Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment

Rush Limbaugh ^ | December 10, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[yonif]

[Reading from an Associated Press wire story:] "A sharply divided..." There's nothing "sharply divided" about this. We got four liberals and we got two Republicans who read the editorial pages - or two conservatives who read the editorial pages - on the Supreme Court. Let me just stick with the details here, and then I will ad-lib my commentary and analysis after presenting to you the facts. "A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling today that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties, soft money."

Now, they did this - remember what started all this. This is a bunch of corrupt politicians saying that it was the money that corrupted them. "Too much money in politics, and it corrupts all of us," said Senator McCain. We're all corrupt here, a lot of us are, and we got to get the money out of this. And the Supreme Court agreed! The Supreme Court, they just took a knife to the First Amendment here. They just carved up the First Amendment, said, "Yep, because there might be corruption we are going to limit what can be said when and what can be spent by whom, where."

[AP:] "Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals capitalize on a loophole in the existing Watergate-era campaign money system. The court also upheld..." This is a biggie, too. This is. We're going to rue the day, folks, that this has happened. "The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television or radio ads often feature harsh attacks by..." Oh, how horrible! Really? Harsh attacks? Why, we can't have that in a country with free speech, can we? Certainly not in a political arena, where the free speech First Amendment that's written about political speech, we can't have harshness, can we?

Who gets to decide what's harsh, anyway? It doesn't matter anymore. You can't say anything, 60 days, 30 days before an election. "The television or radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates, so-called soft monies is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps." Basically soft money is what you used to be able to give to the parties in unlimited amounts, and there's always been a limit on what you can give to a candidate. It used to be a thousand. Now it's two grand. Yip yip yip yip yahoo.

Now, "The court was divided on the complex issue. Five of the nine justices voted to substantially uphold the soft money ban and the ad restrictions, which are the most significant features of the new law. Here we go, justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring candidates for federal office from raising soft money. The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money."

"The court has given government..." This is the last paragraph in the story by Anne Gearan at the Associated Press. By the way, AP has a reporter named Nedra Pickler, and we're concerned about her job here at the EIB Network. We're going to be taking steps here to save the job of Nedra - maybe it's NEE-dra, I'm not sure how you pronounce it - Pickler. She's a reporter of the Associated Press. She's actually pointed out errors, mistakes and lies that the Democrats are uttering in their debates. Now, she hasn't gotten the message or she slipped by them in the interview process or something, but if we don't take action fast here to save her job she's going to be toast.

So we're going to be doing that, folks. Just hang in there. It's a three-hour show for a reason. Here's the last paragraph of the story. "The court has given government..." This is amazing. I just don't believe it. I cannot believe - I really - I am not speech little because I'm speaking, but I am apoplectic. Do you know what this does? Let me read the paragraph to you. "The court has given government an extensive role in the area [TV commercials and so forth] on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said."

Folks, it is almost over. Once the Supreme Court is going to give the government the power to determine whether or not something might cause corruption, or give the power to root out corruption, or even the appearance of it, that concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech? Holy shmoly, Supreme Court! This is unbelievable! We're going to get to the point here we're going to have to ask a question: "Is your speech government approved?" And I don't mean the speech you're going to give, just whatever you're saying is what you're saying here government approved, because if it's not, I'm calling Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.

You may as well call Republicans, too. They supported this thing. The cowards. They supported this, and everybody thought Supreme Court would never do this. "Supreme Court? They're going to make sure. They can't! You can't abridge the First Amendment." They just did. They just did. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech? This concern about corruption? Freedom of speech is not how you get to corruption! You get to corruption in court. Let me tell you who benefits from this. If you watch any mainstream news organ today or read any mainstream news organ, these people - it's going to be the greatest decision in the world. This is the greatest thing the Supreme Court's done. They're just going to be ecstatic; they're going to be happy.

I mean, this ruling today will serve almost as an Orgasmatron for these people because I'll tell you why. Not only, not only do they like it politically, but in terms of business, the mainstream press, anybody that's considered to be a news program will benefit tremendously from this because there are no bounds. You know, ABC, CBS, NBC, whoever, 30 or 60 days before an election can go get any guest they want to pummel any opponent they want. Go get some academic, pointy-headed political scientist from over there, or some liberal fruitcake from over there, and they bring them on for 20 minutes, half hour, ten minutes, whatever it is, and bash Bush or bash a Republican, bash a conservative.

You know they're not going to be bashing Democrats on these network news shows. Can't touch that because that's not a commercial, my friends. That's not a bought-and-paid-for commercial. So the media, newscasts are considered untouchable here. So you can look for all kinds of documentaries and special election hour specials in this period because this is the time when most people make up their minds who they're going to vote for. So what's happened now, the mainstream press, they'll go get whoever guests they want and they can trash whoever they want. That person who has been trashed cannot respond on television, can't buy a commercial, can't get a commercial run, can't do it. Got to be invited by the press to come on and counter.

That's the way this is going to shake out. And, you watch, this is going to go into effect. We're going to see it in the 2004 presidential election cycle - and we'll see if it doesn't just manifest itself this way. I don't know how else it can. That's another reason why these people are happy, because they're going to look at this as having immense power now with no competition. Let me read to you the dissent by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make all donations to the national parties suspect. But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech is not a surrogate for corruption. It is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands congress' ability to regulate political speech."

This is unheard of! You've heard the phrase the Founding Fathers are "rolling over in their graves." They're about to wake up from their graves here, folks. This is unbelievable, I'm telling you! To assume that a contributor and a recipient are colluding and engaged in corruption is what's at the root of it Supreme Court decision? "Yep, we have to consider that. Somebody giving money to a politician, yep, that could be corruption so we're going to limit the ability of that activity to take place." This is encapsulated now as constitutional law, the whole McCain theory that money corrupts politics. And, by the way, if you think this is going to keep money out of politics, they've already found ways around it. These little organizations calls 527s.

Ever heard of George Soros? How about campaign finance reform laws now encapsulated in the Constitution and Soros can give the Democrats $10 or $15 million to MoveOn.org, Americans Coming Together, whatever organization he wants. Pile on the money. There's no limit on it. How does this happen? How come that money isn't corrupting the Democrats? How come George Soros' money isn't corrupting the people that get it? Hmm? Now, ladies and gentlemen, excuse me. I think we have to be very afraid now when the Supreme Court takes up an important case because we have four liberal ideologues on the court. They're Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Those are the four liberal ideologues.

We have two judges, justices, that appear to be politicians, and that would be Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. And who is - I think it was Kennedy who said, "Yeah, we must look at international law." I'm not sure about Kennedy, but the Supreme Court recently has admitted it's looking at international law to decide U.S. cases as well. But apparently Sandra Day O'Connor, in this case, didn't much care what's in the Constitution when she reached her decision. It's apparent that they pay a lot of attention to the press. If they had struck down this law, if Kennedy or O'Connor - in this case O'Connor - had voted the other way, with the minority in this case and made it the majority, the editorial pages of America would have never forgiven her.

They would have been all over her like you can't believe. They would have been trashing her, "What's her corruption? What does she seek to...?" You can imagine they would have said, and she knows it. So a very clear and precise sentence in the Constitution preventing the federal government from restricting free speech has basically been read right out of it. The First Amendment. It's not number 10, number 7 - not number 19. It's #1! "Congress shall make no law abridging, among other things, free speech..." Just wrote it out!

But stop and think, my friends. What else has been going on during this Supreme Court term? Sodomy, my friends. Sodomy is a constitutionally protected right now. Free speech, political speech, is not constitutionally protected. I'm sure, I am confident that's what the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution intended and had in mind, right? Sodomy protected by the Constitution, free speech not. So the question now is, you cannot run a commercial, a candidate cannot run commercials 60 or 30 days before a primary or general election, but sodomy is legal throughout the country. The question now is: "Can a candidate be sodomized 60 days before a general election."

[ovrtaxt]

The question now is: "Can a candidate be sodomized 60 days before a general election."

Well, apparently the American People can be.

[backhoe]

BTW, how many times since yesterday have you read the words "Chicken Little" or "sky is falling", in response to people's outrage over this ruling?

Rather a lot... but alarmism aside, this is not a good time for free speech in America. I guess we'll get it sorted out eventually, but it would have been better had it never come to pass.

I tend to view it as a manifestation of the "last gasp of the Establishment Media"-- it was never a popular idea with voters, but the press promoted CFR madly, under their general-purpose panic mantra "We Gotta Do Something About This!"

I suspect that like with Prohibition, creative Americans will find a way to dodge around it... like, maybe, the offshore Pirate Radio station "Radio Free America..."

[joesbucks]

I in general support CFR but not in the convoluted form it took on. That said, I saw rabid Bush supporter after Bush supporter report and flame that he did the politically correct thing by signing it and allowing the supremes to judge it unconsititutional. They fawned he knew what he was doing. That's after initially saying he (Bush) would veto any CFR legislation.

Let's see, which previous president did we say flip flopped and signed legislation that was bringing down this country before this one? Which president before this one did we say was unworthy of office because of such actions?

Where is our march on Washington?

[Right_in_Virginia]

That person who has been trashed cannot respond on television, can't buy a commercial, can't get a commercial run, can't do it. Got to be invited by the press to come on and counter.

I'm not sure this is true. Ads can run in this 30/60 day period. The money to fund the ad cannot be unregulated (above the hard money limits) or from incorporated organizations.

But, the RNC can respond to ABCNBCCBSCNN. (Heck, the media has been lopsided in favor of the Dimms for decades.)

The candidates' names can't be mentioned, but, as I understand this, there's no restriction on taking an ad to blast a Tim Russert interview or Peter Jennings "special".

This law is awful. But, it's here.

I hope minds sharper than mine are prepared to find and use the loopholes. We've got an election to win.

[raybbr]

We've got an election to win.

What's with the we? There is only one party now. The party of politicians.

[hellinahandcart]

Kind of hard to blast am incumbent's voting record if you can't mention his name or show his face, isn't it?

How nice for the bastards.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Kind of hard to blast am incumbent's voting record if you can't mention his name or show his face, isn't it?

Yes, it is. It's also unbelievable.

We need a coordinated grassroots uprising to repeal this law and add retroactive mandatory Congressional term limits.

[palmer]

..."However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns. In particular, H.R. 2356 goes farther than I originally proposed by preventing all individuals, not just unions and corporations, from making donations to political parties in connection with federal elections. I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment.

"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law...

From President Bush's written statement upon signing the CFR bill.

[thesummerwind]

And who is - I think it was Kennedy who said, "Yeah, we must look at international law."

---wasn't that O'Connor?

[thesummerwind]

Thos soft-minded, Sandra 'In The Dark' O'Connor --

[thesummerwind]

I was personally thinking that the next airliner hijack should crash into a joint session of Congress - in one fell swoop we rid ourselves of the Rats, the RINOs, the SCOTUS, and a whole pi$$pot full of career socialist bureaucrats.

No joke. That might be the only way to straighten out this country.

[Dead Corpse]

How about the SAS march in DC. Get a few thousand people to just waltz into Congress, sit down, and not let the Congress critters into the building? Do it all peaceful like, until they decide they want to call in the gendarmes.

[thesummerwind]

Silence, America!:

I must tell you, backhoe, I had a father and a mother who comitted suicide, 16 years apart.

If I didn't know better, this Court decision would really make me want to follow them. I can't describe my feelings, maybe utter impotence would be a start! I really feel that the country I knew back in the late 40's and 50's is gone, but I am sure that this has been a gradual process.

[thesummerwind]

Do it all peaceful like, until they decide they want to call in the gendarmes.

Now that is an excellent idea.

[sport]

One omer reason to keep Second Amend,ent issues out of the Supreme Court.

The people on there now will abolish the Second amendment.

If that happen, privately Congress will applaud and publically will do nothing.

[Dead Corpse]

It's been brought up here numerous times before. No one has had the guts to do it yet.

Probably NEVER will either.

[Beck_isright]

"I suspect that like with Prohibition, creative Americans will find a way to dodge around it... like, maybe, the offshore Pirate Radio station "Radio Free America..."

Sadly, they would find a way to take that station down. Just as they have voided the low power community radio law by refusing to process lisence requests. Free speech is no longer that. It's for sale to the highest bidder.

[sport]

You are correct and also it does not mean the National Guard.

It means every citizen with good character.

But that was when there were citizens.

The citizens have long since traded their freedom for free government money and the government chins and shackles that go with it and have thus become "civillians".

The difference between a citizen and civillian:

1. Citizens have rights given to them by Almighty God and protected and preserved by law.
Civillians have privileges given and taken by governmental whim.
2.Citizens are part of the government even though they have other occuptions.Citizens also have leaders [they may be elected] The leaders they elect do not fear them.Citizens are equal tp the people they instillto lead them. Example: the old common law Hue and cry: In othr words, the entire village pursued the thief.
Civillians have professional politicians. The politicans are superior to the civillains, especially in the minds of the media and the politicans. Civillians have every aspect of their life regulated by government bureaucrats from the house they are allowed to build to the time that they can use the bathroom. The civillians are feared and held in the basest of contempt by the politicians.

I will conclude with:

Citizens can also do the one thing that distinguishes a free individual from a slave. Own and possess arms personally, not through a policeman.

How does the United States compare to the above?

[sport]

Unfortunately, the vast majority Of americans are content if they can only have sports, beer, and sex. Kinda like cows in a pasture being fattened up for the slaughter.

[DManA]

Since Justices personally decide the shape of our goverment ( not our Constitution ) picking 5 justices is exactly the same electing a new government in a parliamentary system. I expect the selection of new justices to turn bloody. Will make Borking look like a walk in the park.