th Circuit). And the candidates who (edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit) have no idea that (edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit) of the situation that has been inflicted on the (edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit) because of (edited by the 9th Circuit)(edited by the 9th Circuit).

Just a glimpse of the future gang. I look forward to "FR" being renamed "RR" (Redacted Republic). Good night and a Merry (edited by the 9th Circuit) to all.

[Hoverbug]

Yes. You think the date you signed onto FR determines how long you've been a conservative?

You're argument tactics are those of a rookie. Falsly implying that I 'd be happy if we all voted dem, trying to scare me with a boogeyman, then calling me names.

You're a rookie. And a bad one at that.

Hb

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

If you can't beat my argument you call me names.

Yes you certainly do argue.

I prefer the mutual exchange of ideas, respectfully as well as whit fully expressed without mallace. Can you comprehend that protocol?

[Robert A Cook PE]

Our soldiers in Iraq are allowed weapons........

Do you really thing that this Supremem Court wants US to have those?

[Robert A Cook PE]

A good resume.

Thank you.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

With all due respect, your posts are like manifestos. And as far as being a "rookie" conservative, I have 52 years under my belt and 2 years of it were spent under military combat.

You might say that disqualifies me as a "rookie".

[Howlin]

Well, it really made me mad when he thought only Reagan was a conservative.........LOL.

And all I have proved is that I am old, very, very, old.

[Mo1]

Our soldiers in Iraq are allowed weapons........

Do you really thing that this Supremem Court wants US to have those?

You apparently totally missed my point

[Howlin]

To: M Kehoe

Actually, it just may affect FR and other political sites. This might have the unintended consequence of making the Internet just that much more important to activism. If activists/issue advocates, etc, cannot advertise in the more traditional venues, how are they going to get their message out? Internet activism could boom. And so far, the right just about owns the Internet.

118 posted on 12/10/2003 9:06:23 PM EST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Jim Robinson]

Actually, it just may affect FR and other political sites. This might have the unintended consequence of making the Internet just that much more important to activism. If activists/issue advocates, etc, cannot advertise in the more traditional venues, how are they going to get their message out? Internet activism could boom. And so far, the right just about owns the Internet.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

It's good to hear your voice again!

I am glad to see that most of us from the start of FR are still around. We have lost quite a number of the originals but during times like these they come trickling back.

[Hoverbug]

Never been in a courtroom, have ya. Argument is exactly the right word.

I prefer the mutual exchange of ideas, respectfully as well as whit fully expressed without mallace. Can you comprehend that protocol?

Here's your first post to me:

OK! WE GODDA ALL VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT NOW!!!!!! (Did that make you feel better?)

Is that what you mean by a mutual exchange of ideas respectfully and whit fully (sic) expressed without mallace. Pretty hypocritical, aren't you.

Who do you think you're fooling? You still think you're talking to a mindless democrat, don't you.

You wouldn't be trying to make me out the bad guy in order make my argument look weak, would you?

You're like every liberal I ever met. You lose in an argument, then start crying that the other guy was mean. You posted to me first. Quit whining.

Hb

[tpaine]

[Final say is] Not at issue.

That is precisely the issue. I invite you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation.

Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.

Sorry, sport, but "Article III Sec 1 & 2" don't contradict Mr. Justice Scalia's statement - unless, perhaps, you adopt the circular argument that 'limited judicial review constitutes exclusive and final constitutional review because limited judicial review is equivalent to exclusive and final constitutional review.'

Sorry sport. You asked me to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power. Now you want to play word games about who's making circular arguments. -- You are, imo.

Here's another example. I wrote:
Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that?

LOL! "Easy to find?" Put it in print, my friend: quote the constitutional article, section and clause that delegate to the court the power of exclusive and final constitutional review. "Article III Sec 1 & 2" say nothing of the sort. 'I suspect you're avoiding a direct quotation. Why is that?'

There is no such thing as "the power of exclusive and final constitutional review".. Thus, NO ONE can 'quote' it. -- Weird game you play.

You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,'

No, I did not. You lie.

and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court 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.'

Another lie. I've written no such thing.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...

Never said it was. Do you enjoy making up such tales?

John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.

LOL! Your attempts to change the subject are really quite entertaining! I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court.

That is not my view. You're getting daffy.

As for Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion, it remains logically flawed: no entity can claim a power to say what the law is, and claim simultaneously to be somehow bound by that same law.

I suggest you write to some law review, outlining ~your~ 'logic' refuting Marshalls. -- Be sure to include lots of LOL's & smileys..

[Beck_isright]

It's a crap shoot and you know it. It depends on which court and district the liberals shop the case to. I hope JR is loaded with off shore back ups. He'll (we'll) need them.

[Hoverbug]

With all due respect, your posts are like manifestos

Quit readin' em.

Hb

[Howlin]

If you work at it, I think you can actually be MORE pessimisstic.

[Beck_isright]

Look up "realistic". If you have faith in the liberal Klintoon appointees who currently run many appeals courts, then your sky is purple as well as the dinosaurs you sleep with.

P.S. - Just what the hell is a "Teletubbie" and what do they do in that universe of reality you live in?

[Sir_Ed]

"Uh, I hope you're not calling me a liberal. I'm the furthest thing in the world from a liberal. "

No Way! LOL.... I was refering to the person who was attacking you."

Oops!!

Sorry!!

I should have got the clue!!

Ed

[Howlin]

Dealing with "reality" is dealing with facts; and so far, all you've posted is assumptions you have made.

As for the rest of your posts, I assume that means something to you; I frankly can't tell if you're obtuse or just have nothing better to offer.

[Sir_Ed]

"No, "killing babies" is not okay. But I take a position which I believe correct that winds up angering both sides on the issue of abortion. To wit:

The US Constitution is absolutely silent on the subject of abortion."

We all have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

When you kill an unborn baby, you are taking its life. It's the same as killing an infant who is two weeks out of his mother's womb, which is also against the Constitution.

Ed

[El Gato]

Nope, the TV station that ran the ad would not be an "accessory." To the contrary, as I've noted in other posts on this thread, as long as a federal candidate is in the equation the station MUST carry the ad and cannot censor it.

I made that comment before getting to your scheme. However it seems to me that the scheme doesn't address the issue, that being that a group can't run such ads in the proscribed time frames. If it's the candidate's ad, with a bunch of other folks names on it, that's not the same thing, and even winning a case based on such an ad might cause a small change in the way the law is enforced, but nothing more.