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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Howlin]

You're calling Jim Robinson a GOP hack?

Good to know.

[Carolinamom]

C-Span2 will be having a discussion (Starr is one of the attorneys...didn't hear the other names) on the Supreme Court ruling. It will be on at 3pm EST. 'Should be interesting imo.

[Hoverbug]

If the shoe fits....

Hb

[Mo1]

Yes, 9 more likely would have made it moot, but I want to see us elect 62, so that we can spare two of them should they "drift" left. Hard to count on yankees, particularly the New England breed.

Hopefully we can work on them Yankee's .. but I'm with you, 62 is a good number

[onyx]

I think I will give it up though before I get an ulser. Besides I have said all that matters. Feel free to lie about what people said all that you want now.

Take care. I mean that sincerely.

I do NOT lie.

[onyx]

Thanks Mo. It's those damn yankees. LOL!

[Diva Betsy Ross]

You have freepmail....

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I for one look at the positive side of things. In other words, we get out of something what we put into it. The glass is either half empty or half full.

In this case, I won't miss the hateful commercials 2 months before the election. I am already quite sick of the current behavior of the DUmocrats.

We may be forced to listen to some hate shows out of Hollywood, but that will only inspire people to dislike the Elitist Left even more. So what is there here worth hyperventilating over?

[Mo1]

Tell me about it .. I'm surrounded by them ;0)

But it does have it's advantages .. one gets to know thy enemy better

[Who is John Galt?]

Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.

Funny - I don't see any mention of 'exclusive constitutional review.' Which clause are you looking at?

Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.

What, exactly, are you arguing? You suggest that Mr. Justice Scalia is "wrong" when he states:

"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."

Sorry, sport, but "Article III Sec 1 & 2" don't contradict Mr. Justice Scalia's statement - unless, perhaps, you adopt the circular argument that 'limited judicial review constitutes exclusive and final constitutional review because limited judicial review is equivalent to exclusive and final constitutional review.'

;>)

Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that?

LOL! "Easy to find?" Put it in print, my friend: quote the constitutional article, section and clause that delegate to the court the power of exclusive and final constitutional review. "Article III Sec 1 & 2" say nothing of the sort. 'I suspect you're avoiding a direct quotation. Why is that?'

;>)

Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803...

You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,' and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court 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.' Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...

;>)

John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.

LOL! Your attempts to change the subject are really quite entertaining! I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court. As for Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion, it remains logically flawed: no entity can claim a power to say what the law is, and claim simultaneously to be somehow bound by that same law.

;>)

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

OK! WE GODDA ALL VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT NOW!!!!!!

(Did that make you feel better?)

[NYC Republican]

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

I've got to say, the more I read about it, the more I tend to agree with your assessment.

[Hoverbug]

More of the same horses$%t from the CA gov threads.

Go ahead and vote dem if you want. I'm not going to vote dem.

You take your boogeyman and shake him at someone who is huddled and paralyzed in fear and doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is right and for conservatism.

Who do you think you're talking too, a democrat?

Hb

[Mo1]

I for one look at the positive side of things

What is this ?? .. a positive attitude??

Seriously, it's a good thing to have.

Yes this ruling sucked .. but it isn't the end of the world and it isn't the end of our country as some may think

Now we can all sit on out collective butts and whine to the high heavens or we can all put our heads together and work around this. That is IF some around here really want to.

And for those who may think I am nothing but a pom pom cheerleader for the GOP .. think again.

My first goal is to keep control .. 62 has a nice ring to it .. Put more conservative judges on the bench and replace Sandy 0'Connor and Ruth Buzzie as soon as possible. Win the war on terror .. and once that is all done and things are shaping up .. I might even consider voting for a 3rd party candidate .. that is of he/she can do the job.

But all of that will not happen over night .. it will take time .. and throw my vote away or staying home and not voting will only put more Liberals in control and push us back even further.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You come off as another Bush hater gathering from your latest posts.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"The Legislature passed it, the Executive signed it. The Supreme Court reviewd and confirmed it. It's CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID Judge Wapner."

This is not the way to change the constitution according to the constitution and subsequent ruling. This law changes the first amendment. That is not constitutional simply by voting in the houses, signing by the executive and having the supremes rubber stamp it. Constitutional changes require much higher majority in the US House and Senate and I think they also require ratification from a majority of the states in specific votes. All 3 branches of government copped out on this one, and stole the voice of the individual states and the voice of the individual state's people in the process.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

RIGHT ON!

GRAND SLAM!

70 YARD TD BOMB!

(I get excited when I hear rational opinions.)

[Hoverbug]

Somemore horses%^t.

I'm a hater of anyone who shreds my Constitution. Evidently you're not.

If ya can't beat my argument you call me names.

Rookie!

Hb

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Rookie?

Hoverbug.........01/22/2003.

[Mo1]

Well I try to look at the furture and not just at the moment

Do things always work out as planned?

No .. but that is no reason to just give up.

You brush yourself off and get back into the fight

If our soldiers in Iraq can do .. they we at home sure as heck can too