[dts32041]

Sure they can refuse to take the case.

They do that quite often.

Just cause a Senator has an interest in the case, doesn't mean the SCOTUS has to take it.

I remember Senators had an interested in finding the so called line item veto unconstitutional and the SCOTUS, stating they had no standing with the court cause it didn't affect them.

So state had to make the challenge.

Remember lawyers and Judges do not think like normal people, they have been taught to make a straight line into a Mobius circle.

[LarryLied]

I can't see them ducking this case.

[america-rules]

I have a question but before I ask it let me make a qualifier. I am for 100% free speech with zero restrictions. Not a freekin cap on anybody. If Bill Gates wants to spend 10 Bil for some idiot he should have a right to do it. It's his money and it's his free speech. The only restrictions should be the "truth in advertising" law to keep things honest. Anotherwords the James Baird ad would be illegal and the NAACP wouldn't be allow to run that ad again without some changes.

Now with this said here's the question:

If the the current CFR is so bad and tramples on the 1st Ammendment why wasn't there a big outrage over the current CFR. Nobody said squat about repealling CRF before this and now everyone is up in arms on the new CFR. Isn't CFR CFR in any form so why the fuss now?