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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[aristeides]

Fourth Circuit has the reputation of being the most conservative.

[Dan from Michigan]

Trouble is that under this law, legally, the groups can't even say that John Kerry and John Edwards tried to bankrupt gun manufacturers in a bankruptcy bill.

That's electioneering under this law.

As far as I'm concerned. F-them. That law is not worthy of being followed.

[Beck_isright]

" I can't believe people here are supporting it."

They are the same fools who think that the courts will actually defend the Constitution on other issues.

[P-Marlowe]

It should be noted that Article 1 section 4 of the constitution was written before the Bill of Rights. Thus Article 1 section 4 must be interpreted in light of the first amendment and not the other way around.

If article 1 section 4 allowed congress to limit free speech, then that provision was effectively repealed when the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution. Per the first amendment Congress has no authority to abridge free speech under its plenary powers in Article 1 section 4.

The Bill of Rights has been effectively repealed by this decision.

[putupon]

So fire them all?

Our forefathers did!!!

[Beck_isright]

I hope so. I hope Jim packs it up and moves to Antigua into a nice villa. And continues the fight offshore.

[Steve_Seattle]

I think some people are extremely naive if they think the Democrats supported a CFR law that they believed would put them at a political disadvantage. Since when have the Democrats ever behaved like that? Since never.

[spunkets]

"Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of "socialism.""

Perhaps you can give a definition of socialism that excludes the present administration's socialist acts enacted.

[aristeides]

They are the same fools who think that the courts will actually defend the Constitution on other issues.

Maybe they think it. Or maybe they just say it in the hope that other suckers will swallow the line.

[Mo1]

Restrictions on spending and contributions therefore restrict my ability to consume and produce information.

You really believe that the ads and information will stop because of CFR??

[Romulus]

We don't need your damn vote.

Don't you?

Kool-Aid Republicans are in the minority around here. I can get along without your big tent technocrats a hell of a lot sooner than the GOP can kiss off its conservative base.

If you think you can do it on your own, I sincerely hope you'll try.

[Beck_isright]

" The Bill of Rights has been effectively repealed by this decision."

Well stated. I hope Jim Robinson puts his two cents in soon.

[hellinahandcart]

Bush should have vetoed it! He gambled, the Supreme Court screwed us again, and we all lost.

I was sure the Supreme Court was going to gut this bill. The first amendment is completely clear. Now there is nothing of principle in the law that we can count on to be constant. Without constants, society collapses. Don't you get it?

I have been asked every so often what it would take for Bush to lose my support. If there wasn't a war on, this would be it. I might still be stuck with this monstrous decision if Congress had overridden Bush's veto, but I could still support Bush with a clear conscience. Now I'll have to settle for murky and hypocritical.

I am not happy.

[Dane]

Not at all. I will simply state, somewhere, that I told you so. I am not in "fear" per se. I have a concern that FR will be killed. If you think the ACLU or People for the American Way OR Senator Boxer won't sue to shut down talk radio or FR, you are more naive than a Klinton supporter

Does FR run poltical ads during Seinfeld on a local station? The reason the ad bans passed is because people got sick of attack ads and it had popular support. That's the way it is. No one holds a gun to anybody's head to read FR but when people see the attack ads during their favorite show(etc.etc) a majority of the populace thinks that is .

[NYC Republican]

What is the matter with you, can't you see this is a combination of the Bubonic Plague, Nuclear War and the Heartbreak of Psiriosis all rolled into one?

LOL!

[ought-six]

I hate to say it, folks, but our Republic is finished. We are now under the Rule of the Robe, or, in more clear language, we are now subjects, answerable to judicial tyranny. This ruling basically sets the stage for the complete abrogation of the Bill of Rights, and eventually the entire Constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

We do know who is responsible for this law: the American People. Blame them rather than Bush if you want to pretend to be objective.

[apackof2]

Late comer here....has anyone seen the opinion?

SCOTUS doesn't have it on the site yet

[Beck_isright]

" Maybe they think it. Or maybe they just say it in the hope that other suckers will swallow the line."

They are the country club RINO's. They have no clue on the impact of this decision. Free speech is now regulated by the courts, not the Constitution or the Congress. It is now up to robed individuals primarily appointed by Bill Clinton. I'm off to work again. I'll check in later.

[aristeides]

Look at the law as incumbent protection. I don't know which of the two parties this law will benefit, and I suspect the politicians don't really know either. But they're quite willing to hurt their party overall so long as incumbents are protected. They've shown that over and over again.