SC Slaps Down McCain-Feingold

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by red states rule, Jun 26, 2007.

  1. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Thank goodness for the SC Judges Pres Bush put on the court. Some sanity is now coming from the bench

    Free speech wins the day



    Court rules for funding of issue ads
    By Sean Lengell
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    June 26, 2007

    The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the First Amendment protects the rights of businesses and unions to fund advocacy ads in the closing months of an election, striking a blow to campaign-finance law and drawing praise from free-speech activists.

    The court's 5-4 decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads mentioning candidates within 30 days of the 2004 elections, despite restrictions imposed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act.

    "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

    Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined the majority.

    Justice David H. Souter wrote the minority opinion and was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens.

    "There's no doubt it's a win for grass-roots lobby groups, and it's also a win for First Amendment libertarians in general," said Mark Moller, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, which filed a court brief on behalf of the plaintiff, Wisconsin Right to Life.

    for the complete article
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/NATION/106260075/1001
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,518
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,928
    You mean the incumbant protection law is in danger?
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    We can only hope
     
  4. CockySOB
    Offline

    CockySOB VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    709
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Ratings:
    +108
    Well, only a portion of McCain-Feingold got slapped down. But it is a start.

    Ed Whelan of Captain's Quarters Blog has a good summary of the ruling.

    I wish Roberts and Alito would have gone for the wider ruling and helped get rid of this affront to free speech once and for all.
     
  5. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Its not freedom of speech, its the freedom to buy listeners.
     
  6. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Nobody is forced to listen - something libs seem to ignore
     
  7. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Who said anyone was forced to listen?
     
  8. CockySOB
    Offline

    CockySOB VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    709
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Ratings:
    +108
    How quaint. An opinion without any qualifications or clarifications. Perhaps not quaint, but pathetically droll.

    The ruling declared that issue ads such as from anti-abortion groups do not qualify as partisan political ads and as such qualify as free speech protected by the First Amendment. Partisan political ads are still restricted, prohibited in the final 60 days leading up to the general election.

    Frankly the entire McCain-Feingold/BCRA is a violation of the First Amendment IMO, but unfortunately SCOTUS did not choose to look at the Act in its totality. I don't know when we might see the Act return to SCOTUS, but I doubt it will be anytime in the next 10 years, which is a shame because as we've seen with all the 527's, the BCRA has enough holes in it to put a block of swiss cheese to shame.
     
  9. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Perhaps you failed to understand it because your cognitive capabilities are not up to snuff, but I felt it was quite clear and needed no clarification nor a qualification. But please, tell me what I needed to clarify. Was it perhaps the concept of buying listeners? Or perhaps the definition of speech?

    So you want the SCOTUS to find the entire act unconstitutional, but yet you whine because the act has holes in it. How terribly inconsistent of you.
     
  10. CockySOB
    Offline

    CockySOB VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    709
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Ratings:
    +108
    LOL! This from someone who fails to actually make a point and relies on some vague implication to support his/her thesis. How are you trying to connect the issue of free speech to the "buying listeners?" The connotation is that "buying listeners" is somehow a negative when in fact people purchasing airtime and broadcasting their view is the very essence of free speech. And as has been pointed out, the public is still free to change the channel or just not listen, which is the receiver-side of free speech. It sounds to me like you're anti-free speech if anything.

    This is not contradictory you moron. The act IS a violation of First Amendment rights and I hope it someday gets fully tested by SCOTUS. The act as it stands was nothing more than feel-good legislation which limits some speech as pertains to political campaigns, yet provides loopholes for people who can create 527's to continue unabated. Hence not only is the BCRA un-Constitutional IMO, but it is also an example of political pandering by politicians who want to make the public THINK they are actually doing something in Washington other than lining their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers.

    You might want to find the kiddies sandbox. You obviously aren't equipped for anything beyond "Dick and Jane" books.
     

Share This Page