Given what Congressman Billybob has said about the bill, and based on what I have heard about the matup between the Common Cause types and McConnell's duo (Starr and Abrams) that occured recently, it seems that this bill is set to be voided for the most part (corporate and union contributions, the disclosure provisions, and the increase in hard-money limits being the only party that have a good chance of making it, IMHO). The provisions struck down are going to be PERMANENTLY killed.
The debate here seems to be one of how best to protect the constitution. The Supreme Court cannot give advisory opinions. Frankly, I think it's time to put a stake in the heart of this crap permanently. That meant this had to become law. After Enron, the only viable way for Bush to avoid a firestorm of lies and still kill this bill would be to sign it, and let SCOTUS handle it. And this is going to be killed permanently, not delayed by a veto.
A veto would only delay the inevitable until a Dem got elected in 2004 or 2008. But if SCOTUS strikes down stuff as unconstitutional, they will NEVER be able to bring it back barring a constitutional amendment.
We've got a President that thinks long-term, and this is a good thing, not a bad thing. That political capital is being saved for Supreme Court nominations and Social Security reform, as well as for if the going gets tough for the war. Let's give this guy the room to screw ALL the Dems, not just SOME of them.
You'll pardon me if I dismiss this as the same old hand-wringing and excuse-mongering that conservatives have been making for republican failures of principle for the last 3 or 4 decades.
You see the results.
Same old... Same old.
How silly of you. Let's stand up and veto it; then we can debate it for the rest of our lives. Not to mention giving the Dems AND the press a huge issue.
I wish that were true, but it just isn't. Supreme courts change,
and decisions are revisited and overturned.
We conservatives pray for Roe to be overturned, don't we?