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.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

Grow up or TRY to write like an adult. Your assumptions are assinhine, emphasis on the first three letters.

You feel the need to use the term assinhine over and over on this reply. Who needs to grop up and write like an adult?

Bush did NOT write this ruling. The SCOTUS did, whose duty, I might add, is to determine what is, or is not, Constititional.

He didn't write it, but, he approved of it, let this go across his desk, and (according to 'Bot "strategery" ) assummed that the SCOTUS would strike un-Constitutional items down. Um...that didn't happen. Ooops.

Personally, I'm not pleased with the ruling, but Bush is hardly the one to blame.

See above, it was all part of the "strategery" right? I don't like it either.

As for your other assinhine assertion, NOBODY here is dissenting,...

Nope....you're giving Bush a pass...I'm not...and you don't like it. Fortunately this disagreement is not 60 days before the election, so I won't have to have worry about federal agents storming my house and apprehending me becuase I'm "trashing" Bush.

...because you and your ilk are merely trashing Bush. How utterly surprising. NOT.

Grow up? Write like an adult?

Do as I say...not as I do.

Another "Bush can do no wrong" cheerleader on FR who fails to realize that the president does share some responsibility for this. How utterly suprising. NOT.

[Sir_Ed]

"Us BUSHBOTS just won a serious victory over Soros and his Commie ilk. The Hollywood elite will have to expose themselves even more for the public to see them for who they truely are. This is a good thing!"

Hey, maybe we can ban ALL speech!

That way, no liberals would EVER be heard!!

Ed

[oceanview]

who to say that a website itself is not an "ad"? What is an "ad", what is an "editorial" or an "article"? who gets to decide that? if the 9th circuit gets to decide that FR is an "ad", they can shut it down.

since the courts are making this stuff up as they go along, anything is possible, anything.

[WackyKat]

Nonsense piled on nonsense is still nonsense. Article I, Section 4 of the US constitution gives Congress the right to regulate elections. You can't go into a polling place and start to give a speech for a candidate now can you? Or had out campaign literature supporting a candidate? Outside Chicago that is.

That you would compare regulations of polling places with content restrictions on the public's political speech for 60 days before an election shows just how weak and ridiculous your argument is.

We're not buying what you're selling

[ought-six]

"I can't believe the rhetoric going on here..'Bloody revolution?' "

Hey, I don't like it, either. But history has a funny way of repeating itself, and I am not one of those who thinks the people of today are superior to, or more rational than, people of the past. People act and react according to their circumstances and their perceptions,and they always have. I have seen a very clear drift towards tyranny, and I know how people have historically responded to such drifts. And it ain't pretty.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Our first elections took place with candidates actually sitting at the polling places with NO secret ballot. A voter would cast his vote openly, shake hands with the man he voted for, maybe talk to the ones he didn't vote for and leave.

Such precautions as we have now were totally unknown to the Founders. They stop things which COULD be considered intimidation but they are also a violation of absolute freedom of speech. You can't have it both ways.

[oceanview]

no, it means that any court now can rule a website like this as an "ad" and shut it down. who says FR is not an "ad" on the internet?

[mrsmith]

Since I brought the subject up:
Look, this does not apply to FR. Period.

We are a website not a cable or satellite medium.

Considering the future effect of this law's definitions and more importantly it's whole philosophy on an internet that became a general mass media might be a useful way to critique the law.
But maybe not, it's certainly seems too early to do so here without causing undue anxiety.

[hchutch]

I stand corrected.

[vollmond]

I find it interesting that the Republican Primary is scheduled to end on September 2, 2004. The election is a mere 60 days away at that point (well, 61, but that's a quibble). The Democrat primary ends on July 29, 2004. That gives the NRA, etc., a full month to slam the Democrat nominee by name. But after the the Republican convention, the favor can't be returned by unions, etc.

[July 4th]

Nice to hear your opinion on this. I'm still trying to wade through this as well...there's just so much there. It's really far beyond anything a court should do. Granted, I think it's important to properly expound on constitutional issues, but this decision makes it difficult for anyone to become involved in the political process. I'll be eligible for admission to the court's bar in a few years, and I'm currently torn over whether it's even worth it.

I'm also searching for the answer to the following problem, so if you know the answer I'd appreciate your opinion. What do this do for one man's individual speech? See posts 675 and 758.

[ought-six]

"And it would matter again how? How many of the current Justices were nominated by Republicans? I'll give you a hint, it's more than five."

Try seven.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm looking forward to it, COngressman Billybob.

In fact, I could never imagine myself filing a brief in an institution that I've considered largely meaningless for years.

For all you other Freepers out there, just remember that as long as there are highway overpasses in this country, free (and effective) political advertising will always be at our disposal no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

[jaugust]

From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: abridge Pronunciation: &-'brij Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF Date: 14th century 1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH 2 : to shorten in duration or extent 3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : CONDENSE Free speech has not been PROHIBITED, but it has been ABRIDGED. I'm sorry but the First Amendment trumps Art. I, Sec 4, which doesn't say anything about Congress having the right to "Abridge" political campaign ads 60 days prior to an election.

[hellinahandcart]

This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

You're a blind fool, and I will be reminding you of this sentence someday.

[Who is John Galt?]

And it implements a power granted to Congress WITHIN the constitution...

You suggest that Congress was granted the power to abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press. Tell us: when, exactly, was the 1st Amendment repealed?

;>)

[Dane]

The appointees a second Bush term would have appointed is all speculation now

Let me revise my above remarks.

The appointees a second Bush 41 term would have appointed is all speculation now.

[Stopislamnow]

I dunno, they have better free speech than we do now that they are called Russia. That alone adds a substantial attraction to thier women. I bet thier television isn't filled with a buncha hoagie hunters nightly either.

As for coming after the guns, well, they've been after em since 1934, and just like a frog in boiling water, incrementalism in everything. Although the gays just blew the "slow boil" theory into chaos,so we'll probably see an attempt for a total ban on all firearms soon. Along with more reports of right wing militias forming up and stuff like that.

Screw investing in the market, I'm investing in arms and ammo.

Politicians, judges, etc just don't realize that 10 million+ firearm owners outnumber them and all thier law enforcement by a couple orders of magnitude.

To thier peril.

[B Knotts]

The People should simply ignore this ruling, as it is invalid on its face. Let them jail us for dissent!

[billbears]

I know. That's what I was pointing out. 4 by Reagan, 2 by Bush I, and one by Ford. So the argument that 'we need to get more of 'our' guys in SCOTUS' doesn't fly