The Supreme Court's double standard

The Washington Times ^ | Dec 22, 2003 | Nat Hentoff

[neverdem]

In the Supreme Court's allegedly purifying 5 to 4 decision in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, political campaign financing dissenter Justice Antonin Scalia said the new statute "cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government." Off the court, also dissenting, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted: "The decision will do far more to restrict political speech than to curtail the influence of money on politics."

[neverdem]

I like the zinger at the end.

[DustyMoment]

Nat Henthoff is on-target with this article. As I continually hammer this theme home, more and more questions are emerging about McCain-Feingold (CFR) that should have been asked before it was presented for a floor vote.

One of the biggest questions involves the link between the limitations on free speech and political campaign donations. This should have raised a huge red flag that something was not right and there was more of an agenda to the bill than merely controlling campaign mnoney.

As I have routinely questioned about McCain-Feingold, why would politicians, who thrive on money and campaign donations, want to impose any limits on the money that they keep their power with? And, in voting to support such a bill, why would they want to voluntarily admit that they were corrupt as the result of those campaign donations?

More than anything we have seen in our history, IMO, McCain-Feingold is proving just how badly our political system is broken. Politicians who have sworn an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution voted for a bill knowing that there were specific provisions that violate the Constitution. They wanted the power. The President, who has sworn an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution signed the bill into law knowing that there were specific provisions that violate the Constitution. He wanted the power.

The Supreme Court, whose sole job is to interpret laws as they relate to the Constitution, failed abominably to comprehend the part that says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the right to free speech." What is so difficult or ambiguous about that that they failed to comprehend? They wanted to erode the Constitution and McCain-Feingold provided a way for them to do that.

The Atlanta Conrtitution Journal was right in their editorial when they said that our system of government was broken and needs repair. They were talking about a different issue, the issue of gerrymandering to protect incumbents and eliminate competition. We are only just beginning to see how badly broken our system of government is.

We will be paying for the damage McCain-Feingold has done for decades to come. Politicians, especially those who hate America and hate the Constitution, have now found the key to destroying the freedoms we have - just create more McCain-Feingold bills and this SC will give them a pass.

We must make OUR voices heard to prevent any repetitions of this epsiode in our history.

[stop_fascism]

It doesn't matter. In Sandy world the only thing that counts is making a favorable impression on European leftists.

[Mr. Bird]

The independent advocacy organizations, however, could run ads within 30 or 60 days before an election if they paid for them through PACs (political action committees). But then they would be required to name their contributors giving $1,000 or more.

OK. This raises an interesting scenario. I assume that the AFL-CIO will be creating a PAC so they can advertise. Would the unions then be compelled to list the name of any member whose dues have totalled more than the $1K threshhold? Could this be an opportunity to spell out to the membership the atrocities committed by union leadership with respect to their hard earned wages? How about printing the names of every member alongside whatever outrageous allegations an ad makes?

Someone could really wreak havoc here. Get to it, whoever you are.

[jwalsh07]

Why did George W. Bush, who opposed this law, refuse to veto it?

Politics. Was this a principled decision?

No, it is a stain on an otherwise principled mans record. A bad stain.

I don't agree with everything President Bush does but he was upfront about everything he was going to do in the pre-election runup except for this.

He said he wouldn't sign with this onerous provision and he did.

I am holding out hope that he will renounce it at some future point. I think he has that in him.

[Cicero]

Nat Hentoff is one of the better liberals. But he's still a liberal, so he doesn't make the obvious point. How come the Supreme Court says it will protect to its death the right of citizens to wallow in pornography and expose our children to it, but it refuses them the right to express their religious and moral beliefs in public or to criticize their political masters 60 days before an election?

[Eala]

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

But Congress did, and the Supreme Court upheld it.

Methinks the constitution can no longer be called a "living" document. It is stone cold dead.

[alwaysconservative]

Nat Hentoff is one of the few liberals I will read with enjoyment; it helps that he is fervently pro-life and loathes the Clintons. This article is so perfect and so on-target.

I adore President Bush, but signing this bill is one of the worst decisions he made in his presidency. Everybody made an assumption about what the Supremes would do with the evils of CFR, and at least five of them proved to be clueless and/or partisan. They elevated process over people, and I'm certain that "old Europe" approves.

[NutCrackerBoy]

He said he wouldn't sign with this onerous provision and he did.

He also sent signals that he had not changed his mind about its strong unconstitutionality. Thus he knowingly violated his oath of office. (Some Constitutionalists called (symbolically) for W's impeachment on that basis). I thought there was no f'in way SCOTUS would let that part of CFR stand. I was wrong. Another kick in the gut this year from Those With Robes.

[Snuffington]

The core of the First Amendment is our right to say what we think about the candidates when voters are likely to be most influenced.

I'm not remotely happy about this, but I must point out this is a little bit of reaping what has been sewn.

For decades the First Amendment has been cited almost exclusively as a license for hedonism. Through the consistent use of the courts, pornography has been brought into the mainstream, and religion driven away from the public square. We hear about the First Amendment more often when a spoiled entertainer is criticized, than when the government moves to restrict speech.

Suddenly, the very foundation of the First Amendment is gutted by Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, and barely an eye is batted by the public at large. A First Amendment issue? The general public has been dulled into believing that's about keeping PBS funded, burning the flag, and dunking crucifixes in urine. Why should the First Amendment come to mind over issues of elections?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Why did George W. Bush, who opposed this law, refuse to veto it? Was this a principled decision?

No, it is because George W. Bush, like his father before him, is now, has always been and will always be a big-government man.

How soon we forget that it was presidential candidate George W. Bush, who attempted to sic the FEC on the owner of a website that parodied Bush's official campaign website.

George W. Bush attempted to have FEC declare the site (and the owner) a political action committee, thereby exposing all financial information and putting the content of the site under the control and restrictions of PACs.

When the FEC told Bush to take a hike, Bush huffed that the site owner was a "garbage man".

Like his father before him, George W. Bush is no conservative, and never met a big government snake oil he didn't like.

[ZULU]

"So, where in the Constitution do Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and her colleaguesinthe majorityfind greaterFirst Amendment advocacy rights, as an election nears, for millionaires and billionaires than for the rest of us? Should class matter when it comes to the First Amendment?"

O'Connor has a defective brain. She should be impeached.

Bader-Ginsburg MUST be breaking a public health law SOMEWHERE, anytime she appears in public and shows her face. (Does anybody have a pail of water??)


Souter is a modern day Robinson Carusoe - totally out of touch with reality.

As for Stevens and Breyer - the less said the better.

Bush should PACK the Court with twenty new appointees - all conservatives!! (NOTHING in the Constitution limits the number of Justices in the Court).

The reason Bush probably signed the bill was because his evil "other" personality - Karl Rove, told him to.

Karl Rove:

"PSSTT!! Look George, if you don't sign it, it'll be bad for your re-election. The papers will tear you apart on this (as if they aren't already), besides, those jerks on the Supreme Court will never approve an idiotic piece of garbage like this!!

George Bush:

"O.K. Karl, I'll sign it. Now can I go outside and play golf??"

[Badray]

bump for later

[Tribune7]

Why did George W. Bush, who opposed this law, refuse to veto it? Was this a principled decision?

I'm still ticked at Bush for this. One very small thing in his defense: Didn't he promise McCain during the campaign that he was going to support CFR?

Regardless, I'm still ticked.

[neverdem]

How come the Supreme Court says it will protect to its death the right of citizens to wallow in pornography and expose our children to it, but it refuses them the right to express their religious and moral beliefs in public or to criticize their political masters 60 days before an election?

G*d knows. The SCOTUS liberals obviously have problems with the Constitution and logic.