My breaking point was the decision in McConnell v. FEC in 2003. That was the Campaign Finance “Reform” case. Contrary to the First Amendment, five Justices of the Court decided that Congress could tell American citizens to sit down and shut up in their politics, in the months before federal elections.I hear so much that the Court has been suppressing majority rule, the people's will. But what threw you over the edge, Mr. Congressman, was a decision that stood with the people's representatives.
We're either for judicial review, or we're against it. If against it, then why do we not also so painfully writhe when it goes our way? Just because we won? How lame.
There is no consistency in today's anti-court hysteria except this: get our kind of judges. I just wish folks would stick to that sole objective.
Yippie!!! there is hope afterall. This is in the "Keep" pile.
McConnell v. FEC in 2003. That was the Campaign Finance “Reform” case.
My take on this (backed up by absolutly nothing. One mans take freely given and worth almost that much)
The Congress and the President both thought I can get some good press out of this and the USSC will overturn it so no harm done. It gets to the Court and the Court (or some members) think we're tired of the other two branch throwing this kind of crap in our laps and expecting us to clean up their messes. So they say it's constitutional, throwing it back to Congress.
Now What are YOU(and I) going to do? We can sit here and bi*ch and complain piss and moan, ooorrrr we can start putting pressure on these clowns. Everytime they come home to eat rubber chicken, and tell us what they're doing ask them what are you doing about BCFRA. Again and again and again..... mentioning the magic word to politicians money.
The case in question is where Senator mcConnell and others took Campaign Finance Reform to the SC because it unconstitutionally
bans certain groups from speaking out in federal elections for up to 60 days beforehand. The SC has always before upheld the people's right to speak out.
In this case, in the majority opinion, they said (and I paraphrase) that because of the possible appearance of corruption in campaigns, to avoid even the appearance of undue influence of money, it trumped free speech. And even then, the campaigns found ways around it (Moveon.org, etc.) So the SC judges squelched free speech FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY--admittedly and knowingly because they thought that was better than the appearance of possible corruption.
What might they decide trumps some of our other rights in future, and what rights? I don't care diddley about evolving codes of decency in Europe or what their standards are. Nothing should supercede our Constitution in decisions of the court.
If you can't see that as more than grumpiness that our side lost, take another look.
vaudine
I would agree with Congressman BillyBob wholeheartedly, if the GOP controlled Congress would quit legislating beyond their enumerated powers within the Constitution as well! It is difficult to argue that the Judiciary has abandoned the Constitution, when the Legislature has done the same thing. Hypocrisy is the problem here (as it is for both parties). Both parties tend to look towards the Constitution when it suits their needs, and away from it when it doesn't.