Skip to comments.
U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law
Posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:01 PM PDT by RandDisciple
reported 15:38 bloomberg news
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bcra; campaignfinance; cfr; cfrlist; constitutionallaw; electionlaw; fec; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccain; mccainfeingold; mcconnell; misunderestimating; nra; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-226 next last
To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
I am grateful everyday for President Bush, but I was VERY disappointed in him when he signed CFR. The Education Bill and the Farm Bill were bad enough, but CFR is unconstitutional..NO Question!! What was worse, he KNEW it was unconstitutional and conservatives were upset but never bothered to give us the explanation of why he signed it that Ari Fleisher promised during a press conference.
To: Wphile
There was also that stupid millionaire's provision. Don't know what happened with that. It was found to be non-justiciable, so it remains in force.
202
posted on
05/02/2003 7:07:14 PM PDT
by
Brandon
To: RandDisciple
This was fully expected by everyone with a pulse and a functioning brain.
I would like to see the Ba$tards who sponsored this (i.e., McLame & Feingold) and those that voted for it to be billed for all the leagl expenses caused by this Un-constitutional piece of legislation!
To: RandDisciple
U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law
For those on this forum who blasted Pres. Bush for not speaking out against this ridiculous bill, this decision is the reason why.
He knew it from the beginning and now President Bush has been vindicated! Truly brilliant!
204
posted on
05/02/2003 7:18:48 PM PDT
by
Hot Tabasco
(Nothing worse than an angry herd of hungry finches....)
To: aristeides
Can anybody move for a stay of that order until the Supreme Court rules? The court has not granted a stay, according to electionlaw.blogspot.com, although it could still do so in response to a motion from one of the parties.
205
posted on
05/02/2003 8:06:55 PM PDT
by
Law
To: Wphile
So, who's the one that voted for both provisions? A clinton appointee no doubt. The opinions run to almost 1,600 pages total. This is completely unprecedented. It's also a sign that the judges agreed on very little about what parts of the law were valid and what were not. And even when they do agree, they usually do so for different reasons, which explains the number and length of the multiple opinions.
It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort the mess out, but I expect it will also produce multiple, conflicting opinions. We'll see.
206
posted on
05/02/2003 8:12:24 PM PDT
by
Law
To: BCR #226
I'd like to know what court this comes from It was a special, three judge panel created just for this case by the Bipartisan [sic] Campaign Reform Act (although the particular judges were chosen by random computer selection) BCRA also provides for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
207
posted on
05/02/2003 8:15:39 PM PDT
by
Law
To: justshe; Oldeconomybuyer
Sounds like someone would have to file for a 'stay' in order for this to NOT go into effect immediately. Correct.
208
posted on
05/02/2003 8:17:58 PM PDT
by
Law
To: ncweaver
You and I are probably singing in the same choir. I'll give Bush credit for infinitely more political savvy than what I have. He is a great leader, of that there's no doubt. I'd love for him to be more conservative, but I have to assume the mans got access to information I don't and there's no doubt he makes decisions very wisely.
To: All
A good (although not conservative) source for ongoing coverage and commentary is the Election Law blog at:
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com/
210
posted on
05/02/2003 8:25:51 PM PDT
by
Law
To: All
It was a set of interlocking and contradictory opinions so complex that two of the three federal judges who ruled in the campaign finance case tried to summarize the panel's 20 main holdings in a four-page spreadsheet. The chart itself was nearly incomprehensible. This is the first paragraph in an excellent legal analysis of the case, at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/politics/03ASSE.html
211
posted on
05/02/2003 8:37:56 PM PDT
by
Law
To: Law
Thank you for the link you provided to that election law blog. The more I dig into this and the more I read, the less it looks like a victory for the good guys. I think we need to wait and see what it looks like when the dust has settled and people have had a chance to really read this monstrosity.
212
posted on
05/02/2003 9:42:38 PM PDT
by
Brandon
To: MeeknMing; nicmarlo
Saw it, but late getting here.
Thsnks to both of you!
213
posted on
05/03/2003 7:29:29 AM PDT
by
Budge
(God Bless FReepers!)
To: Hot Tabasco
For those on this forum who blasted Pres. Bush for not speaking out against this ridiculous bill, this decision is the reason why. He knew it from the beginning and now President Bush has been vindicated! Truly brilliant!
Exactlly! Add to that, Dubya removed a "talking point" that the DemocRATS would surly have used against him.
Can't you hear them? "Bush vetoed this fine bill that would have ended corruption!"
Or, "Bush refused to sign this excellent bill..." see above.
Add to both, "A 'Democratic' president, John 'Fitzgerald' Kerry would sign this fine bill to end corruption forever..."
214
posted on
05/03/2003 10:24:12 AM PDT
by
Budge
(God Bless FReepers!)
To: hoosiermama
Thank God for the system in place to uphold the Constitution.
215
posted on
05/03/2003 5:29:47 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
To: Budge
Is it me, or are a whole bunch of FReepers still misunderestimating Bush?
216
posted on
05/03/2003 5:31:52 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
To: Congressman Billybob
Now, continuing the conversation we were having a few months ago, I would like to once again state my position on this Bill.
It will be challenged in the Court system, and the unconstitutional parts struck down, leaving the Democrats with no negative talking point, and McCain with the dubius distinction to having fought for, and achieved the passage of bill that was found to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
But that's just my layman's guess.
Oh!
Wait...!
217
posted on
05/03/2003 5:36:15 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
"...but I have to assume the mans got access to information I don't..."One of you lives here, and the other does not.
I'm betting that the one whose tootbrush is hanging in of those bathrooms, has better info sources.
218
posted on
05/03/2003 5:45:57 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
To: Luis Gonzalez
I don't live there.
To: Budge
Excellent points!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-226 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson