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.

[Betty Jane]

No, the point is to put out conservative entertainment as well. Imagine a channel with no homosexuality being promoted, sitcoms with family values being celebrated and God being mentioned. Imagine a show called America Fights Back, where law abiding gun owners tell how they stopped criminals through re-creations.

Let's have a made for T.V. movie called Enemies; Foriegn and Domestic or a miniseries based on Dragon's Fury. Let's see talk show women with a conservative take on events, and who will bring on people like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. The Sunday talking head could have a former Reagan aide as the host.

The purpose of having a conservative television station is to see conservative entertainment. Shows that you could watch with your kids or your parents and not have to cringe at some not so hidden double entendre.

[justshutupandtakeit]

None of these are unconstitutional; Congress under the Constitution was given the power to regulate elections. This is what this law does.

Throwing in a red herring about slavery doesn't change that.
Did you think Congress could pass a law stating that all voters must have a slave to carry them to the polling place?

And I know of nothing you have posted which would lead me to believe freedom of speech is NOT absolute. Perhaps you can correct that misimpression?

[ought-six]

"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."

I know. That always amused me. Hell, the SC couldn't be more liberal if Bubba had appointed all nine of them!

[Howlin]

any majority of judges on a federal court. they can say it is. they can pretty much say anything they want.

Where did they say it was?

[Constitution Day]

John,

Thanks for your comments. I've been looking forward to seeing you post about this.
I respect your honorable stand on this and will be reading your future column on it, if you write one.

Will you be discussing this on Jerry Agar today?

[B Knotts]

Shrillness? For pointing out the obvious?

No. If he had vetoed it, it would not have gone to SCOTUS, because they would not have been able to override the veto.

[Destructor]

"And people think it's not important for Bush to be reelected?"

"We have GOT to get some of our people on THIS Supreme Court!"

You're wasting your breath! That concept is way too hard for the Bush bashers on Free Republic to understand. They'll vote their "principles" in the next election, and seal our doom as a nation! You'd better start practicing your "Hail Queen Hillary!" Bush bashers.

As for me, I'll move to the final stages of my preparations.

[stljoe71]

Given that Bush signed the bill Clinton or Gore could have given us no worse. What could they have done? Signed it with a bigger grin on their face?

[oceanview]

the Dems will filibuster any attempt to change this law. they know they have the big media in their pocket, they know that the Justice department will never go after the big media for violating this, they know no one is going to watch the NRA channel to see this week's editorial, they know their side can file endless lawsuits against whatever "alternative media" that exists on our side.

[ought-six]

Yup. Like Bob Dylan said: A hard rain's gonna fall.

[stljoe71]

Answer no because there were not enough votes to override a veto

[MineralMan]

"How can this be!!!! This is an outrage. The Supreme's really let Dubya down on this one."

Sure they did. They upheld a bill that Bush signed. What a burn for Bush, eh? Sorry, but the GOP Congress passed the CFR. Bush signed it. The SCOTUS upheld it. And there you have it. It's Bush's bill.

[bvw]

Dane goes into the forest and gets lost circling one leaf.

I don't think "big media" is a winner in this either, any more than I think the publishers of Pravda were big winners twenty years ago.

But your example is as useful to making that argument as fish at a bicycle.

[TBP]

It appears more likely with this ruling that we will have a Democrat Prtesident and a Democrat controlled Congress.

Which is just what the Court intends.

[Howlin]

And given that your president signed this bill what in the world would make you think that he would not appoint judges who would support it?

Becasue I can READ and COMPREHEND. I've seen who he has put up to be nominated.

BTW, who is YOUR president?

[San Jacinto]

Exactly. A full page ad can be bought around here for between $45-$70 thousand, depending on which of the major papers. Actually, you can get it for 1/2 that if you are willing to let the paper pick the day it runs within a two week window. We should be starting funds now for Oct-Nov 2004. We would choose a close congressional race (hint-hint) or just do it in the Presidential. Point out the many legitimate deficiencies in the opponent which the press are covering up, urge the election of our guy, AND SIGN THE AD BY THE THOUSANDS.

One major concern--- a whole lot of the big dailies would totally refuse to accept the ad.

[MineralMan]

"You realize, I hope, that the founders DID NOT campaign nor run ads attacking their opponents."

Silliness. Do some research. Campaigns in the early years were nasty as the dickens. You're making a statement that is palpably incorrect.

[NittanyLion]

If both branches of congress, the president and the courts believe the bill is constitutional under our current form og government, isn't that the definition of consitutional ?

First, the president does not believe the law to be constitutional, and indicated such upon signing it. The same concern was voiced by many in Congress, including some who voted for it.

As to the definition of Constitutional, you're absolutely incorrect. The Constitution says what it says; regardless of what the current crop of politicians tell us. Your faith is misplaced, and you'd do better to read it yourself than to blindly trust politicians to tell you what is or isn't constitutional.

[Dane]

Like Souter? Or O'Connor?

Let's not forget Stevens(appointed by Ford) or Ginsburg and Breyer(appointed by Clinton).

Why do you all want to conviently forget the two justices Clinton appointed who make up 2/5th's of the current liberal majority on SCOTUS.

[VRWC_minion]

So the argument that 'we need to get more of 'our' guys in SCOTUS' doesn't fly."

You are correct, we could have the Florida justices on the USSC instead.