Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE SUPREME COURT'S 1ST AMENDMENT ARROGANCE
NY POST ^ | December 12, 2003 | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Posted on 12/12/2003 7:11:53 AM PST by Liz

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:17:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Not only did Bush sign this unconstitutional legislation into law, he acknowledged that he thought the legislation was unconstitutional. But instead of exercising his constitutional duty to kill the legislation, Bush deferred his authority to the courts. Don't like the ruling? Blame the president. Sal Repper Doylestown, Pa.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News
KEYWORDS: mccainfeingold

1 posted on 12/12/2003 7:11:54 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Liz
Just imagine what the O'Connor Court would do to a Second Amendment case. Brrr...
2 posted on 12/12/2003 7:14:12 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Good to know some people are paying attention out there!
3 posted on 12/12/2003 7:17:18 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Can we really blame it all on O'Conner. I mean I know people feel betrayed by a woman appointed by a Republican, but still, what about the other four idiots? That people like these could rise to such heights in the political realm and NOT know what they are doing to the freedoms we, and they, enjoy is mind-boggling.
4 posted on 12/12/2003 7:18:45 AM PST by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Imagine that! The public knows better that the supreme court what the Constitution says. It's high time to remove some of those idiots!
5 posted on 12/12/2003 7:19:50 AM PST by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Yeah, it's a bitch when the Supremes take a position ya disagree with. Why, can you imagine, I can remember when they actually seemed to believe that the 2nd Amendment was a "collective right" (as if such a thing existed in America).
6 posted on 12/12/2003 7:22:55 AM PST by Kenton (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
O'Connor is getting worse and worse every year, but the absolute worst Republican appointment on the court is David Souter. He hasn't voted on the right side in any case since he was appointed.
7 posted on 12/12/2003 7:27:47 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
The difference is O'connor knows better. I hope she suffers dearly for this decision for the rest of her days on this earth. Preferably a long life full of strokes and colostomy bags.

I dont' want to wish bad things on anyone, but damned it we are talking about OUR WAY OF LIFE HERE.

May the old turncoat suffer in the history books with the likes of Bennedict Arnold, Rosenburgs and Aldrich Ames.
8 posted on 12/12/2003 7:29:12 AM PST by Area51 (Big time RINO hunter!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liz
INTREP - IMPEACH Ginsburg, O'Conner, etc - for violation of the Constitution (ignoring it and considering International Law instead)
9 posted on 12/12/2003 7:35:55 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Our founding, which shed blood and used bullets so that we might have free speech and ballots, is being subverted. Now, because of the judicial arrogance and re-writing of our constitution, we may yet have to revert to old methods to re-claim that which is being taken away, again. A very sad day for the Constitution and Americans who understand what they have had and what they are losing.
10 posted on 12/12/2003 7:37:14 AM PST by MarkT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
If she were a democrat the Congress would impeach her, but since she is a moderate republican, a nice way of saying an acceptable scum bag liberal, left wing extremist, the Congress will leave her lone and wait for an opportunity to make her chief justice.

Afterall, wouldn't want to upset chaffeee, collins and snowe.

11 posted on 12/12/2003 7:40:24 AM PST by thiscouldbemoreconfusing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The next amendment to the constitution should be one that calls for the direct election of the Supremes.

It is intolerable that these folks have life-tenure based on a political appointment, and are never accountable to anyone.

They now rule the country and not a soul cares.
12 posted on 12/12/2003 7:40:43 AM PST by xzins (All I want for Christmas is a Calvinist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
A lot of people deserve blame for this, including President Bush, Karl Rove, every member of Congress who voted for it, and all five justices who upheld it.

O'Connor is getting special blame because she should know better. President Bush (stupidly) signed the bill, probably assuming O'Connor would join the three judges who almost always obey the Constitution (Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist) and the one who sometimes does (Kennedy) in striking the bill down. After all, she joined those four in stopping the Demonrat effort to steal the Florida vote in the 2000 election.

However, since then she's moved sharply leftward. Her votes used to be erratic, meaning about half the time she was right. But it's almost as if she feels she needs to "atone" for her vote to help President Bush, which infuriated the radical left. Ever since then, she's been a reliable leftist vote, not the swing vote she once was. She appears to want to be the deciding vote in a ton of 5-4 leftist rulings during her final years on the court so the press will coo over her when she retires. Her behavior also makes it harder to replace her with a good judge, because the left will be adamant that all those 5-4 leftist rulings be protected, so they'll go to the wall to prevent anyone from being confirmed who would reverse them.

The lefties are all whining that Zell Miller "betrayed" them. But he's an elective official who is accountable to his constituents and who has written an entire book explaining his views. We Republicans are constantly betrayed by judges we put our trust in with lifetime appointments. They then turn on us once in power, for nothing more than an occasional positive write-up in the New York Times or invitations to the most elite cocktail parties. Warren, Brennan, Powell, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, O'Connor, and sometimes Kennedy. We've been betrayed over and over.
13 posted on 12/12/2003 7:41:20 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
This is not the court to hear any RKBA questions.
14 posted on 12/12/2003 7:46:45 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
[P]robably assuming O'Connor would join the three judges who almost always obey the Constitution (Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist) and the one who sometimes does (Kennedy) in striking the bill down.

What is the line about assumptions? They make an a** ... You nailed it on the justices.

But it's almost as if she feels she needs to "atone" for her vote to help President Bush, which infuriated the radical left. Ever since then, she's been a reliable leftist vote, not the swing vote she once was.

Bingo again. I think she's been leaning to the dark side for a while.

15 posted on 12/12/2003 7:47:15 AM PST by 4CJ ('Scots vie 4 tavern juices' - anagram by paulklenk, 22 Nov 2003)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The Supreme Court's decision was entirely predictable. Myself and others pointed out that the chances were very good that SCOTUS would uphold this law, so George Bush should veto the legislation. The mob on this site that gushes over the man's every word would not hear of it.

Bush's actions in this case need to be clarified. He signed the bill into law because he favors government power over individual liberty. His actions were not a "gamble" or a "tactic." They were calculated and intentional. The tactic was his faux opposition to the legislation and the throwaway line about "doubts about the law's constitutionality." He does not actually have any principled objection to the law.
16 posted on 12/12/2003 7:50:08 AM PST by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
"Can we really blame it all on O'Conner. I mean I know people feel betrayed by a woman appointed by a Republican"



Why bring gender onto it? Republicans would vote tomorrow for a Maggie Thatcher for President!
Besides, O'Conner is only one of two women placed on the supreme court by Republicans....you forgot about Souter:)
17 posted on 12/12/2003 7:50:45 AM PST by international american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liz
This is not a partisan issue. It is a freedom issue. This ruling muzzles all Americans except those individuals wealthy enough to buy broadcast time. And even they have to be careful as there are provisions of this thing that put restrictions on them as well.

The point is that now our rulers have stated openly that the law of the land is what THEY say it is. It is no longer measured by the plain language of the Constitution
but by the opinions, whims and current political fads held by the people who rule this nation. The partisan bitterness that infects both left and right will only intensify as both sides see that power now means they can impose whatever they want unfettered by any restrictions save those of self-interest.

This is not the start of a trip down the *slippery slope*. We are getting awfully close to the bottom of that slope. More and more people are going to come to realize this as over time they find themselves on the receiving end of repressive laws and regulations. Those who, at the moment, are happy because this ruling suits them fine should stop and consider that now all it takes to reverse all they hold dear is a change in personnel. And that change will inevitably occur.
18 posted on 12/12/2003 7:52:30 AM PST by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
"I think she's been leaning to the dark side for a while."

If Bush had any advisors around him that were worth a damn, he would have known there was little chance of the court doing the right thing.

19 posted on 12/12/2003 7:53:59 AM PST by international american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
Maybe the blame should go to where it really belongs, the President, who for political expediency, did not veto it when he had the chance and the people, way too many on this site, that supported that inaction. Many of us were concerned when this travesty was passed and held out hope that our "conservative" President would veto it, but it was considered by his handlers at the time to be a good political move to sign it and then let the SC court strike it down. A win-win situation it seemed. Well I guess those of us who did not trust the Supremes to interpret the Constitution correctly have sadly been proven right again.

But it's all good. The Pres made some big political points with people who won't vote for him anyway so the 1st Amendment be damned. The Patriot Act and it's offspring have trashed the 4th and 5th Amendments. And nobody has paid any attention to the 9th and 10th since the Civil War. So now if would we could just get 'W' on the right or should I say left political side of that pesky 2nd Amendment and get that sent to Miss Sandra and her friends we could really get power away from the peasants and back into the hands of those truly who deserve it. King George, that would be the III of England, must have a big smile on his face wherever he is.
20 posted on 12/12/2003 7:56:55 AM PST by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Liz
As bad as soft money is, such capricious tinkering with our Constitution is even worse.

Burning the village to save it.

21 posted on 12/12/2003 7:57:41 AM PST by StriperSniper (The "mainstream" media is a left bank oxbow lake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The Supreme Court's ruling can be viewed as an extension of Oliver Wendell Holmes ruling that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. That was a public safety issue to prevent panic and a good call.


Not exactly. Yelling "fire" is only prohibited when the cry is FALSE. There is no restriction on yelling it when it is reasonably believed to be true.

Sandra Dee just decided that we can't say the TRUTH about incumbent politicians pre-election.
22 posted on 12/12/2003 8:22:14 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Police officials view armed citizens like teachers union bosses view homeschoolers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister
Imagine that! The public knows better that the supreme court what the Constitution says.

Like Walter Williams said " The Constitution ain't written in Hieroglyphics "

In addition the very reason the First was written was to protect poltical type speech and press not PORNOGRAPHY
23 posted on 12/12/2003 8:23:25 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Exactly!
24 posted on 12/12/2003 8:32:56 AM PST by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
This is exactly the situation our "betters" want in the realm of politics. Unwilling to vote FOR anyone, driven to vote against those, that our leaders spend billions villifying as below human and evil. We sell out our GOD given rights as human beings, and waste our votes, not in joyous celebration of our society, and sweet anticipation of wonderful things to come, but fearful that those we elect, will take our freedoms away.

We as Americans have lost what Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and so many others gifted to us, our Republic. So many have beaten the drums, and told us of how they would not allow this to happen. They would take up arms to defend their honor and the constitution of the United States of America they have sworn to defend. Truth is, noone will do it, they watch as the Supreme Court takes the nation away from the people, and wait for an overt move to disarm them. Too late, will we realize that the fight should have been years ago.

Our country and our freedoms, should not depend on who is in office. We as a people have allowed the Congress to shrug off the responsibility of keeping the Executive and the Judicial in check. Cheered when a President of our own party, increases the size and scope of this behemoth govt, booed when the opposition party does the same. Not thinking that the only difference between the two, is party affiliation, and personality.

Now we are looking at a Court, that says pornography is free speech, and political discourse is not.

The Minutemen would not wait, the march on DC Concord would have already begun. It is no coincidence that our borders are unguarded, and the young Patriots are stationed in Iraq, S. Korea or Germany.

If our leaders were serious about this war on terror, the borders would be secure. If they wanted to end the bleeding in Iraq, they would string wire around the trouble zones, announce terms of surrender, then level the area. Preferably after those willing came out. Instead, things are left in limbo. If the problems were resolved, people at home would no longer fear, and want govt to scale back. But this beast feeds on fear, it grows on suspicions, and there is no shortage of these negative emotions going around. The political beasts of America thrive on this climate.

25 posted on 12/12/2003 8:49:13 AM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thiscouldbemoreconfusing
If she were a democrat the Congress would impeach her

You're kidding, right? Congress --the very same crooks who give you districts shaped like the following-- love this "incumbency protection" law...


26 posted on 12/12/2003 8:50:39 AM PST by Eala (Sacrificing tagline fame for... TRAD ANGLICAN RESOURCE PAGE: http://eala.freeservers.com/anglican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SteamshipTime
Why haven't the Presidents words on the CFR been trumpeted? I beleive he said that he is cheered by the Supreme Courts decision, but haven't seen the article on this site, or written in any paper yet.
27 posted on 12/12/2003 8:51:18 AM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Good point, and one the Bush supporters don't want to hear. If he was so convinced that the SCOTUS was going to strike down many of this law's provisions, then why are his people out and about applauding the decision? Why aren't the mouthpieces saying that they thought this part and that part would be struck down and are surprised that they weren't?
28 posted on 12/12/2003 9:00:48 AM PST by John R. (Bob) Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: John R. (Bob) Locke
I am afraid, that people are so frightened by the prospect of Democrat control, that they will follow GW off any cliff he leads them too. Dare I say it, the Republicans have become like the Democrats. As Clinton could do no wrong according to his supporters, GW cannot betray his base out of their support either.
29 posted on 12/12/2003 10:03:49 AM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: scory
The point is that now our rulers have stated openly that the law of the land is what THEY say it is.

It has been that way for a long time now. These bastards are just getting bolder and more arrogant. And the new royalty will continue to encroach on the peoples' "inalienable" rights until the people push back - it usually happens periodically by bloody revolution, in a sudden and violent upheaval, when the oppression becomes obvious and painful. We are about one economic disaster away from that...

However, an additional strategy used by the elite is the dumbing down of the sheeple. It seems about 1 in 10 can name the VP of the US - what proportion of the population might know that their rights are being trashed by the political bosses? 1 of 100? Not enough to man the resistance.

Howcome the $hits stopped at 60 days, why not 180 or 360? Maybe next year, eh? These hidious turds agree that "pseudo" child porn is protected by the Constitution, but political speach is not. What corrupt, soulless creeps they are.

30 posted on 12/12/2003 4:29:12 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thiscouldbemoreconfusing
the Congress will leave her lone and wait for an opportunity to make her chief justice.

Well, there's been talk of making her chief justice. Hopefully, that's now impossible.

31 posted on 12/12/2003 4:34:12 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GregoryFul
They give us bread and circuses so we won't notice that we've lost our freedom.
32 posted on 12/12/2003 4:38:59 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
And we are led by president Nero...
33 posted on 12/12/2003 5:01:19 PM PST by GregoryFul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Liz; BibChr; rhema
On the subject of First Amendment usurpation, . . .


34 posted on 12/23/2003 10:42:25 AM PST by Caleb1411
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
You nailed it but good. That's about the size of it.
35 posted on 12/23/2003 11:46:43 AM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson