Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation

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

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[rwfromkansas]

Oh give me a freaking break. The justices don't care who is arguing; they care what the arguments are.

[Rome2000]

The SCOTUS will find a way to look at the facts of the case regardless of who is making it.

After all, they aren't the Florida "Supreme" Court.

[deport]

Facts mean little to people with an agenda.

Now look out or you’ll set him off and we’ll have fact after fact listed for page after page….. We’ll be all facted out.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[signulex]

I am sure the McConnell team will do fine, and I agree with those who have pointed out that this is an actual court case, not something where we have to wait for the spineless RINOS in the Senate to convict. Ken Starr's addition to the team will give the RATS some fuel, but who the hell in the general public cares...in fact, one of our best arguments against the bill all along is that no one in the general public gives a flying f***k. Polls that ask people to list their priorities show that people consistently list CFR at the very bottom...will they care about Terry McAuliffe rehashing Starr attacks on Hardball? It doesn't matter in the eyes of the court. The best strategy here is to assemble the best legal team available...as has been pointed out, Starr is a fantastic constitutional attorney. McConnell knows what he is doing on this front, it is his signature issue

[mrsmith]

Starr has proven that he presents the arguments they like.
He has a winning record in the Supreme Court, on difficult Constitutional issues, that recommends him highly for such an important case.

[Brimack34]

Let us let FOX Boxing settle this? Why not fight it out somewhere else and stop wasting our money?????

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. Nice comments.

[Fred Mertz]

When I saw this headline, my heart sunk.

Starr reminds me of John Danforth of Waco infamy. Very bright and impressive men with whitewash missions. We're doomed.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I think this is an indication of a slam dunk.

While my first reaction was the same as many have expressed(such a horrible PR move that I wondered if it was Trent Lott's idea, remember that hat with a 10' feather he wore to the Bush ranch?), I think there may be more to this then just turning to a good constitutional lawyer. If Mitch thinks this case is a slam dunk, then it could also be a move to not only rehabilitate Starr's image, but to connect CFR to Clinton's image.

Ya know, there are number of folks in the general public who would view impeachment quite differently had they known then what they know now(pardons, etc.) So if Starr wins a big USSC case with this, it continues the rewrite of the Clinton history in the public mind. But beyond that, it could also be an attempt to connect CFR and the Senate to the reckless disregard of the law and Constitution so central to the Clinton Administration, i.e. the corruption. Thus adding to the argument that CFR actually increases corruption, instead of its purported opposite effect. While I think the latter idea isn't likely to work with the general public, it may work on a more subtle level.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Forgot to add, perhaps this also indicates that Starr hasn't been written off forever. If the politics break a certain way the rest of this decade, he still may wind up with a high judiciary position. It all depends on how far the public view of the impeachment saga evolves to the truth. Rehabilitation of his image may aid that.

[Yellow Rose of Texas]

Heads up folks pease! I realize that congress should know the Constitution, especially the bill of Rights, but it seems they just keep passing laws and letting the courts declare them unconstitutional.

Rose

[Askel5]

Bmp.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Has anybody actually read the language of the bill? Arguing a case before the Supreme Court is steeped in tradition and decorum, the Justices know the bona fides of those appearing before them and Ken Starr has excellent credentials. I thought this was a deft move on McConnell's part. I just wish that McCain and Feingold were the ones forced to argue their own case. Is everyone working pro bono or has there been a fund established?

[signulex]

The lawyers (at least on the anti-CFR side) are working pro-bono because the bill creates an exception to law which allows a Senator to receive unlimited pro bono legal assistance without it being considered a gift

[WOSG]

forget about Clinton. he is history. Starr is on board because he is a good lawyer, not to draw any connections. and from the flak, the 'connections' are an unhelpful distraction.

The good news is that at least portions of this bill are so blatantly unconstitutional, at least a partial victory for GOOD GUYS is assured. If USSC cant stand up for obvious 1st amendment violations it is bag-packing time.

But I dont really know, Diddle E. Squat.

[WOSG]

YOU ARE KIDDING, RIGHT??????

I guess you are also aware of John McCain getting an exception for native American tribes, who are big contributors to him.... I kid you not.

This CFR bill keeps smelling worse and worse.

[P-Marlowe]

Actually this is a good choice. After Starr proves that the bill is unconstitutional he can start impeachment proceedings against Bush for violating his oath to uphold and defend the constitution.

If Bush signs it, he should be impeached. This is a full blown attack on the Bill of Rights. It must NOT be tolerated.