Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation

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

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) --

[Don Joe]

"Why is it up to GW to veto this mess?"

Why should he sign a bill that he acknowledges has Constitutional problems?

[Don Joe]

"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."

It's like deja vu all over again. Dole Vs. Clinton was about giving Dole his crack at bat to fix his image, and now The First Amendment Vs. CFR is about giving Kenny Boy a chance to "rehabilitate his image".

The Country Club wing of the GOP will never pass up an opportunity to lose. But make no mistake, they will lose like gentlemen! Harumph!

[Don Joe]

Oh, don't be so cynical. Besides, "free speech" ain't all it's cracked up to be anyway. And regardless, no civilian can demonstrate a need to engage in that sort of speech, especially so close to an election!

The pen is mightier than the sword. It's been the height of irresponsibility to require licenses of firearm owners, yet allow anyone to speak willy nilly, without the least bit of concern about The Children.

[Don Joe]

"Or maybe you do."

Well, maybe someone does, but it ain't me babe, no, no, no, it ain't me babe. It would have to be someone who wanted failure as the desired outcome. And that ain't me.

[Don Joe]

I mean, how much of a waste is this? Instead of congress just doing the sensible and adhering to the constitution which says "Congress shall make NO law .... abridging freedom of speech", they do it anyway. Now taxpayers have to pay high-powered lawyers to defend this stupid law Not to mention the time of whoever has to testify, draw up the papers...on and on.

You sound as if you believe that the outcome is a given. I don't. The left fights dirty, real dirty. How will the justices "decide" if their cats start turning up dead like happened to Kathleen Willey? Will they resist "the message"?

Maybe you think they're above that sort of extortion. I don't know them, so I don't know whether they'd cave when faced with the sort of horrors the other side can pile on when it wants something done.

I am stunned by the number of people who really believe that "the Constitution is really clear on this" will mean anything if the animals who've clawed their way to the top decide to fight dirty.

[connectthedots]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the administration and Ted Olson are required to defend the provisions in the CFR bill that the administration believes are unconstitutional; or is he? It also appears to me that the USSC has no one to blame but themselves for having to hear this case. After all, it was the USSC that decided a line-item veto is unconstitutional which, in my opinion, was wrongly decided.

[harrowup]

The FEC will decide in the end...and that is sad.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I am totally confused by the responses here. Starr is a simply superb attorney. And it doesn't matter whether the Dems like him or not. This case will be decided in a courtroom, not in Congress or on the New York Times editorial page. And in case you hadn't noticed, Starr's record in courtrooms is superb. He won almost every shootout with the Clintons in that venue, and earned 14 convictions or guilty pleas in the Whitewater affair. I'm utterly amazed at how quickly the supposedly smart folks at Freep have forgotten this.

I quoted your entire post because I can't improve on it, I just want to emphasize certain points. I have not seen such widespread idiocy on this forum in the recent past.

WHO CARES what Starr's public reputation is, that is not relevant!
WHO CARES what the Demoncrats say, that is not relevant!
WHO CARES what the press says, that is not relevant!
WHO CARES how good a prosecutor Starr was, that is not relevant!
WHO CARES what Freepers say, WE are not relevant!

The only thing relevant is the abilities of Mr. Starr, and his team to argue before the US Federal Courts! I am prepared to listen to anyone who knows what he is talking about to argue about Mr. Starr's skills in this area. But there have been no competent postings so far!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

This is not the person I want to bring this case before the SCOTUS.

With all due respect, D.O., what are your qualifications to judge the skills of a federal apellate attorney?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

It will be interesting to see if the President sends Ted Olson to argue FOR the bill.
That is Olsen's job.

It will be interesting to see if Ted Olson would indeed do it.
That is Olsen's job.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

he's just too gentlemanly to be taken seriously in the rough-and-tumble of politics.

What you and the rest of the clueless ones on this forum don't get is that, once the President signs the bill, as I guess he will, this CEASES to be a political issue. It will be a legal issue only. Anyone who tries to make it a political issue before the SCOTUS will so prejudice his case before the Court that he might as well conceed.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

GW is a one term Pres.

So whom do you intend to support to succeed him? Daschle, Gore, Gebhardt, or the Hildebeast?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If Bush signs it, he should be impeached.

Tell you what, P., if Bush is impeached on this issue, I will give $1000 to FR, if he is not impeached on this issue by the end of his term you give $100 to FR. Deal?

[DoughtyOne]

Six years of observation of a man that spent 70 million dollars without even charging the President of the United States with perjury. You're absolutely right. I have no qualifications. Even I know that this nincompoop did nothing more than stiffle any bonified investigations in the death of Vince Foster, obstruction of justice with Lewinsky, Jordan and Tripp. There's more. Why bother?

After watching the fix is in gang in action for six years, I'll be darned if I want Starr inserting himself into another conservative issue to the detriment of the US.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I'm sorry I petitioned for John Ashcroft to become Attorney General.

What in the topic of this thread brings you to that conclusion?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

NOOOOOOOOOOO. Not Starr.

You are wrong Dan, he is the best possible choice. I am afraid that your attitude demonstrates that you too have fallen under the sway of Carvillism!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

What could be in this bill that Republicans think is so good?

For two things:

It raises the hard-money spending limits.
It requires better disclosure of contributions.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

they don't ever win.

Wrong, oh Carville follower, Starr (virtually) always wins in court.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Disgusting as he is, at least we'd have stood a chance of winning.

Since Starr has a much better record practising in front of the SCOTUS, why do you think this? Because James Carville told you?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

You're absolutely right. I have no qualifications.

'Nuff said.