***Supreme Court Eliminates 1st Amendment Rights: America Died Today***

Stardate: 0312.10

[The Wizard]

In a move that will eliminate the 1st amendment protections of free speach was just announced.....

America, established by the the Founding Fathers in 1776, has ended.

[Dead Dog]

Politics is Politics, the SC is to be above this.

[nothingnew]

So the Supreme Court thinks buggery & abortion are guaranteed rights, but freedom of political speech isn't.

My pick for "Quote of the Day"!

FMCDH

[uncbob]

President Bush campaigned against this law, and he shouldn't have signed it, when it passed, no matter what the political repurcussions were.

And I don't know what is worse the fact that he signed whn he campaigned against it or the stupidity involved in thinking this was a burning political issue that would gain him favor with the voters

Maybe John Huang 2 and the rest of the supporters of his signing this garbage can give us a reprise of their logic

[nickcarraway]

This is not going to gain favor with voters. No poll ever showed that U.S. voters cared about this at all. Quite the opposite. But the media cared about it.

[Durus]

I believe Dubya is willing to appoint such people.. Why? Is it wishful thinking?

[Sam Cree]

So, you believe it is OK for government to restrict citizens from banding together and pooling resources to purchase political advertising?

[Sam Cree]

"Sometimes such an admission can pay off"

I wish politicians could have enough integrity to just be completely honest. GW is the straightest shooter we've had in awhile, but I'm still not expecting such an admission from him. We'll see what he says, though.

[BSunday]

Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas are the ones who have actually read the Constitution.

Outstanding post!

[Jack Black]

reference #40.

[BSunday]

Yeah, well don't expect me to get too worked up. All these people whining that the First Amendment is dead are still able to say, write and print whatever they want. If their concerns were even remotely real, they wouldn't even be able to voice these concerns.

BTW the best way to take away someone's rights, is little by very little, not all at once.

[Diamond]

Do you think it is OK to prohibit negative campaign ads 60 days prior to an election?

And you know just whom will determine what "negative" means. Why, the government, of course.

Cordially,

[oceanview]

sure, you still have your freedom of speech, to stand on a soapbox or send an email that will be deleted by a spam filter, or a bulk mailing that will get torn up with the rest of the junk mail. in the meantime, the NYT and the big media have the real free speech, the only one that counts, that can be used to change minds and influence people.

[backhoe]

I am so sick of all these people who are ONLY NOW discovering that our rights are under attack. Where the hell were you people 40 years ago??

Similar thoughts are passing through my mind.

[Jack Black]

Finally, if Bush can play the hand right, this may actually work to his advantage as a campaign issue. He can argue that he signed the legislation expecting that a rational Supreme Court would toss out the objectionable parts, but that a group of predominantly liberal-left justices voted to take away Americans' free speech rights.

That is intellectually dishonest in the extreme! I could not imagine anyone saying that. EACH BRANCH and EVERY PERSON IN THE GOVERNMENT has a SWORN DUTY to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. If Bush thought it was unconstitutional he needed to Veto it, it is part of his job. He took an OATH to "uphold the Constitution" and vetoing legislation that he considers unconstitutional is clearly a part of the checks and balances designed in to safegard the Constitution. One of the WORST trends leading to our serfdom.

[Prime Choice]

BTW the best way to take away someone's rights, is little by very little, not all at once.

That's why it's often referred to as a Frog Boil.

(For those not familiar with the practice of frog boiling: what you do is put the frogs in a pot filled with room-temperature water. They won't put up a fight. Then you put the pot on a fire and gradually raise the heat. The frogs won't notice and still won't put up a fight. Soon enough, the water temperature will rise to a fatal level for the frogs. Because the temperature increases are so gradual, the frogs never notice...until it's too late. Then the frogs are dead and never know what hit them.)

[autoresponder]

Time for selective boycotts of major network TV and lib newspapers.

Pick one network; CBS being the worst; delete it on your TV/VCR/DVD programming.

Cancel all NYT, WP, LAT, etc. newspapers.

FR has over 100,000 members and millions of surfers.

NRA has over 4,000,000 members and the USA has over 90,000,000 gun owners.

Republican, Democrat, or Independent, or Libertarian; lets turn off their money machines today and forever!

[Tribune7]

I believe Dubya is willing to appoint such people.. Why? Is it wishful thinking?

It's not negative thinking. The people he has nominated have been opposed by people who have historically treated our Constitution as something not to be taken seriously.

Now, other than staying home, or protest voting or voting for Howard Dean, what do you suggest be done next November?

[The Wizard]

GWB should have vetoed this piece of crap

[Sloth]

JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE O'CONNOR

SOUTER -- appointed by G.H. W. Bush.

STEVENS -- appointed by Gerald Ford

O'CONNOR -- appointed by Reagan.

This is a victory for Republicans everywhere.

[Sloth]

Second, knock off the Bush bashing. Yep, in hindsight he shouldn't have signed it. But like nearly everyone else with a clear head he never dreamed the SC would uphold any ad ban....

You have an interesting definition of being clear-headed.

Finally, if Bush can play the hand right, this may actually work to his advantage as a campaign issue. He can argue that he signed the legislation expecting that a rational Supreme Court would toss out the objectionable parts, but that a group of predominantly liberal-left justices voted to take away Americans' free speech rights.

Why do bills go before the President for veto or signature?