Kenneth Starr to lead legal team challenging campaign finance legislation

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

[Fish out of Water]

index bump

[Cogadh na Sith]

Hey, the media got this bill passed and they have the most to gain.

It's a total mistake. I'l bet the democraps are laughing themselves silly....

[RAT Patrol]

Nothing against the honorable Judge Starr but what a PR nightmare. It is something to change the focus at any time, any place the media chooses. DUH!

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Kenneth Starr may be a fine constitutional lawyer, but CFR is about politics and politics ain't bean bag.

[Sabertooth]

Just a moment folks. This is actually Starr's area of expertise if I recall his background correctly.

Doesn't matter. It'll be another "VRWC," and every Republican will catch flack.

[Ken H]

I've read over and over on these threads that Ted Olsen would go before the USSC and argue that CFR was not constitutional and would kill it once and for all.

The article says that the DOJ will argue for CFR.

This is not good, if true.

[newgeezer]

Ken Starr is an EXCELLENT constitutional attorney.

I suspect a lot of knee-jerk naysayers will be pleasantly surprised when this is over.

[DLfromthedesert]

Yeah, what about Ted Olson. Bush should DEMAND that he take the case.

[duck soup]

Valley Hospital Association, Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice (11/21/97), 948 P 2d 963

James Bopp was one of the attorneys that handled the case. The case was won by the other side.

[DJ88]

Notice this little quip from Daschle?

"But he added there is a clause in the legislation to ensure that the rest of the bill is unaffected if one part of it is struck down in the courts."

Hmmm....hmm.hmm.hmm.

[TBP]

Remember that Linda Tripp told Ken Starr that she had evidence directly linking the Klintoons to Filegate and a the finance scandal, but Starr refused to ask her about it and then told Congress that there was no evidence to implicate them in those scandals.

[father_elijah]

A-men!

[OldFriend]

Would you rather they hired David Boies?

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

My gut reaction was similar to yours, but Ken Starr did have a fine reputation before he was demonized by the bubba boys. However this will be a (God, I can't believe I am using this word) diverse legal group with strange bedfellows. Maybe the best from all sides.

[RAT Patrol]

Howlin, I don't know how you are staying calm through all of this but, ....yes, star is wonderful. BUT THE MEDIA HAS AMMO OUT THE WAZOO. All they have to do if something is not going their way is DIVERT ATTENTION. Start talking about Starr (now relevant) but in the past, all the crap they used to say about him. (not relevant)

[eureka!]

"I suspect a lot of knee-jerk naysayers will be pleasantly surprised when this is over."

Me too.

[Askel5]

Given Starr's protections of the Republican Party during impeachment ...

(by focusing down his million-dollar mound of evidence to a glob of DNA-specific semen on the sink -- AND -- by his decision to prosecute a case of perjury re: the President's "personal life" ... thereby opening the door to BOTH George H. Bush's and Bob "Down Boy" Dole's protestations that actual removal on these grounds would sully the semen-stained office)

... I doubt very seriously Starr's anything but precisely the team-player the two-party Corporation needs to protect their vital interests where "corporate governance", free speech and the individual's -- much less the Third Party's -- ability to participate in elections are concerned.

[ThinkDifferent]

Kathleen Sullivan should do a good job here. She's argued against encryption regulations and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (aka Fair Use Elimination Act) and appears to have a much better grasp of the Bill of Rights than most of our our so-called leaders.

[VRWC_minion]

Politically big mistake. Legally good move. Starr is good lawyer.

[RAT Patrol]

The legality of campaign finance legislation has been an issue since the last effort to limit campaign spending in 1974. In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could set limits on contributions, but that limits on spending violated free speech rights.

And the spin begins.