The Legacy of Compassionate Conservatism [Rush Limbaugh on the Campaign Reform SCOTUS fiasco]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121003/content/truth_detector.guest.html ^ | December 10, 2003 | by Rush Limbaugh

[streetpreacher]

The Bill will be changed, and it will be initiated by the dims.

My, aren't we whistling Pollyana past the graveyard?

[Cboldt]

This has been going on since WWII, at least. Things are just becoming worse.

The pendulum swings. In the US, more toward cental control since about 1916. Great times to be alive, we get to "see" it. As always, one is always, ultimately, in control of one's own destiny.

Merry Christams to you and yours!

[streetpreacher]

Do you honestly think Rove would allow W to sign something...

This sounds really pathetic, and if true, we are in alot more trouble than we realize.

[swarthyguy]

Ok I'll convey that to the Senior Council.

Where do you live, anyway? :>>

[streetpreacher]

As Scailia said this battle is not over.

That's not what Scalia said; he said that this was "Act 2 in a long tragedy", and tragedies, by definition, end... well, tragically.

I betcha' many die-hard conservatives felt the same way you do when that abomination called Roe v. Wade became the "law of the land." Yet here we are, 30 years later. Mark my words. CFR is here to stay.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

However, when the ACLU actually does what it claims as its purpose, "defend the Constitution," I praise it.

Aside from that appearing (to skeptical me) far too infrequently, my next question is: "for what nefarious reason OTHER than the obvious, is the RICO eligible ACLU on our side?" Let me put it more plainly still: Had the KGB gifted a horse to Nixon in 1952, I would have given it less scrutiny than that same gift-horse, to me personally, from the ACLU today.

I wrote up McConnell v. FEC about six months ago, when the Supreme Court first took the case.

Is that linkable?

And, well, now, can you tell us if their efforts helped or hindered?

Let me be blunt again: They have a stronger connection to SCOTUS (via Bader-Ginsburg) than the mob had to JFK (via his father).

As in I fear the Neudow (Scalia recused) case may be greeted by a non-recused Bader-Ginsburg like a spider does a fly.

[John Lenin]

Vote for Dean, I can't stop you.

[Congressman Billybob]

All the briefs in the McConnell case are on the Supreme Court website. Go to: www.supremecourtus.gov Click on "Campaign Finance Case." Then scroll down to "Amicus Briefs." Mine is the one for the American Civil Rights Union (not to be confused with the ACLU).

It was a strong brief. It did no good, unfortunately.

John / Billybob

[aristeides]

If SCOTUS rules for Newdow, it will really be tempting fate. There will come a point when people will be fed up with its decisions.

[VMI70]

Perfect! What you wrote is better than the article.

[Howlin]

Howlin and I are a little annoyed at one another lately, but honorable is honorable.

Actually, you are a little annoyed with me because I don't agree with you that it's the end of times. Anybody who reads #30 can pretty much tell who is annoyed with who.

But feel free to characterize it any way that suits your agenda.

[WOSG]

Ah, a guide to the USSC. Good post ... let me fix the labels for ya:

the bad guys:
John Paul Stevens (ultra-liberal)
Sandra Day O'Connor (left-leaning centrist/RINO/ usually the swing vote)
David Souter (left-leaning liberal)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (ultra-liberal, Socialist)
Stephen Breyer (liberal/Socialist)

The good guys:
Kennedy - mostly strict but sometimes libertarian/anti-morality (viz. Lawrence v Texas)
Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia - all strict Consitutionalists.

[Lurker]

Tell 'em to go p*** up a rope.

L

[WOSG]

Unfortunately, I have no other choice but to vote (R) when election time comes around...I will never vote (D); but this is reaching the point of futility IMHO.

You make good points, but why say it is all futile?

Bush and the Republicans in the last 2 years passed tremendous tax cuts, did move many things in a more conservative direction ... in the next 2 years they can reverse their errors on spending by passing tight spending contraints / cuts.

I think letting them know we are not happy with the spending and the 'pandering' on entitlements pork etc. would get them off the dime. I *do* think this problem is fixable. Heck, it better be. I dont want to see our new majority or GWB get the fate of Bush's father - lost to a Socialist boob because he abandoned his base. When will they ever learn???

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Before everybody jumps off the bridge over Bush signing CFR remember that the RATS were hurt more than the GOP with this bill. Do you honestly think Rove would allow W to sign something detrimental to his own re-election?

So kicking the crap out of the First Amendment is acceptable so long as the Republicans benefit from it?

What sort of sick logic is that?

[WOSG]

The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union is the biggest threat to freedom this country has ... although Shrillary gives 'em a good run for the money.

[WOSG]

Good luck wrt TOOMEY. And let's spread the word. Toomey was anti-CFR and Specter was pro-CFR. Let's be like Teddy Roosevelt and

Put a dead RINO head on the wall!

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

When will they ever learn???

They will only learn when enough people stop voting for Republicans for no other reason than they are scared of the Democrats, and those Republicans start losing elections as a result.

You know how Republicans get all pissy when Democrats scare old people or minorities about the "bad old GOP" as a method of getting those votes? The GOP is just as guilty with its base. Unfortunately, it works just as well for both camps.

[Nix 2]

Specter would also head up the Judiciary Committee if he is reelected and he has voted straight on with the dems. We have to get Toomey in there or we haven't a prayer that ANYTHING will change. Toomey might well be the single most important vote for our entire future. That is the serious truth.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Toomey bump...