Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[MineralMan]

"God save us from Presidents who "act on principles." I have no doubt that Bill Clinton 'acted on principles,' and look what it got us."

Well, I don't believe he did. You see, the principles I require of a President is adherence to the Constitution, as stated in the oath of office. Do you believe that is the case with this President?

[Protagoras]

Some childish people spend a lot of time surfing the websites of whacko fringe groups of misfits and think it's the same thing as being a conservative. It's sad. We need a hall monitor here not a moderator.

[Moby Grape]

I agree with you 100% that the "sky-HAS-fallen" rhetoric, which some in the LP have been saying even BEFORE this ruling, is over the top. On the other hand, I think it is naive to not see the full ramifications of this ruling...this ruling is frightening...

You say you want to wait until a full reading...what I have seen of the majority and minority opinons, published here today, are enough to send shivers down my spine.

[GOPrincess]

"I've already thought of a way to stick a thumb in the eye of the Supreme Court and this law. Run an ad somewhere that says, "Congressman Clank is a bum and should not be reelected." Then, the rest of the ad should consist of screen after screen of thousands of names of supporters of the ad. It should have this final line. "Come and get us."
Are they going to charge and try thousands of people? If they do, is any jury going to convict? It's called civil disobedience, and it can work if enough people join in."

I absolutely love this!! Just had to let you know. I'm very distressed by today's decision.

[Spiff]

And you don't believe the CFR involves the "manner" of holding elections?

Absolutely not! It is stretching this way to far to even conceive that it does. The portion of the Constitution involving the "manner" of holding elections is talking about the time of the year, balloting, who is eligible, etc. It certainly doesn't give Congress free reign to make any old law if they can pretend it is about the "manner" of holding elections. It certainly doesn't allow them to limit the speech about the candidates being elected, or their voting records, or their stated views. Only a moron would believe such - a moron that also believes that the general welfare clause was a generic grant of power, etc.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

How do you think the playing field would change with a "Fox Evening News" airing opposite Rather, Jennings, and Brokaw?

Special Report with Bret Hume runs before, in a lot of markets, the three leftist wags. Indeed, most of the news in that show is piped out by 6:30; the remaining half hour tends to get into discussion. Then there's the Fox Report at 7:00 - also hard news. Alas, I'm not sure how that can, from a hard news standpoint, be buffed up more, but with the sheeple still getting their news (albiet among a declining share) from the three wags (for the most part), this makes the whole operation tough. I'm sure tonight's spin will be along the lines that this was a victory for those seeking to remove money from politics thereby increasing the voice of the little guy.

Never mind that it will do neither. It will simply make the money from the big boys move to areas that are harder to trace, IMO.

[mykdsmom]

Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, nude dancers, pornographers, flag burners, and cross burners - Clarence Thomas.

Pretty much sums it up doesn't he?

MKM

[Dane]

Sorry, compadre: I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If you are on any other team, you won't find me volunteering to join...

Benedict Arnold upheld an oath to the King. You it seems want to hold up your own contrived oath to the Constitution, even if that means helping electing people(Dean or Hilllary) who will trash the Constitution beyond repair.

Oh well, I will respect your Constitutional right to free, but, IMO, naive speech.

[aristeides]

You sound so very young. Are you even old enough to vote? You sound like a DUer.

Your attitude has been noted, Comrade.

[KantianBurke]

After 9-11, CFR would have disappeared from the radar screen. Seeing the Two Towers come crashing down would have ended any questions by Russert. Spare that line of defense. Its not plausible.

[Protagoras]

I was a child when I was age. But I never acted as childish as you. If they are here , name them, if not, shut up about the goofy allegation.

[deport]

Mullets galore.......

Don't you love it......

C/P.... lol. Gotta give the malcontents something to do.

This stinks but now the object is to go on and find ways to change it and work with it..... Three branches of Guberm't.... each did its bit... The legislators wrote and passed it, the president signed it and the Judicary gave it's okay... Now the only way to change all or any of that is to change some of the players or force some of the players to want to change it....

The Executive will be either a Democrat or a Republican [3rd party wannabes won't be part of it]... Some of the Congress Critters may can be changed at the local level with some luck.... The Judicary, well it's anyone guess. There have been some good ones and some bad ones... It's a crap shoot some of the time...

[aristeides]

Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, nude dancers, pornographers, flag burners, and cross burners - Clarence Thomas.

Bread and circuses for the citizens who have lost their freedoms.

[billbears]

One of your hero's is a supporter of CFR and one of your villians is also a supporter of CFR. One might conclude that your viewpoints are either insincere or ignorant.

Doesn't make me either. Nice of you to put it in the infantile terms of heroes and villians though. As if one side is inherently better than the other and should be viewed in some white hat.

My viewpoints are my own, neither ignorant nor insincere, however I no longer choose to stand on one side and rah-rah as if one is better than the other. My position on who I vote for in this state stands. I don't vote for state candidates that have been either nominated outside of this state or receive a majority of their money from outside this state

I am not pro-Bush nor am I anti-Bush. I am conservative. I find that it has aligned me more often than not with the Republican party but I look to what a person says instead of what god-forsaken party they belong to.

You could have 99 Republicans and 1 Democrat and there would still be some here excusing some big government plan or law that is clearly unconstitutional. I have no use for partisanship and will not allow it to affect who I vote for. I vote conservative. Sorry if you have a problem with that

[BureaucratusMaximus]

My suggestion to you: get an education first, then post. You are embarrassing yourself. Not only can you not think; you cannot write.

Was it you that brought up the notion of growing up and writing like an adult in #549? I don't know...I thought it was you.

And BTW, what's really embarrassing is the fact that on a conservative forum such as this, there would be so many people giving a consenting and appeasing nod to this un-Constitutional ruling and to the people that facilitated the events that led up to it.

[concerned about politics]

No they didn't. This issue wasn't swinging elections.

No, it wasn't swinging elections at the time .
It was sold as a way to get crooked money out of politics. That's what the people were supporting. They loved it.
Our representatives gave it to them. If Bush had not agreed, it would have appeared he was FOR dirty money in politics, or it would have been spun and used against him that way. It could have hurt.

I gotta go for a few minutes, though. I'll try to check back. (Drat!)

[k2blader]

Short term is what President Bush and the GOP were thinking. You are correct--they wanted to win elections.

Long term is what's happened today and will continue to happen as a result of the short term gratification.

If we could resurrect the founding fathers, it would be interesting to hear what they think about the current state of our republic.

[Dane]

After 9-11, CFR would have disappeared from the radar screen. Seeing the Two Towers come crashing down would have ended any questions by Russert. Spare that line of defense. Its not plausible.

Really? And you know this how?

Oh BTW, since you forcefully know everything, could you give me a stock tip for tomorrow, where I can turn $1 into a million, oh Great One.

[KantianBurke]

I believe the poster Mad Dawg was recently suspended for several days for attacking others and saying that they were from DU. Cheap shot tactics.

[ask]

Supreme Court gos by United Nations' Universal laws now