Supreme Court to Hear First Amendment Case (ad limits in McCain-Feingold campaign finance law)

Palm Beach Post ^ | 1/14/06 | FREDERIC J. FROMMER

[Libloather]

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, left, and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., right hold a news conference in this April 2, 2001 file photo, at the Capitol in Washington. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., center background looks on. The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2006, in an anti-abortion group's First Amendment challenge to advertising limits in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. (AP Photo/Joe Marquette, File)

[Redbob]

HERE is the sort of case that could/should have waited until Justice Alito was seated.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

The Manchurian Candidate and an open socialist are doing their best to destroy America.

[mewzilla]

Oddly enough, thanks to a loophole in McCain-Feingold and a ruling by the FEC, Indian tribes aren't covered by the same rules as everybody else. And guess who the biggest recipient of tribal money is up on the Hill: Sen. McKeating...er, McCain.

[Redbob]

"That sets up the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock, in which case the court could either affirm the lower court ruling or schedule new oral arguments with Alito on the bench."

I guess it's always best to read the whole post...

[muawiyah]

The fascist lawyer at the White House defending the government's position against these ads should be fired.

McCain should be censured. Feingold should be shipped out to a country more in tune with his attitude toward the First Amendment ~ maybe Big China ~ he could get a job there with Yahoo or Microsoft.

[demkicker]

I hope Alito is on the bench and can decide this case. In fact, I hope McCain-Feingold is delcared unconstitutional, period.

[Graymatter]

But the Bush administration, which is defending the law, wrote in a brief that such an argument "assumes a clean divide between lobbying and electioneering communications that simply does not exist in the real world."

This is disgraceful---both the argument and the defense of it by the Bush administration.

"Advertisements exhorting interested citizens to contact their elected representatives may also have the purpose of influencing those citizens' votes," the government added.

Ads urging people to contact representatives! Maybe trying to influence votes! Shocking!

[Howlin]

what is the means of getting him up to speed?

I heard if he's on the court by the time they rule, he can join in, but some say it would have to be reheard.

anybody know which it is?

[Cboldt]

I heard if he's on the court by the time they rule, he can join in, but some say it would have to be reheard.
anybody know which it is?

It would have to be reheard. In order to participate in the opinion, a Justice is expected to be "on the court" at the time of oral argument. That "vile" group, the COngressional Research Service has a publication on it, prepared in light of O'Connor's unprecedented decision to make her step down date contingent and coincident with a replacement being confirmed.

[Graymatter]

After everything I heard this week, I wouldn't bet a gum wrapper on the prospect of Alito sticking up for the First Amendment here.
Also, it sounds like the defendants aren't challenging the law head-on, just arguing that it doesn't apply to them. And this monstrosity, McCain-Feingold, ought to be challenged directly, not merely wiggled around.

[jocon307]

"The fascist lawyer at the White House defending the government's position against these ads should be fired."

Do you think some staff lawyer at the White House is grinding his own ax and not acting at the direction of his employer, the president? Bush signed this monstrosity into law and now he is defending it. He's wrong on all counts, of course, but don't blame the lawyer(s).

[muawiyah]

Yes, blame the lawyer. If the President were not able to count on the myriad of staff attorneys available to the White House, he'd be more careful with what he signs into law in the future.

[Cboldt]

I heard if he's on the court by the time they rule, he can join in, but some say it would have to be reheard.
anybody know which it is?

It would have to be reheard. In order to participate in the opinion, a Justice is expected to be "on the court" at the time of oral argument. That "vile" group, the COngressional Research Service has a publication on it, prepared in light of O'Connor's unprecedented decision to make her step down date contingent and coincident with a replacement being confirmed.

The document can be obtained from -> http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RS22300

Direct Link -> http://digital.library.unt.edu/.../RS22300_2005Oct18.pdf

It's short.

The link below has a few others that may be of interest, such as ...

Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2005
Report Number: RL33118 (under the category "Congress")

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/browse/

[Flint]

"HERE is the sort of case that could/should have waited until Justice Alito was seated."

Here is also why the Dims want to delay the confirmation for another week.

[Wolfstar]

But the Bush administration, which is defending the law, wrote in a brief that such an argument "assumes a clean divide between lobbying and electioneering communications that simply does not exist in the real world." "Advertisements exhorting interested citizens to contact their elected representatives may also have the purpose of influencing those citizens' votes," the government added.

Oh, geezzzz. On this one, I strongly part company with the Congress (McCain-Feingold), President Bush (who signed it), the Justice Department (which defends it) and the Supreme Court (its first decision upholding this terrible law). What could be more clear than this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

McCain-Feingold was supposed to clean up politics. Yet now we are on the cusp of the latest Congressional money-and-lobbying scandal. McCain-Feingold can only be considered an abject failure at its supposed core purpose, although it succeeds in abridging the people's freedom of speech and right to petition the Government.

[Brilliant]

The idiots on the Supreme Court should just throw the law out altogether.

[ModelBreaker]

Please let O'Conner be gone when this case is decided.

[Clump]

Please let O'Conner be gone when this case is decided.

Roberts decides when the ruling comes down. He will wait until Alito is by his side. I am sure of it.

[Godebert]

"Roberts decides when the ruling comes down. He will wait until Alito is by his side. I am sure of it."

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America requires that Supreme Court justices take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. They should take this oath in public on the steps of the Supreme Court in front of We The People......not in some secret chamber without witnesses.