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

Skip to comments.

McCain-Feingold's Electioneering Communication Prohibition Held Unconstitutional as Applied...
Press Release: James Madison Center for Free Speech ^ | December 21, 2006 | Contact: James Bopp, Jr.

Posted on 12/21/2006 3:27:18 PM PST by Jim Robinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last
To: txrangerette

It was my pleasure, txrangerette and hopefully those powerful days are behind him. A very Merry Christmas to you and yours.


61 posted on 12/22/2006 9:28:07 AM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Great maybe the Supremes can revisit this anti-freespeech law


62 posted on 12/22/2006 10:30:50 AM PST by AmericaUnite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Yes, there are more than a few things to clean up if we ever get the court back from the liberal inventors of new rules. The mess goes all the way back to Oliver Wendell Holmes, IMHO. He was the one who came up with the idea that the law means whatever those in power think it should mean.


63 posted on 12/22/2006 10:34:33 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Agreed. You have said it much better than I.
64 posted on 12/22/2006 12:09:44 PM PST by Candor7 (Into Liberal flatulance goes the best hope of the West, and who wants to be a smart feller?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The 2-1 ruling said groups may mention candidates by name in commercials as long as they are trying to influence public policy, rather than sway an election.

It's still an abomination. What part of "Congress shall make no law" is so FReeking hard to understand?

65 posted on 12/22/2006 2:48:13 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

About time.


66 posted on 12/22/2006 2:50:57 PM PST by bmwcyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrGunsforHands
Also worried that this ruling doesn't overturn entire part prohibiting criticism of candidates before an election

It can't, by definition a District Court, nor an Appeals Court, can overturn a Supreme Court decision. They can "work around" it, "reinterpret it", or say it doesn't cover this case (which is what they seem to have done in this instance), but they can't overturn it.

Theoretically even the Supreme Court is not supposed to outright overturn earlier decisions of Constitutional application, at that level, absent a Constitutional Amendment. However they do it as it pleases them.

67 posted on 12/22/2006 2:54:08 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
68 posted on 12/22/2006 3:54:19 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/optimism_nov8th.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

On to the Supreme Court and an end to CFR.


69 posted on 12/23/2006 4:21:36 AM PST by samtheman (The Democrats are the DhimmiGods of the New Religion of PC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Not only free speech, but the 1st Amendment specifically recognizes our right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


70 posted on 12/23/2006 9:23:51 AM PST by Jacquerie (All Muslims are suspect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Yep. It is anti-American.


71 posted on 12/23/2006 10:39:01 AM PST by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Great news!


72 posted on 12/23/2006 10:42:08 AM PST by kalee (No burka for me....EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"It's still an abomination. What part of "Congress shall make no law" is so FReeking hard to understand?"

The 2nd is routinely ignored, although it's clearly written. Now, the 1st will be ignored even more. In terms of religion, it already is.

Welcome to "Democracy".
73 posted on 12/24/2006 8:09:27 AM PST by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Excellent!


74 posted on 12/24/2006 2:58:09 PM PST by Domandred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Well, McCain will have to crawl out of this one. A Christmas present from the court.


75 posted on 12/25/2006 12:02:34 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last

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