[VRWC_minion]

If the supremes uphold this, then a prior deal has been struck and it will still be a restriction of free speech prior to a time certain of an election.

If they do then all Bush is "guilty" of is signing a bill that an overwhelming house majority supported. We want our politicians to represent us and Bush would be doing just that.

[poet]

How can you say they are representing us when they violate the constitution? You are trying to defend the indefensible just like the clinton lemmings.

[Aric2000]

If they do then all Bush is "guilty" of is signing a bill that an overwhelming house majority supported. We want our politicians to represent us and Bush would be doing just that.

What the devil are you talking about? THe bill is unconstitutional, PERIOD, it is so blatant it is unreal. If the Supremes actually let this thing go, then we are in REAL BIG trouble. If the constitution can be ignored because a majority thinks it OK, then we are not a Representative Republic, we are a Democracy, and that is just plain SICK!! THe constitution is the rule book, and it was created so that the majority wouldn't always get what they wanted, because sometimes what the majority wants is VERY VERY BAD!! And in this case, it is VERY obvious why the constitution was written as it was.

If the Superemes do uphold this piece of trash, the constitution is just so much toilet paper...