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.

[jwalsh07]

No need to apologise Huck, I am in complete agreement with your assessment. Nonetheless, I will be voting for Bush for President.

[Congressman Billybob]

You're right. I had brain freeze. I did mean Erskine Bowles, not Ickes.

John / Billybob

[billbears]

who meets the Ivory Soap test for purity.You know I don't know that. Although I do appreciate your insistence to try and tie me down to one candidate. However I won't know that until the time comes for another election. I voted for Snyder in the primary for Senator and did not vote for Dole in the election. Unlike alphabet voters, those that vote as the Founding Fathers intended look at a candidate over a period of time, what their beliefs are and how they act on said beliefs. Kneejerk Republicans are no better than kneejerk Democrats. As I said there are Democrats in this state that are more conservative than some Republicans (usually at the local level) and I will vote for them if I see they hold up to their principles. Just as there are Republicans I would vote for on conservative values. But I will not be bullied by a national party agenda to vote for someone based purely on the letter by their name

I told Howlin I will vote for Burr if the RNC and the White House stays out of this state until after the primaries. I don't like having candidates picked for me to further some national agenda. Frankly I could care less about a national agenda that isn't conservative. Some of us are more concerned with what is actually conservative instead of stamping the label conservative on everything the Republican party does

[Howlin]

Unlike alphabet voters, those that vote as the Founding Fathers intended look at a candidate over a period of time, what their beliefs are and how they act on said beliefs

What, exactly, makes you think I don't do the same thing? Because I don't agree with you?

[El Gato]

So people can now be jailed for running an ad that criticizes an officeholder or candidate for office before an election?

Or praises one for that matter. The other side, whichever side that might be, can be counted on to turn you in. Of course noone would run your ad anyway, because they could then be held as an accessory. Freedom of the press just went down along with freedom of speech. Much of "the press" hasn't figured that out yet.

[Sir_Ed]

" President is a human politician. He's got more character than most, but he's certainly fallible."

I just heard Scott McClellan quoting President Bush as praising the Supreme Court decision.

I've talked to a lot of my friends in the Pro-Life and Gun Rights movements...not a single one will ever vote for George Bush again. This issue, his signing that bill into law, is as bad a decision as Roe v. Wade.

If a large chunk of Pro-Lifers and gun owners sit out the election, or vote for a third party candidate, and President Bush loses, he'll only have himself to blame.

THIS issue, banning groups that I support (like Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Gun Owners of America and various Right to Life groups) from running ads pointing out politician's stances, is THE touchpoint for me in "compromise."

I won't do it, I won't vote for them, period...and if it costs a moderate the election and a left-winger gets in, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

I can take a lot of things from politicians...tax hikes, wavering on social issues like gays, porn, etc., but not this.

When it comes to Constitutional issues like stopping people from expressing their support or dissaproval of politicians 60 days within an election, it is SO un-American that I would sooner see the devil himself elected, than for me to have taken an active part in electing that person.

Ed

[jwalsh07]

Pretty good analysis Burkeman but you're missing an important point and that is the ascension of the press as a privileged class.

[Jaidyn]

Jefferson said it first and it still stands as far as I'm concerned: Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy....the rule of few over many.

[k2blader]

Some of us disagree on what risks are worth taking and what path to take in pursuit of a goal.

For a while I've thought the GOP could be more willing to educate the public on the conservative ideas the party claims to espouse. We saw it to some extent around the Republican Revolution of 1994.

Why is that not a better alternative to giving in to the "middle" and gradually losing ground on conservative issues?

[Spiff]

The pro-life groups, 2nd amendment groups, and other affected groups should put President Bush and the Congressional Republicans on notice - either this law gets repealed or we vote for none of the above in the next speech-restricted election. The clock is ticking, they have until November 2004. Our votes are not to be taken for granted, especially when the people we voted for are actively working to betray us and our causes.

[jwalsh07]

Oh yeah, the courts are out of control but so are the politicians of both parties who voted aye on this crap and the President who signed it will now live with that boonehead mistake for eternity.

Terrorism and judicial tyranny are two of my main concerns and though I am a Bush supporter and plan on voting for him, this has even me wavering. He better wake the hell up, stand up like a man and say he made a mistake.

[July 4th]

Bradley Smith of the FEC was just on FOX, and I think he confirmed my interpretation. Groups are bad; individuals have free reign. Check out Special Report on the replay tonight, 23 minutes in.

[Burkeman1]

Agree. The press will become even more a part of the beltway Federal order. They too will mimic and support the approved for borders of debate. Our political issues and debates will be nothing more than tempests in teapots with the "press" trying to make them look important!

[michigander]

As far as I know, Presidential pardons are absolute.

See I was wrong already...

Section. 2.

Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[Jaidyn]

I agree! I don't like what's going on, but I like the options even less. I wrote Congrssman Oxley and told him not to ask me for another dime until they get on track. [As if he cares]!

[apackof2]

Thank you for the link

[billbears]

I'm not saying you don't. However continued support of a worthless Senator, before and after the election, that has stabbed this state in the back, through either indifference or outright attacks on industries important in this state, in most instances would place you on the partisan side rather than the conservative side of the argument.

Howlin, the simple fact that this woman was thrust on us only shows me the White House and the RNC could care less about this state and more about what type of power they wield at the national level. And considering the majority of the agenda has been less than conservative, to say the least, makes me question the whole premise behind the party as a whole. You've asked me if I would support someone I agree 70% with on. I probably would. But I can't in good conscience blindly support a party that has time and time again sacrificed any semblance of conservative thought to gain extra votes

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

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

Ah, I see. I'm sorry, my misunderstanding.

Yes, it would be nice if FOX (as opposed to FNC) did do a half-hour hard news show - or even showed the first half hour of either Hume or Smith from FNC.

That's not a bad idea.

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: So, if Congress passed a law requiring that all left-handed Americans be summarily executed...

VRWC: Yes, of course. It would be constitutional.

Really? Please cite the article, section, and clause of the United States Constitution that would authorize the government to execute all left-handed Americans. And please be specific: my wife is left-handed, and so is one of my best friends. I have a personal interest in the question.

;>)

However, it would also be my right to revolt but its still constitutional.
I think you don't understand the meaning of the word.

Actually, it is you, my friend, who have no idea what you are talking about. You confuse judicial opinion with 'constitutionality,' and assume that the opinion of nine political appointees can somehow substitute for a written constitution. As Mr. Justice Scalia observed:

"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."

Remarks at The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 1996

Almost two centuries ago, a Jeffersonian republican asked a simple question:

Is the Constitution supreme over the court, or the court supreme over the Constitution?

What say you?

;>)

By the way, Mr. Justice Scalia also noted on the same occasion:

"People who adopt a bill of rights know that societies not only evolve, they also rot."

When people can't tell the difference between written constitutional law and obviously contradictory judicial opinion, the rot appears to be well under way...

;>)

[Sir_Ed]

"Actually, all [Hilliary] would have to do is change her registration to Republican, then she'd be able to do whatever she wanted...

Might cause some cognitive dissonance here. Then again, it might not."

Hey, Bloomberg did it!!

Ed