[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.

[The Wizard]

GWB should have vetoed this piece of crap

[Texas Federalist]

If you want to see something interesting, go to the library and look at some of transcripts of late 19th and early 20th century Congressionable debates. You will routinely see that they considered the Constitutionality of a bill in almost every debate. Likewise, presidents of the era routinely vetoed bills they agreed with because they didn't believe they were constitutional. The legislative and executive branch have appeared to abdicate their constitutional responsibilities over the last century in the name of political expediency.

[zook]

"That is intellectually dishonest in the extreme!"

It's politics. I hope GW will do everything to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse, or at least a nice leather one.