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.

[NittanyLion]

Bush warned them that THEIR job was to stop this bill; and he plainly stated that HE thought parts of it was unconstitutional.

Yet he still signed it.

[MeekOneGOP]

I am floored. What are they [SCOTUS] doing ?

This makes winning more seats in the Senate even more critical to get Bush's judicial pics through. Bush will likely get to pick some SCOTUS replacements except the Senate will obstruct his picks.

G-r-r-r-r-r !!!

[stljoe71]

I don't have one. I don't take responsibility for other people's mistakes.

I have not seen a single bush judicial nominee criticize CFR and I have watched some of the hearings. Can you name one who has?

[Howlin]

We can't be sure what these black-robed dictators will do once they're confirmed

So what do you suggest, that we 1) Don't do anything, or 2) let Dean or Hillary or Daschle decide?

[ThinkDifferent]

Congress under the Constitution was given the power to regulate elections. This is what this law does.

That's an even more contrived interpretation than using the interstate commerce clause to regulate a farmer growing crops on his own property.

[VRWC_minion]

It's Bush's bill.

It's the people's bill.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your hysterical supposition does little to increase understanding.

Citizens' groups are not prevented from running ads for their candidates being able to call the opposition a "dirty dog" sixty days before the election doesn't change that.

I see this as having little if any effect. But that is not the point. The only point of importance is Congress has the constitutional power to pass this law. Nor am I claiming it is a good law any more than the thousands of bad laws which stood constitutional scrutiny.

[oceanview]

fine. who is watching WNRA? do you think any swing voters are watching WNRA? do you think NBC is planning on running a piece because of a WNRA op-ed?

[B Knotts]

The point is there's not a bit of difference between Souter/O'Connor and Ginsburg/Breyer when it boils down to the fundamental nature of the Constitution.

I don't have the answer; but I am certainly not going to go into knee-jerk-defend-the-GOP mode.

[hellinahandcart]

If it had never become law it would never have gone to the Supreme Court. Duh. I'm willing to admit it was a stupid gamble on a very bad law, why aren't you?

The Court betrayed us but that doesn't get Bush off the hook for signing this. No, it does not.

It wasn't worth it to "take this issue away from the Democrats", was it? This is going to hurt Bush more than anything the Democrats can throw at him.

[ThinkDifferent]

First, the president does not believe the law to be constitutional, and indicated such upon signing it.

In other words, he admitted to violating his oath of office.

[ImpBill]

"Run and ad somewhere".

That is the question ... Where. What newspaper or other media outlet is going to take our money to run an ad the SCOTUS has ruled we can't? It seems to me they have limited our FreeSpeech by binding the hands of those whom we would use to magnigy that speech to the masses.

Is the ruling that I/We can't buy and ad or that those media outlets can't sell us ad space?

[Defiant]

Billybob--

Maybe it's not so embarassing to IMPOTUS after all that he was removed from the Supreme Court Bar. It's they who are becoming an embarassment.

[Howlin]

because they would not have been able to override the veto.

I think that is wrong; I think they did have the votes to override him. I may be wrong, but I might have even read that on this very thread.

[NYC Republican]

This is out-and-out dictatorship

Sorry... to me, this is a bit shrill... Then again, it's just my opinion.

[Howlin]

Given that Bush signed the bill Clinton or Gore could have given us no worse.

So, how long have you been this delusional?

[Mo1]

If you accept matching funds, you run into problems if you need to make a push in this or that state late in the primary campaign

So you are for politicians in taking more of our money to run in elections?

[justshutupandtakeit]

No just stick to the facts of the matter and leave the hysterical overreactions aside.

If the people don't like this law it can have its representatives change it. My guess is this will provoke little discussion or controversey outside of FR.

My screenname is ironic. Certainly people around here will never jsuati now will they?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

I was here when this forum was dedicated to freedom and supporting the Constitution, not a stupid George W. Gore cheerleading squad.

[hchutch]

Lots of complaints, few solutions.