SC Slaps Down McCain-Feingold

[red states rule]

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You mean the incumbant protection law is in danger?

 

[red states rule]

You mean the incumbant protection law is in danger?

We can only hope

 

[CockySOB]

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.

 

[Larkinn]

Its not freedom of speech, its the freedom to buy listeners.

 

[red states rule]

Its not freedom of speech, its the freedom to buy listeners.

Nobody is forced to listen - something libs seem to ignore

 

[Larkinn]

Nobody is forced to listen - something libs seem to ignore

Who said anyone was forced to listen?

 

[CockySOB]

Its not freedom of speech, its the freedom to buy listeners.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

How quaint. An opinion without any qualifications or clarifications. Perhaps not quaint, but pathetically droll.

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?

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.

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.

 

[CockySOB]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

It is a negative because then speech is not free, rather it relies on the financial status of the speaker.

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.

The public is not, however, free to recieve the speech of those who cannot afford to speak. I know you love our political system being run by money, but some of us aren't so fond of it.

It sounds to me like you're anti-free speech if anything.

Thats because you are an idiot.

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.

I didn't say contradictory, I said inconsistent. Moron.

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

I found it already. It was easy to spot, all I had to do was look for you.

 

[CockySOB]

It is a negative because then speech is not free, rather it relies on the financial status of the speaker.

Ah, so if for example a gay rights advocacy group wanted to run political advertisements in the days running up to an election you'd want them kept off the air as well, despite the fact they might have organized and gathered enough financing to put their message promoting civil unions/gay marriage as a viable societal construct in the public view? Do you hate homosexuals or something?

Frankly this ruling not only helps issues like anti-abortion/pro-choice advocacy groups keep their message in the public eye prior to an election, but other groups as well. But then I guess you would want to pick and choose which messages you approve of and which you don't, right? How very fascist of you, Larkinn....

The public is not, however, free to recieve the speech of those who cannot afford to speak.

Right. Donate your time and money to be the advocate for those people. Pay for their television and radio time. Pay for the radio station to broadcast their opinions and thoughts. Just try not to steal money from the Boys & Girls Clubs this time around, please.

I know you love our political system being run by money, but some of us aren't so fond of it.

Tell me boy genius, exactly how did McCain-Feingold do anything to prevent our political system from being run by money? That's part of my problem with it (the myriad of holes part, just so you don't get confused). Are you a proponent of thorwing money at a problem without caring if it is being spent effectively? Sure seems like it if you support the BCRA. That would mean you're a fan of rampant government spending and waste, using your own twisted logic.

Thats because you are an idiot.

Coming from someone of your limited capacity to form a coherent argument, I guess that's a compliment.

I didn't say contradictory, I said inconsistent. Moron.

Per the American Heritage Dictionary

in·con·sis·tent (nkn-sstnt)
adj.

1. Displaying or marked by a lack of consistency, especially:

a. Not regular or predictable; erratic: inconsistent behavior.
b. Lacking in correct logical relation; contradictory: inconsistent statements.
c. Not in agreement or harmony; incompatible: an intersection inconsistent with the road map.​

2. Mathematics Not solvable for the unknowns by the same set of values. Used of two or more equations or inequalities.​

Or perhaps you'd prefer swotting form Roget's Thesaurus

Main Entry: inconsistent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: contradictory
Synonyms: at odds, at variance, capricious, catch-22, changeable, conflicting, contrary, discordant, discrepant, dissonant, erratic, fickle, illogical, in conflict, incoherent, incompatible, incongruent, incongruous, inconstant, irreconcilable, irregular, lubricious, mercurial, temperamental, uncertain, unpredictable, unstable, variable, warring
Antonyms: consistent, predictable​

Perhaps you would like to brush up on your English before trying to teach it to another person.

I found it already. It was easy to spot, all I had to do was look for you.

LOL! What a moron! You get your ass handed to you and then resort to deflection and sophistry to try to win an argument. Sounds like another pissant I remember from my days elsewhere.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The government can only screw things up.

Ah, so if for example a gay rights advocacy group wanted to run political advertisements in the days running up to an election you'd want them kept off the air as well, despite the fact they might have organized and gathered enough financing to put their message promoting civil unions/gay marriage as a viable societal construct in the public view? Do you hate homosexuals or something?

Frankly this ruling not only helps issues like anti-abortion/pro-choice advocacy groups keep their message in the public eye prior to an election, but other groups as well. But then I guess you would want to pick and choose which messages you approve of and which you don't, right? How very fascist of you, Larkinn....

Right. Donate your time and money to be the advocate for those people. Pay for their television and radio time. Pay for the radio station to broadcast their opinions and thoughts. Just try not to steal money from the Boys & Girls Clubs this time around, please.


Tell me boy genius, exactly how did McCain-Feingold do anything to prevent our political system from being run by money? That's part of my problem with it (the myriad of holes part, just so you don't get confused). Are you a proponent of thorwing money at a problem without caring if it is being spent effectively? Sure seems like it if you support the BCRA. That would mean you're a fan of rampant government spending and waste, using your own twisted logic.

Coming from someone of your limited capacity to form a coherent argument, I guess that's a compliment.


Per the American Heritage Dictionary

in·con·sis·tent (nkn-sstnt)
adj.

1. Displaying or marked by a lack of consistency, especially:

a. Not regular or predictable; erratic: inconsistent behavior.
b. Lacking in correct logical relation; contradictory: inconsistent statements.
c. Not in agreement or harmony; incompatible: an intersection inconsistent with the road map.​

2. Mathematics Not solvable for the unknowns by the same set of values. Used of two or more equations or inequalities.​

Or perhaps you'd prefer swotting form Roget's Thesaurus

Main Entry: inconsistent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: contradictory
Synonyms: at odds, at variance, capricious, catch-22, changeable, conflicting, contrary, discordant, discrepant, dissonant, erratic, fickle, illogical, in conflict, incoherent, incompatible, incongruent, incongruous, inconstant, irreconcilable, irregular, lubricious, mercurial, temperamental, uncertain, unpredictable, unstable, variable, warring
Antonyms: consistent, predictable​

Perhaps you would like to brush up on your English before trying to teach it to another person.


LOL! What a moron! You get your ass handed to you and then resort to deflection and sophistry to try to win an argument. Sounds like another pissant I remember from my days elsewhere.

 

[red states rule]

It is a negative because then speech is not free, rather it relies on the financial status of the speaker.



The public is not, however, free to recieve the speech of those who cannot afford to speak. I know you love our political system being run by money, but some of us aren't so fond of it.



Thats because you are an idiot.



I didn't say contradictory, I said inconsistent. Moron.



I found it already. It was easy to spot, all I had to do was look for you.

To the left, Moveon,org should be able to run their ads, but groups like the Swift Boat Vets For Truth need to be taken off the air

 

[red states rule]

Who said anyone was forced to listen?

If people have a choice to listen - why the hell are libs so upset?

 

[red states rule]

The Roberts court

Three Supreme Court rulings this week show the difference President Bush's two pivotal court appointments have made. It is easy to lose sight of the difference in the current political climate. With the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito in 2005 to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, a conservative majority became a working reality on a great many current and future issues. This dividend of the 2004 presidential election — and, we should mention, this dividend of the conservative revolt against the nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005 — is likely to rank as Mr. Bush's most lasting achievement once his eight years in the White House are concluded.

Each ruling in its own fractious way — Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation and Morse v. Frederick — demonstrates a conservative jurisprudence which could not have come into existence in the pre-Samuel Alito Supreme Court. It is not the conservative jurisprudence of Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. But then, even if not as bold or ideological as many conservatives would prefer, it is markedly different from what preceded it, in a good way, and the strident, even angry dissents from the court's liberal justices confirm that.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070627/EDITORIAL/106270009/1013

 

[CockySOB]

If people have a choice to listen - why the hell are libs so upset?

Because the left believes that people should be forced to listen to their minority viewpoint in direct contradiction of the First Amendment. That's why the left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - it's the only way they can hope to get their message to the masses. Most people by choice, will avoid the message of the far left and the left has finally figured that out.

BTW, this ruling gives me hope that should the Fairness Doctrine ever make it back into the halls of Congress that SCOTUS might move to protect the First Amendment and strike the Doctrine down. It all depends on how far the left wants to push the issue.

 

[red states rule]

Because the left believes that people should be forced to listen to their minority viewpoint in direct contradiction of the First Amendment. That's why the left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - it's the only way they can hope to get their message to the masses. Most people by choice, will avoid the message of the far left and the left has finally figured that out.

BTW, this ruling gives me hope that should the Fairness Doctrine ever make it back into the halls of Congress that SCOTUS might move to protect the First Amendment and strike the Doctrine down. It all depends on how far the left wants to push the issue.

Libs are a strange bunch

Nobody is forced to listen to Rush or Sean. Nobody holds a gun to anyones head and forces them to tune into Fox News

However, when people choose NOT to listen to Air America, or run ads AGAINST Dem candidates - libs have a meltdown

To liberals, since a majority of people make the wrong choices. they are to stupid to make the correct choice - so the government must make their choices for them

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Libs are a strange bunch

Nobody is forced to listen to Rush or Sean. Nobody holds a gun to anyones head and forces them to tune into Fox News

However, when people choose NOT to listen to Air America, or run ads AGAINST Dem candidates - libs have a meltdown

To liberals, since a majority of people make the wrong choices. they are to stupid to make the correct choice - so the government must make their choices for them

Liberals are just "smarter" and more "compassionate" then us dumb ass racist, selfish and ignorant non liberals. They would , if they could take away any right or privalege we are promised in that effort to "protect" us from ourselves. They do not lose elections, they are stolen from them. Laws do not apply to them because those laws were meant to protect the idiots, not the "enlightened". Voting is only good when a majority agree with them. You want to see this country become a dictatorship? Vote in a Liberal and give him or her a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. You can kiss your freedoms goodbye if that happens.

 

[red states rule]

Liberals are just "smarter" and more "compassionate" then us dumb ass racist, selfish and ignorant non liberals. They would , if they could take away any right or privalege we are promised in that effort to "protect" us from ourselves. They do not lose elections, they are stolen from them. Laws do not apply to them because those laws were meant to protect the idiots, not the "enlightened". Voting is only good when a majority agree with them. You want to see this country become a dictatorship? Vote in a Liberal and give him or her a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. You can kiss your freedoms goodbye if that happens.

I find it amusing libs rant how the "Christian Right" wants to impose their values on America, but they want government to impose liberal values on America because the folks won't do what liberals consider the right things