Still doesn't excuse the fact that GWB violated his oath to uphold the constitution by signing this POS into law. Leaving it to the SC to do his dirty work was a crap shoot; i.e., what if one of the conservatives on the court had died or resigned in the last year? The vote would have been 5-4 to uphold, and we'd have had this garbage for all time. As it is, a lib SC could revisit this and reverse today's ruling at any time in the future.
You do realize that there were enough votes in Congress to overturn his veto on this legislation?
Nevertheless I agree with your basic point, that Bush had no excuse signing something he admitted was unconstitutional. Hell, he had no business signing half the stuff he did. And this one, despite the fact that wonder of wonders, SCOTUS did the right thing for once, still did a lot of damage while it was in force.
Oh, and I publicly and freely admit I was wrong: The Supreme Court CAN find their ass with both hands and a flashlight.
Yeah but this ruling destroyed 100 years of liberal/democrat/marxist/statist laws restricting free speech in America.
Yeah but this ruling destroyed 100 years of liberal/democrat/marxist/statist laws restricting free speech in America:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2434564/posts
The US Supreme Court yesterday found that an activist group had every right to distribute a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries — turning the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law on its head in the process.
The 5-4 ruling also rolled back other campaign-finance statutes that predated McCain-Feingold — meaning the government can no longer ban corporations and labor unions from spending money on activities and communications that support or oppose a candidate.
Such laws, the court found, impose a “chilling effect” on political speech.