Posted on 06/25/2007 7:40:12 AM PDT by raccoonradio
The Supreme Court loosened restrictions today on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
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."
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.
It could be an opportunity for Fred Thompson.
He can now say something to this effect to his advantage.
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.
agreed!
The damage done by Liberals on the Court will take generations to correct.
‘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.
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
Just askin'....
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?
I heard about that. I can not believe this could get through. If they think immigration cost them, let them try this.
Yes. Some conservatives seem to have forgotten that.
The unionists never abided by the McLame Feinfool provisions anyway.
Oh puhleeze. They’re supposed to rule according to the Constitution. To rule according the Constitution is not judicial activism.
Whatever you say....
forget process....just wing-it guys.
‘Judges are not politicians.’
In this case, it looks like it was Roberts and Alito who were winging it. “The Constitution? What’s that?”
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.
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.