[the bottle let me down]

I'm not sure what disappoints me more .. the fact that Bush appears ready to sign this steaming pile of garbage or that Ashcroft will run intereference for him, if the media can be believed.

The problem is that Bush will sign it. Once the law has been signed, the executive branch, i.e., the DOJ, is bound to make any non-frivolous argument to stop the Court from overturning it. Ashcroft is doing his job. Bush, on the other hand, should veto the bill and is not obeying his oath of office.

[Nashvol]

Bush is going to sign it because by doubling the maximum hard money limit, he will double his war chest in 2004 without finding a single new contributor.

[B. A. Conservative]

Ashcroft's job is not to do what he is told. His job is to uphold the law and that includes enforcing the Constitution. He should be the one bringing this case to the Court, not McConnell.

[Congressman Billybob]

It is wrong to state that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are required to defend any federal law which is challenged as unconstitutional. On at least five occasions a President has instructed the legal represenatives of the US NOT to defend a particular law that is under sttack. President Bush can do this, with this law, now.

Neither General Ashcroft nor General Olson should be required to defend a law that I'm reasonably certain neither one approves of or considers to be constitutional. There will be plenty of lawyers in the case on the other side, representing People for the (Un)American Way, for instance, who will mount a full defense of the law.

Congressman Billybob

Last 2 days: "The Truman Factor."