Posted on 06/25/2007 7:40:12 AM PDT by raccoonradio
I love this man!!!
Ads are not the enemy. Just teach people to consider their sources. The only dangerous thing is to ban the ads.
It's a wimpy decision. Not good. Your take on it is right on the money. Roberts and Alito came down to the left of KENNEDY, for goodness sakes.
Mcain Feingold was unconstitutional,
just took time to have the unconstitutional part
torn out.
Too bad that hasn’t happened.
I find little to cheer about here. It reads like a stinking FEC ruling, and because of Roberts' and Alito's wimpiness, they didn't overturn McCain-Feingold's First Amendment-gutting provisions at all. Bleh.
That pretty much guts the law when it comes to publishing or broadcasting political information.
I suppose there's still some stuff in there about "reporting" that the court didn't touch.
Think I meant #21.
"The decision was a defeat for the Bush administration"
They'd call ending world hunger "a defeat for the Bush Administration."
HA! Up theirs! (McCain and Feingold, that is)
Waitaminute....I thought President Bush was the root of all evil for expecting the SCOTUS to do exactly what it just did?
PUH-LEEEASE, the First Amendment has nothing to do with Building the Wall.
Die Moron.org’s influence die!!! No longer will Soros funded organizations get to run an end around Mcain Feingold without advocacy groups on the other side being able to respond. Its over, over.
I also wonder if this could foreshadow how the S.Ct. would rule on any “fairness” doctrine type legislation that passes?
Outstanding!
Wisconsin Right to Life declares SCOTUS victory
Monday, June 25, 2007, 12:33 PM
By Jim Dick
The U.S. Supreme Court hands Wisconsin Right to Life a victory and it's not about abortion. Reformers will call the court's 5-4 ruling a blow for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law but Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life sees it differently. To her group it's a victory for free speech and grass roots lobbying. Democracy at its finest, Lyons says.
Lyons says the court made a distinction between advocacy ads and the group's attempt at grass roots lobbying in 2004. That's when it wanted to air an ad against a senate filibuster on court nominations. The ad asked people to contact Senators Kohl and Feingold to let them know how they felt on the filibuster issue.
Feingold was running for re-election at the time so the ads could not air by law. Now they can.
While so-called issue ads during campaigns, paid by unnamed sources, that state a case for or against a particular candidate are still covered, some feel it's the beginning of the end for McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform.
Fyi...
“LOL, even for a lawyer this was a no-brainer. Minors promoting illegal drug use hardly meets the free speech test.”
You have it backwards. The right to freedom of speech is inherent.
Showing why it isn’t, is the burden of the govt.
In this case the school district shouldn’t have had jurisdiction - even for a judge, it should have been a no brainer.
Why? Roberts and Alito could have ruled the whole act unconstitutional (which it is), but refused to. Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy all wanted to do just that.
I am very skeptical of Bush's appointees.
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.