***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.

[The Wizard]

we must make noise and get this undone.....and yes, we had an armed revolution over much less.....

[BigSkyFreeper]

RIP America...call the boys and girls home from Iraq....they ain't fighting for freedom any more....

That's the kind of attitude that allows this &$%# to happen.

[international american]

The lawmakers have been chipping away at our freedoms for years, but this is truly sad. Scalia had it dead to rights.

[uncbob]

Whrer are all the Bush fans here who assured us the Supremes would rule this to be unconstitutional

Thank you president Bush for keeping your promise and VETOING this monstrosity

[scory]

This is not a conservative/liberal issue. This is an issue of who will wield power and under what circumstances. The ruling class won today.

Those who bemoaned the denial of cert on the Silveira case should take a look at this ruling. A majority on this court think the Constitution is largely irrelevant. I do not think that this court would uphold an individual right to keep and bear arms and it might even rule that there is no such right under any circumstances (they certainly don't care much about what the Constitution actually says).

But as long as most Americans can get ample access to pornography or sit in front of the TV and obtain their daily emotional enema from Oprah or E or whatever they will not care a fig about this.

[international american]

We have become complaiscent when it comes to our freedoms.
All we can do is fight like hell to undo this via legislation.

[zook]

Let's just knock off all the moaning and hand ringing. First of all, freedom will always out. It won't surprise me to see some media outlets vowing to ignore this ban. It won't surprise me to see clever people finding ways around the ban.

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. If you want to go after Bush, not vote for him, call him a "facsist" like some idiot did on this thread, well then you may as well step right up to the Kool-aid vat right now.

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.

Clearly, this is a bonehead ruling. But to say stuff like "America died today," or to post photos of burning flags is just a bunch of crap.

[holdmuhbeer]

What the crap are yall talking about? what happened?

[rapture-me]

I have urgent questions.

(1) Does this apply only to Federal candidates or to ALL State & Local candidates?

(2) Can Political Parties continue to run ad's immediately before an election? If not, what are the time frame limits?

[uncbob]

Second, knock off the Bush bashing. Yep, in hindsight he shouldn't have signed it

BS
It was a campaign promise he made to veto it

And if he signed it expecting it to be declared uncostitutional then he is a fraud

[Trampled by Lambs]

Ok, I understand now. I was focusing on the wrong part or it (soft money). I'll have to do some reading.

[Tribune7]

My comments were directed to someone who wanted to throw out the SC.

May as well direct that to me as well. I want to throw them out.

But since you asked about replacements - If we had gridlock this never would have gone into law.

There's merit to that view, but if you are suggesting that we give Congress (or the presidency) back to the Dems, that puts us at cross purposes. What I want is 60 conservative senators who will not block the appointment of judges who revere the Constitution -- and who will be willing to impeach judges if they fail to. I believe Dubya is willing to appoint such people, which is why I won't turn against him.

So replace them with challengers. Start with Toomey to replace Specter. If the challengers screw up like present incumbents, then throw them out too. Ad infinitum.

I'm working to do that. (The funny thing is I can see where this decision might backfire against Arlen who has the bigger war chest.)

[antiRepublicrat]

John McCain succeeded where George III, Hitler, Stalin failed...

Don't forget President Bush, since he signed it into law.

[international american]

5 idiots on the Supreme Court upheld a law denying the right to free speech.

[Orange1998]

As much as I want to flame away.... I have to agree with you.

[technomage]

This is only the first step folks!!

A few months, or years, down the road, they will go after other avenues, like talk radio or the Internet. Far fetched? Take a look at what is happening!

We must get this changed. The only way to do this, that I can see, is

First get a larger Republican majority in the Senate.

Second, is for the voters of Arizona to GET RID OF John McLame.

Third is for Congress to change, or eliminate, this new law, which ties in with #1.

Fourth, the President MUST fight this. He is the one that did not veto this obvious case of freedom of speech limitations. He is responsible for upholding the Constitution and we MUST remind him about this over and over and over.

Contact W and contact Senators. Do it a hundred times if necessary. But, this ruling has enormous potential unforeseen problems down the road. We must take action.

[Grig]

Also, how does it effect web site operators? If putting a banner ad on your website at the wrong time violates it, then a massive campaign of passive resistance is possible.

[Little Ray]

The Democrats WANT an "equal time" law or regulation of some sort, so they can use it to attack talk radio.

[Constitution Day]

BUMP. All the apologists and spinners are over on the other thread.