Posted on 06/26/2006 7:25:31 AM PDT by new yorker 77
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont's limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too low and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.
In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont's law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.
The majority took issue with Vermont legislators for "constraining speech" by telling candidates and voters how much campaigning was enough.
President Bush's two appointees to the court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — sided with the majority in overturning Vermont's law.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
The Supreme Court, in a splintered decision on Monday, struck down limits on campaign donations and campaign spending imposed by the state of Vermont. Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced that as the summary of the ruling in two consolidated cases. The vote was 6-3; the Court issued four opinions for the majority and two for the dissent
FYI
Finally, how do we get CFR back on the docket?
What a difference a pair of real conservatives make.
LOL!!
Well of course this is AP reporting but the words "too low" really bother me. The way I read the Constitution it doesn't say anything about too much or too little free speech.
But the decision was clearly a win for the good guys. I wonder what our friends McPain and FindGold think about it.
Excellent news.
These 2 justices will be a good mark for the legacy of President Bush.
This was a test case for the overturning of McCain-Feingold.
It is now not a question of 'if' but 'when' it will be overturned.
Expect only five votes in that case.
I believe they must be in a mood to borrow a famous phrase from the great leader loser Tommy Dasshole.
Agreed, though, that the real progress will be when we get rid of the words "two low."
How is 6-3 "splintered"? Makes it sound like it was a total split. Oy.!!
It's splintered because of the number of opinions written. That means the case has limited value as a precedent. Clearly the Justices disagree on several aspects of the ruling. That means difficulties in applying this ruling to laws elsewhere -- especially CFR.
She's still ticked off because she knows she'll never be Chief Justice. If Kerry had been elected we would have been looking at Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a very scary prospect.
This is a favorite of mine - Can you imagine the uproar and demands to step down had a conservative judge fallen asleep during hearings?
Toni Locy appears to be stricken with Lunatic Lib Mental Disease.
Only a lunatic would label a 6 to 3 decision a split vote!
Let's hope that she retires soon.
The same way that 7-2 (in the case of Bush v Gore in 2000) became 5-4, and the only one on which the media would comment (conveniently forgetting the "seven justices strongly agree" part). There was a 7-2 AND a 5-4 ruling.
yep. Maybe the next time she falls asleep and her head hits the rail - .... no, no, mustn't think such thoughts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.