Replies

Dear John,
The plan I knew about, and had been floated at the White House, involved three steps. 1) Attorney General Ashcroft issues an Opinion detailing the unconstitutionality of Shays-Meehan. 2) President Bush states flatly that the law is uncontitutional, but then signs it to force a judicial review. 3) Solicitor General Olson is directed not only to oppose the law, rather than support it (the usual role of the SG), but to file suit immediately for a preliminary injunction against any use of the law, by anyone, anywhere, until the Supreme Court ruled on it.
No reason to go into the details of the plan (which I got to read), because obviously the White House decided on a different course of action. The plan did offer a chance at getting the final Supreme Court decision BEFORE the November elections.
As it is, the case will be filed 6 November, 2002, on the effective date of the law. The final decision of the Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional, will come in may, 2003, give or take a few weeks.
The only guarantee I can offer is this: If we do not get this law declared unconstitutional, I will resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. I feel that strongly about the issue, and about our odds of success.
FReepers, including you, my friend, have done all that you could, and your efforts have not been enough. Now it is time for the First Amendment attorneys to go to war. This will be my 17th and second most important brief in that Court. (Most important was the brief on the Bush case from Florida.)
I presume you wish me good hunting.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Truman Factor."

Excellent piece! Many posters on this topic view the prospect of Bush signing the bill as a dereliction of duty. Certainly in an ideal world, a Congress would not pass, nor a President sign, legislation they believe to be unconstitutional. But politics is the art of the possible. A politician who cannot retain his office has no power to accomplish anything. Rather than veto the bill and give the democrats who are desperate for an issue, any issue, to run on in the fall, Bush will apparently sign it, and trust to the Supreme Court to knock out the clear 1st Amendment violations, leaving in place the increase in hard money limits. One has only to look at the genial countenance of Sen. Mitch McConnell, to realize that the republicans are playing the "don't throw me in that briar patch" game. Rather than blame them, blame their demagogic opponents who set up these situations.

I believe the democrats, shrewd politicians though they be, are barely hanging on by their fingernails. They obviously represent only certain very narrow constituencies, and rely on the general apathy and ignorance of the middle "swing" voters who are responsive to their liberal rhetoric of compassion (which is no longer anything but ideological cover for their real goal of power at any price). I believe Bush has found a way to defeat their politics, and one element of it is a degree of flexibility on principle where no very great consequences are at stake (in this case, because the Supreme Court will knock them out).