When the time comes, like JimRob's first trip to Washington to protest the Clintons in the White House, I hope 1,000 or more of my closest friends will decide to stand with me.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.
I'd like to be there. Justice Scalia already will.
If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so. It did not do so, I think, be cause the juice is not worth the squeeze.
Justice Scalia, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 US __ (Opinion of Scalia, J at 14), 2003
Count me in John.
MKM
If the so-called Justices so openly ignore the First Amendment, what makes you think they will not equally ignore the Sixth amendment?
The 10th amendment has already fallen. The 2nd is essentially dead. The 4th is a shadow of its former self. With this decision, the 1st is weakened to the point of irrelevancy. Why would you possibly put faith in a government to abide by the provisions of the 6th?
And even if they did, the government could simply appeal, until the issue was ultimately before the same Supreme Court which has already decided upon their opinion in the matter. The response to any attempt to invoke the 5th amendment's guarantee against "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" will be met with an insistence that imprisonment is neither "life" nor "limb", therefore the restriction does not apply.
There is no constitutional solution to this problem; with both Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court allied in the matter, the only remaining solution is to either tolerate the injustice or invoke rule 308.