U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law

[RandDisciple]

reported 15:38 bloomberg news

[alnick]

There are going to be quite a few on this forum that just lost one of their 'cornerstone' issues for bashing Bush.

Don't worry; they won't let that stop them.

[lepton]

If you follow that through you would also have to conclude that Bush lied when he said he thought it was a good bill.

He said it was a good bill? I must have missed that part. When did he do that?

[Krafty123]

nope... Judge Henderson

[aristeides]

Henderson was the dissenter. She would have struck down more of the act than the other two. (And her opinion may in the end win out at the SCOTUS level.)

[fooman]

False choice. Bush did not like bill. He said he hesitated when signed it.

I think he correctly forsaw the outcome and needed to sign this turkey to take away the steam from McLAme.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

It's those damned Founding Fathers again. They were just too smart. It's been over two hundred years and they're still outsmarting the likes of John McPain from the grave.

[G L Tirebiter]

"The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon.
The votes were 2-1 so some idiot wanted to uphold it. "

My money's on the hyphenated fem-gal as the vote to uphold CFR.

[Trust but Verify]

Thank God, someone who gets it. Bush could have vetoed it, pronouncing it unconstitutional, but why allow the Dems to make an issue of it in the first place? Smart politics. VERY smart.

[Wphile]

nope... Judge Henderson

Really? Another Souter, eh?

[nicmarlo]

Worth repeating:

It's those damned Founding Fathers again. They were just too smart. It's been over two hundred years and they're still outsmarting the likes of John McPain from the grave.

[fooman]

Agreed! This Turkey would never have gone away the dems , mclame and the media were pounding us big time over this one...

[Wphile]

Check out post #124. Sounds like she wanted to strike down even more of it. If that's the case, it appears to have been unanimous on the majority of the bill. I take back my Souter remark.

[aristeides]

Henderson would have struck down almost the entire act. Glancing at the opinions, it looks to me as if the two-judge majority upheld important parts of the act. I think this story may be being misreported.

[Republican Wildcat]

Actually, she may have wanted to strike down the entire thing. We actually can say this was a unanimous ruling against this law, if that is the case. Let's wait until we see the opinions.

[Krafty123]

The opposite - He (she?) wanted to strike down almost everything.

[bert]

....Hopefully this would put it to bed forever....

This is the most legitimate reason for passing the bill. there are many who railed for some reform and this will putthe weight of the court behind the issue.

People allow " there ought to be a law". We now know for certain the law violates the constitution.

[Republican Wildcat]

(in case you are wondering, no I did not see this last post of yours before posting my last one...even though the similarity in what was written is uncanny)

[Wphile]

I haven't read the opinions so I don't know. What important parts of the act are you referring to?

[Wphile]

LOL! Great minds, eh?

[RAT Patrol]

No prob. Oh happy day!!!!