Posted on 06/29/2009 8:15:33 AM PDT by jeltz25
The Court has held that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205) will be reargued on Wednesday, September 9 at 10 a.m. The Court has issued the following written order: “The parties should address the following question: ‘For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?’
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
But reading the tea leaves, McCain-Feingold is finished.
Another big win, and thanks to W for getting rid of O'Connor and putting a strong conservative like Alito who will do the right thing.
Yep, I read this the same way.
Terrific!!!! There is hope yet.
IMO, McCain-Feingold doesn’t amount to much anymore. The interweb thingy has completely gutted the Dinosaur Media Order of Things. They don’t dictate what or when information is distributed.
How did W "get rid" of O'Connor?
Didn't he put Alito on AFTER he tried to put Meiers on?
Hell yes McCain-Feingold should be gutted. I suggest the Supreme Court read the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
I don’t think W got rid of O’Connor.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an ongoing legal case in which the United States Supreme Court will decide whether a politically charged film can be defined as a "campaign ad" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This case is an appeal from a lower court case of the same name from 2008, in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act.
Background
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, wanted to run television commercials promoting its film Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton. In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the commercials violated the provision in the McCain-Feingold Act restricting "electioneering communications" 30 days before primaries and clearly had no other purpose than discredit Clinton; Citizens United argued that the film was fact-based and nonpartisan. The Supreme Court docketed this case on August 18, 2008, and heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009. A decision is expected sometime in the early summer months of 2009. On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9, and address the following question at oral argument: ‘For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?’”
I have trouble praising Bush for the destruction of McCain-Feingold—if that is what this does.
President Bush should have vetoed it in the beginning.
If McCain/Feingold is overturned and I hope that it is, what will be the effect upon 527 funding organizations?
W is the one who signed the piece of garbage into law in the first place.
Bush should have just vetoed the damned thing.
He kept his word. He wasn't going to take on the fight, particularly since it would have largely been against his own party (plus the media would have been damning him even harder than they did).
Exactly what part of "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States" did W not understand?
It was his sworn duty to veto it. He failed to do so because of politics. That kind of says it all doesn't it?
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on February 14, 2002 with 240 yeas and 189 nays including 6 members that did not vote. Final passage in the Senate came after supporters mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to shut off debate. The bill passed the Senate, 60-40 on March 20, 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush on March 27, 2002.
Also as noted in the text quoted from Wiki above you'll note the bill wasn't passed until W had been President for over two years. How exactly did he campaign in 1998 for passing the bill?
TS
Yeah, Bush won so much good will by signing away our First Amendment rights, didn’t he?
Other than tax cuts, every legislative victory Bush won advanced the Left’s agenda, not the Right’s.
Ted Kennedy’s education bill, McCain-Feingold, the most massive entitlement expansion since LBJ (MediCare Rx), creation of a bloated new department of Big Brother (DHS).
Doing the Democrats’ bidding still didn’t stop them from making fun of him for 8 years, it didn’t win him any support from them on his own agenda that never went anywhere, and it didn’t gain him their respect.
I work at a Christian non-profit. We are very limited in what we’re able to blog about or publish, because of this law.
funny how bipartisanship means the right submitting to the left, but not vice versa.
I assume you mean 2000.
Every time Bush was asked about this during the campaign he said exactly what I stated above. He didn't like the legislation but would sign it. He wasn't going to put up a stink over this one.
In 20/20 hindsight Bush is excoriated for this (as he is everything else).
But back then there was NO upset over his stance because people were so desperate to get Bush in over Gore, the degenerate state of the military being the main reason.
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.