Fight Not Over for Campaign Finance Law

Yahoo/AP ^ | Thu Dec 11 | GINA HOLLAND

[Guillermo]

If Bush signs an AWB extension, he can say bye bye.

[Eala]

What part of the First Amendment does the SCOTUS not understand?

Its application to this country.

[cake_crumb]

"First, I'm not sure Bush expected the SCOTUS to do anything"

He publically stated it.

[Guillermo]

He said something to the effect of "I'm going to sign this bill only because I know the SC will fix it" ?

I am having a very hard time believing that.

[voicereason]

Better yet, we simply need to eliminate the Supreme Court. It might have been useful in the distant past but there's very little need for a body like this anymore.

Besides, the whole concept of a Supreme Court is repulsive when examined in the light of democratic norms.

If we just remove this part from the Constitution, what else do remove? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way the Constitution is written, but with the integrity of the people who have been placed in those positions of power.

I hear this same line of reasoning by the Gun Control crowd claiming that the 2nd Amendment is just a relic of bygone era. They figure its outdated so why not just take it out?

It's important to remember that it's those checks and balances within the Constitution are what have maintained our Republic for this long. In the words of Benjamin Franklin is, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." So how about we keep the Supreme Court and fix the people on the bench?

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

ON NOW! “UNSPUN” with AnnaZ and Diotima!
With Special Guest…
Author, editor, columnist and myth-debunker
Richard Poe!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

[sgtbono2002]

Bush signing the bill the Republicans helping to pass it, Mccain sponsoring it, all of these things do not have anything to do with the Supreme court allowing this black stain on the First Amendment to stand. They have no right to allow a law to stand because they feel we are better off with it than without it , It isnt their job to decide what is good for me.It IS their job to decide on the Constitutionality of that law and even a citizen as ignorant as I can certainly see it is not Constitutional.

[Guillermo]

The fact is that they passed it and signed it.

To say the Pres and Congress isn't at fault is absurd.

[Sam Cree]

Yes, you are dead on with your comments about the job of the Supreme Court.

But Congress and the president bear much responsibility too, they wrote and passed it.

[cake_crumb]

"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising... I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law"

[Iscool]

Sandra has crossed over to the dark side. sad.

Yah, now she's on the same side as Bush...

[Guillermo]

The fact that he said that makes it even worse.

Now, will he push for a repeal of the law he signed? (I seriously doubt it.)

[Bullish]

We're only safe when Congress is not in session, when Bush is on a plane to a foreign land and when the Supreme Court is in recess.

We're not safe at any time anymore.

Not at all

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

.

[GulliverSwift]

Bush still thinks the law is bad, he just thought he could get SCOTUS to do what's right.

Learn from it, George! SCOTUS can never be trusted to rule on the actual constitution. You should have acted yourself to stop this law.

[cc2k]

cake_crumb wrote:

---

For some reason, he really expected thebad parts to be struck down by the SCOTUS. And so they would have been if the SCOTUS was doing it's job. Instead, the SCOTUS is doing the fascists' job.

---

Why would he expect SCOTUS to honor their oaths of office if he wasn't willing to honor his own oath of office? I never understood that excuse.

It would have been so easy for Bush to have vetoed this. Not to mention that it was the right thing to do.

He simply could have shown that NAACP ad with the pickup truck and said, "I might not have liked this, but I believe they had a right to produce it and show it on television. This law is un-American because it makes ads like that illegal." It wasn't that hard to explain, and it wouldn't have cost much "political capital" to either eliminate this crap altogether, or to get a better law with the most blatantly unconstitutional provisions removed.

Instead, he put his party above the Constitution, and that's unacceptable from anyone. Democrats do that and that's why I don't vote for Democrats. I expected better from Bush.

[cc2k]

cake_crumb wrote:

---

What part of the First Amendment does the SCOTUS not understand?

---

Actually, what part of the First Amendment didn't Bush understand.

This was kind of predictable for SCOTUS. The decision is perfectly inline with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What more do Americans think they deserve from SCOTUS?

[CyberAnt]

But .. we know there will be a showing of harm (but that doesn't necessarily mean the harm will be the loss of an election).

How do we know what these people will do .. we know because we know the basic characteristics of the liberals. Give them an inch and they will take 10 million miles. They will go full steam ahead and prove once again what pukes they are. I really have no doubt they will pull out all the stops to try to damage some conservatives.

[alternatives?]

I don't understand the SCOTUS's and Bush's (particulary Bush's) unconcern about their oaths. Don't they understand the ramifications of "so help me God"? If they don't now I suspect in fifty years they will. I wouldn't want to be making the decisions they have made given the oaths they have given.

[nickcarraway]

What part of the First Amendment does the SCOTUS not understand?

All of it, apparently.