SCOTUS: restrictions on corp/union-funded campaignads loosened

CNN ^ | 6/25/07 | CNN

[JeffAtlanta]

They'd call ending world hunger "a defeat for the Bush Administration."

This actually was a defeat for the Bush administration. Bush was very much on the side of Ginsberg and Souter on this.

From the AP article, "The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing that they were meant to influence the elections, not lobby the senators."

[JeffAtlanta]

I thought President Bush was the root of all evil for expecting the SCOTUS to do exactly what it just did?

Bush was not expecting the SCOTUS to do this - his administration is very much against this ruling.

At one time I believed Bush as well, but now I see that it was just a way to pass the buck.

[RockinRight]

It could be an opportunity for Fred Thompson.

He can now say something to this effect to his advantage.

[Cicero]

And why should corporations and unions get to talk about politics before an election, while individuals and non-profits are still apparently forbidden to?

And why do black ministers and Democrats get to preach politics from the pulpit right up to election day, while priests and bishops and white Evangelicals are forbidden to do so?

This whole law should have been shot down the first time it came before the court.

[raccoonradio]

agreed!

[pabianice]

The damage done by Liberals on the Court will take generations to correct.

[bilhosty]

‘Thank God-free speech is what America is about.”

Don’t be to sure. The dem’s and een Trent Lott are talking about putting talk radio out of control the monster is back and ou tof control.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings GovernmentIsTheProblem:

Freedom contains responsibility for one’s actions therefore “clear and present danger” clauses are limitations to free speech. For example, one does not falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

Society also determined minors make poor decisions with drug use, so we don’t allow tobacco use until eighteen, nor alcohol until twenty-one. And marijuana use remains illegal.

Bottom line, when parents send their children off to school, it is under the pretext schools will help mold them into good citizens. Enforcing the law demonstrates there are consequences for poor behavior.

Cheers,
OLA

[unspun]

Isn't "conservative" legislation from the bench still legislation from the bench?

Just askin'....

[cake_crumb]

The entire thing wasn’t unconstutional though. They can only rule against the unconstitutional parts.

[JeffAtlanta]

The entire thing wasn’t unconstutional though. They can only rule against the unconstitutional parts.

Yet Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy believe the whole thing is unconstitutional. What parts do you believe to be constitutional?

[nyconse]

I heard about that. I can not believe this could get through. If they think immigration cost them, let them try this.

[cake_crumb]

"Isn't 'conservative' legislation from the bench still legislation from the bench? "

Yes. Some conservatives seem to have forgotten that.

[eleni121]

The unionists never abided by the McLame Feinfool provisions anyway.

[Rick_Michael]

To: wagglebee

This case was an as-applied challenge not a facial challenge.

Tossing out the entire BCRA in THIS as-applied challenge would be judicial activism.

55 posted on 06/25/2007 10:17:23 AM PDT by elizabetty (Perpetual Candidate using campaign donations for your salary - Its a good gig if you can get it.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

This case was an as-applied challenge not a facial challenge.

Tossing out the entire BCRA in THIS as-applied challenge would be judicial activism.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh puhleeze. They’re supposed to rule according to the Constitution. To rule according the Constitution is not judicial activism.

[Rick_Michael]

Whatever you say....

forget process....just wing-it guys.

‘Judges are not politicians.’

[EternalVigilance]

In this case, it looks like it was Roberts and Alito who were winging it. “The Constitution? What’s that?”

[cdnerds]

"I am very skeptical of Bush's appointees."

What? Please pass whatever your smoking to the right hand side... Because I want some. Bush's appointees have been nothing short of great. I would say 95% of their rulings have been exactly what people like Mark Levin said they would be.. Fantastic.

[rottndog]

I’d thank Bush for Roberts and Alito, but if Bush had vetoed that abomination in the first place it wouldn’t be an issue.