Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation

Associated Press ^ | 3-21-02 | JIM ABRAMS

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[Howlin]

Bump for a sanity post!

[deport]

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who sponsored the campaign finance bill in the Senate with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he believes the measure protects First Amendment rights. He said they will assemble their own legal team, ,b>and he has Attorney General John Ashcroft's assurance that the Justice Department would defend the statute's constitutionality.

And from the following:

Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General

---



 
 
     The major function of the Solicitor General's Office is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court.  Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office.  The United States is involved in about two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year.  

     The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court.  The Office's staff attorneys participate in preparing the petitions, briefs, and other papers filed by the government in its Supreme Court litigation.  The Solicitor General personally assigns the oral argument of government cases in the Supreme Court.  Those cases not argued by the Solicitor General personally are assigned either to an attorney in the Office or to another government attorney.  The vast majority of government cases are argued by the Solicitor General or by one of the Office's other attorneys.  

     Another function of the Office is to review all cases decided adversely to the government in the lower courts to determine whether they should be appealed and, if so, what position should be taken.  The Solicitor General also determines whether the government will participate as an amicus curiae, or intervene, in cases in any appellate court. 

 
 

DOJ Home

OSG Home

---

Well we might see Starr battle Olsen......

[ventana]

As to your comment about Ken Starr: He was not there all the time. Boy, no kidding. V's wife.

[DJ88]

I think you misread my post, linn. I was saying that BILL CLINTON made it about sex, NOT Kenneth Starr. And the media took off on KENNETH STARR.

What I meant when I said I wish people would settle down and THINK, I was talking about some of the posters here, and what they've said ABOUT Kenneth Starr.

I hope I clarified that for you.

[deport]

Know what I MEAN?

No, do you?

[IVote2]

I'm reading these replies and thinking how effective the politics of personal destruction really are. A fine man, Clarence Thomas is still being trashed and slighted to this day. Starr was subjected to some of the worst the Clinton machine could throw out. He also had to endure many death threats. I wonder how we will ever find people willing to go against liberals if we continue to accept the demonization of qualified people.

Ken Starr was and IS an excellent lawyer. I'm sure that the members of the Supreme Court know this.

Sorry for my rant..

[CedarDave]

This is just sickening. Our own Ted Olson being forced to defend a patently unconstitutional bill before the US Supreme Court. And all because the President, who Ted helped elect through his Supreme Court arguements, has abandoned (or most certainly will abandon) his sworn oath of office in search of a political consensus that he does not need. I would hope that the White House would at least have the decency to appoint a junior lawyer to this case and save a very honorable man from having to fall on his own sword.

[deport]

appoint a junior lawyer to this case

Hmmmmmm. ... reckon they could find one just out of law school?

[mwl1]

I fail to understand the anti-Starr hysteria. At this point in time, CFR opponents have already lost in the media and on the politics. Therefore, we need the best constitutional attorneys in America to strike down this bill. Ken Starr meets that test and is very adept in federal courtrooms. My guess is that Ted Olsen does not want to go up against Starr & team, and the Administration might just send in lesser players to signal it doesn't give a damn if the Court rules this legislative monstrosity unconstitutional.

The politics are over, folks. We need good attorneys now. Ken Starr is about the best constitutional attorney there is.

[CedarDave]

Maybe someone who just passed the bar exam (after his third try!!). LOL

[dodger]

This may not be great "PR", but Ken Starr gave Congress everything -- EVERYTHING -- it needed to convict and remove WJC.

Starr did not piddle things away much less conspire to fold the case -- the Democrats gleefully wallowed in JURY NULLIFICATION.

The long & short of the Impeachment of WJC: Ken Starr acquitted himself well whereas WJC & the Donkeywipes in Congress did not.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Talk about deja vu all over again. I guess he plans to muck up the job for a couple of years and then hand it over to Robert Ray, who will complete the surrender.

PS - I thought Elmer Fudd was going to be Dean of Pepperidge Farm University or something?

[WOSG]

Why is Ashcroft going to defend this piece of crap legislation anyway? I don't get it.

During the nomination hearings, the Demoncrats put Ashcroft's nuts in a vice and made him promise to defend and enforce Federal laws. Senate Rats were worried Ashcroft would renege on enforcing laws he didnt like (namely cr*p like using RICO against prolife groups, Aff. Action etc.) ... so, Ashcroft has and will be defending some silly stuff. hopefully USSC will see past it.

BTW, Starr is a great choice as lead plaintiff on this. He will fare far better than he did on Whitewater. Only better choice is Ted Olsen and he is busy. :-)

[dodger]

The politics are over, folks. We need good attorneys now. Ken Starr is about the best constitutional attorney there is.

Bingo !!

[IVote2]

What does this have to do with Campaign Finance Reform??

[CedarDave]

CFR opponents have already lost in the media and on the politics.

We WOULDN'T LOSE on the politics if Bush had the b*lls to stand on his own promise NOT to allow a corrupt CFR bill to become law. I have read and re-read his statement of March 2001 where he set forth the standards for an acceptable CFR bill, one where constitutional principles are not thrown out as in the current abomination. As I said above, I am just sick about this, in addition to being very angry about his likely approval of CFR. My future support for this man is likely to be lukewarm, at best.

[CyberAnt]

I agree - all I thought of when I saw the title of this thread was: "oooh, give me a break".

[WOSG]

I'm reading these replies and thinking how effective the politics of personal destruction really are.

I agree. Life is not a Hollywood movie. sometimes the good guy doesnt win. In the end, the Republic endured. Truly unfair to take it out on Starr. He did his best in a decent and honorable way but was not onmipotent and not perfect. In this arena, Starr will fair better.

[eeriegeno]

Old, The big mistake was for the House to pass this bill and for GW to sign it. Are they that stupid as to pass a bill that will knowingly be declared unconstitutional? GW is a one term Pres.