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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[concerned about politics]

If they are here , name them, if not, shut up about the goofy allegation.

Ok. I won't tell them you're a troll.

[P-Marlowe]

The opinion of the court in explaining why this does not violate the first amendment is 300 pages long. The first amendment upon which this decision is alleged to have been based is one paragraph.

This is insane. Obviously if you need 300 pages to explain your position on something so simple as why this law does not "abridge freedom of speech", then your position is weak beyond words. This whole decision is contrived.

I think we need to get congress to pass a law that limits the jurisdiction of the Courts so that no federal court can issue an opinion on any case where the opinion exceeds 2000 words. Any opinion that exceeds that amount will have no force or effect.

There's no way they could have explained their illogical thinking in this case in 2000 words or less, so they would have had to issue a contrary opinion.

[RinaseaofDs]

To me, its as if both parties got together and agreed that the constitution and free speech were something they can agree were bad for both of them, and worked with each other to get it passed.

What strikes me about this is the non-partisan nature of the affront. At Christmas, I'm going to be across the holiday table from a US Senator who doesn't mind talking shop. I was thinking about what kind of lambasting I was going to give him, and just stopped.

There is nothing to say about this - GWB gave us this law. That is the bottom line here. The Senator is a D, and he's just going to smile at me and say, "Vote for Dean."

He totally screwed the pooch here, and I guess the only thing that is going to fix it is GWB coming out and saying, "Look, I screwed up. I passed the buck to the SCOTUS, and the last thing I imagined was them upholding this law. We got too cute with this, and I promise to get this thing fixed."

That is the ONLY THING that is going to fix this - leadership from GWB, because it is now ILLEGAL to SPEAK POLITICALLY in the USA 60 days before an election on radio or TV.

To my mind, this is the first big bomb dropped in the war against citizens rights in the US - the first major instance of both parties essentially agreeing to suspend the constitution legally, bit by bit, until elections don't mean anything.

The most interesting thing is seeing what is going on at DU right now. Tactically, this couldn't be worse news for D's and organizations like Moveon.org. They ought to be more pissed about this on so many levels than we are.

This law is actually good for party Republicans. Fantastic, unbelievable news.

They are too stupid, perhaps, to really grasp what happened to them today.

Fact is, if there were ever an issue that most politically active people could agree on, regardless of party affiliation, this is the issue.

The age of representative government in the US formally ended today.

[carenot]

Thanks for the links, putupon.

Odd that all the links from FR are gone.

[deport]

Bush signs CFR!
Bush signs Prescription Drug Bill!


---

Where you not listening before..... maybe a 2nd time will help.....

George W. Bush Flashback: Listen to his words three years ago

George W. Bush Flashback: Listen to his words three years ago

[KantianBurke]

If it is such an important issue, why is not a single TV station reporting on the Supreme Court's verdict? They're not because no one out in America gives a damn about it when we have troops in Iraw and a War on Terror to fight.

[Dane]

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

And does one enact policy by staying on the sidelines and being "pure". Or does one have to play the game and take some risks.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

You mean you can accept shades of gray ? Could'a fooled me. I assumed everyone had to agree 100% with you otherwise trhey should resign immediately.

[Dane]

If it is such an important issue, why is not a single TV station reporting on the Supreme Court's verdict? They're not because no one out in America gives a damn about it when we have troops in Iraw and a War on Terror to fight

Uh dude, you are the one putting on the Chicken Little act.

[hchutch]

I'm not talking about Fox News Channel doing that half-hour thing.

Imagine your local Fox BROADCAST affiliate (not the cable news channel) airing a national news program opposite Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings.

Fox has shown it can compete with the networks in entertainment. It's whipped CNN and MSNBC going head-to-head.

If I were Terry McAuliffe, FOX announcing the "FOX Evening News with Brit Hume" airing on the broadcast network (not on cable systems) would be the ultimate nightmare. Their last media stronghold is the Big Three Networks that everyone watches. All FOX has to do is jump in.

I remember an old joke Reagan told. Two Russian generals are talking, and one of them says, "The arms race was a lot more fun when only one of us was running."

[Who is John Galt?]

Benedict Arnold upheld an oath to the King.

So, are you comparing everyone who swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States to "Benedict Arnold?" Does that include our servicemen and women in Iraq? Please be specific.

You it seems want to hold up your own contrived oath to the Constitution...

"Contrived?" Not hardly - it was mandated by law.

...even if that means helping electing people(Dean or Hilllary) who will trash the Constitution beyond repair.

You seem to be one of those people who discard the Constitution as you attempt to 'save' it. Now that's impressive...

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

Why worry about my "Constitutional right to free... speech?" You suggest that personal "principles" should be more important to public servants than 'Constitutional rights.' What do your personal "principles" have to say about my "free speech" - and why should I give them more consideration than the Constitution?

Joseph Stalin had "principles," and so did Adolf Hitler. If you prefer "principles" to the Constitution, be honest enough to admit you would be happier with a monarchy or dictatorship than a constitutional republic...

;>)

[You Dirty Rats]

Iraq or the War on Terror??

I think more people are more concerned about that stupid made-for-tv wedding tonight than anything unimportant like Iraq, the War on Terror or Sandra Dee O'Connor using the Constitution as kindling.

[KantianBurke]

Just because most Americans are too wrapped up in watching Reality TV shows doesn't mean that Bush, your Lord and Savior, hasn't helped enact an unconstitutional piece of legislation. Nice try at changing the subject. My point stands - This issue has zero effect on the 02 elections and would have remained so even if it had been vetoed by Bush. Good day.

[MineralMan]

"If it is such an important issue, why is not a single TV station reporting on the Supreme Court's verdict? They're not because no one out in America gives a damn about it when we have troops in Iraw and a War on Terror to fight.
"

And to take it even further, the public, generally, is more interested in Michael Jackson and Koby Bryant that it is the War on Terror or Iraq.

So, truly important issues, which will have long-term effects, are ignored by the media entirely, or mentioned briefly. I include the Fox New Channel in this, as well.

"The Supreme Court today upheld the Campaign Finance Reform laws, but, now, here's our lengthy report on what's happening today in the Michael Jackson case."

Every network is doing this, to the detriment of public understanding of what is actually happening out there.

[Timesink]

ROTFLMAO! Bill and Shrillery, Centrists. Right.

Hillary's no centrist, but Bill was, comparatively, to the 2003-2004 Democratic Party, which is almost off in Green Party land. He had to be, because all he cared about was popularity, and the 1994 elections showed that HillaryCare was not the way to win over the American public. No 2004-era RAT would ever be willing to even consider welfare reform of any sort, for example.

Perhaps a better way to put it is that Bill Clinton doesn't subscribe to ANY ideology. If the polls said idea X would jack up his poll numbers, he'd find a way to fit it into the Democratic platform.

[Congressman Billybob]

Here's how such an in-your-face ad could be organized:

It is likely that Harold Ickes, former Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton, will be the Democrat nominee for the Senate from North Carolina. 30 days before the primary election here, an ad could be presented to just ONE TV station here, that says the following:

"Harold Ickes is a sleazy bum, just like his former boss, Bill Clinton. The following 1,000 people support this statement, and condemn a majority of Congress and a majority of the Supreme Court, who seek to supress our free speech."

As the 1,000 names of the sponsors are scrolling on the screen, superimposed appear the following words. "We believe in free speech. So, come and get us, and we'll see who wins."

Copies of the ad would be made available for FREE use by the major media, who would be all over this subject like a duck on a June bug.

This cannot be done for about six months, so a lot of back and forth and refinement is possible. But that's what I'm thinking about.

John / Billybob

[proud American in Canada]

"Broadcast media MUST accept such an ad. They have no right to refuse it or censor it, as long as one of the 1,000 names promoting it IS a federal candidate. Therefore, with my name added, such an ad WILL be broadcast, if we organize this properly.'

I was wondering about that. Count me in as one of the thousand names, btw. :)

Anyway, I'm out of the jurisdiction to serve process, LOL!

[KantianBurke]

And thanks to Bush only they will be able to take to the airwaves during the 60 and 30 day time periods.

[Dane]

Just because most Americans are too wrapped up in watching Reality TV shows doesn't mean that Bush, your Lord and Savior, hasn't helped enact an unconstitutional piece of legislation. Nice try at changing the subject. My point stands - This issue has zero effect on the 02 elections and would have remained so even if it had been vetoed by Bush. Good day

JMO, but I think your screen name should be the definition in the dictionary for the phrase "Monday Morning Quarterback".

[retrokitten]

I love it. Count me in, too.