Supreme Court Takes CFR Case

US Supreme Court ^ | 5 June 2003 | US Supreme Court

[Congressman Billybob]

At the end of the day today, the US Supreme Court accepted the CFR case (McConnell, et al). The Court will take the case early in its 2003 Term. It will come in a month early, 8 September, for a nearly unprecedented four hour argument.

Briefs by all plaintiffs in the trial court, including Senator McConnell and the NRA, must be filed by 8 July. Defendants below must file by 5 August. Reply briefs must be filed by 21 August.

[Congressman Billybob]

I will file a brief on 8 July, against McCain-Feingold. I may also be covering the oral argument for UPI on 8 September.

Let the games begin.

[Recovering_Democrat]

SHOWDOWN

[michigander]

Excellent!

[Forseti]

Are things like Moore's "documentaries" even covered under this law, or does it just crack down on the issue ads? I'll miss the NRA's half info spots on the evils of liberal gun control laws (and the party that supports those laws).

[Overtaxed]

Every time I see "CFR" I think of "Code of Federal Regulations." :)

[connectthedots]

Looks like the Supreme Court wants to settle the whole mess of campaign finance reform once and for all. Because of the importance of this case, I doubt that any of the nine justices are going to announce their retirements prior to oral arguments in this case. FOUR HOURS? WOW!

Is four hours the longest the USSC has ever set aside to hear a case?

My guess is that McCain-Feingold will be relagated to the ash heap of history by a 6-3, and bitterly divided, vote.

I assume you will be posting your brief when you submit it.

[July 4th]

Or the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Another note for all FREEPers who are Believers: Pray for the wisdom of our Justices and the continued health of particularly Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

May Freedom Prevail.

[joesnuffy]

Perhaps Feingold will be exposed for what he is
And then Tommy can make a sucessfull run for da Russkie's senate seat

[RAT Patrol]

Good! Your editorial was the best I've read on the subject.

[deport]

fyi

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks much for the ping! I would love to be there to hear the oral arguments!

[Mike Fieschko]

Is four hours the longest the USSC has ever set aside to hear a case?

I have a vague recollection that the Court set aside an entire day for arguments in U.S. v. Nixon, but it's very vague.

[Quix]

Sorry, I'm clueless.

Is someone hoping the Supremes will OUT CFR as an anti-American cabal of Global Government Tyranny puppet masters?

I hardly think their cronies at the Supreme Court would do that. Besides, they don't want outed from this life.

[MeekOneGOP]

Alright !!

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Congressman Billybob]

I think this is the second time in history, perhaps third, that the Court has ever set an argument this long on a single case. You're right -- I find it hard to believe that any of the current Justices would resign from the Court with this case still hanging.

Normally, a Justice resigns at the end of June, leaving the summer for a replacement to be nominated and approved. This case pending in September puts a crimp in that planning.

Billybob

[StriperSniper]

Or the Council on Foreign Relations.

Only when I have my tinfoil on. ;-)

[aristeides]

The Nixon case was also granted expedited review, wasn't it? I seem to remember it being decided in mid-summer.

This time, too, the justices have permitted serious inroads into their summer vacation.

[RJayneJ]

Does the fact that they took it telegraph at all as to how they will rule?