Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 06/26/2007 4:04:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court began dismantling the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Anyone who cares about the First Amendment should be cheering.
Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) wanted to air ads in 2004, to tell voters that Senator Russ Feingold was filibustering President Bush’s judicial nominees and call on voters to encourage the senator to change course. BCRA creates “blackout” periods during which organizations cannot run ads that might impact the election or defeat of a candidate for office. During these blackout periods (30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election) only the media can talk about the candidates. Because Feingold was on the ballot in 2004 and these ads fell within the blackout period created by BCRA, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) barred the ads from going on the air, saying they were equivalent to the election ads prohibited during the blackouts.
In the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Supreme Court correctly sided with WRTL and upheld the First Amendment right to speak out on issues even when a candidate’s name is mentioned.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the ban on issue ads, saying that BCRA is unconstitutional as applied to ads that inform voters on important issues. Chief Justice Roberts, writing the principal opinion and joined by Justice Alito, stated, “When it comes to defining what speech [is constitutionally protected], we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment [demands] at least that.”
What is interesting about this case is that Justice Kennedy—so often a moderate voice on the Court—took a more conservative position than Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Kennedy, wrote separately to say that they would go much further, that they would overturn part of an earlier case and strike down altogether the BCRA provision creating blackout periods. That way, these Justices reasoned, we do not need to worry about issue ads, because all ads would be protected speech.
What’s encouraging about this case is that it shows this new Court is not unwilling to revisit recent decisions when the opportunity presents. Chief Justice Roberts, who is very careful to avoid issues not before the Court, clearly stated that he was not ruling on election ads because such ads were not at issue in this case. Justice Alito, on the other hand, wrote separately to clarify that he would be willing to consider an election-ad case. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy made it clear they would vote to strike down all bans on any ads.
Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer vigorously dissented but a 4-vote energetic minority is still a minority.
he Supreme Court upheld BCRA in the 2003 case of McConnell v. FEC, but this recent decision starts to dismantle that precedent.
Our new Supreme Court is to be commended for bringing our country a step closer to what the Founding Fathers intended. The Framers understood that the most important reason for free speech is to hold our government accountable by getting information out to the voters. There is never a constitutional justification for preventing ordinary people from discussing the social and political issues of the day.
This ruling restores your right as a citizen to speak out on issues of concern. Whether the topic is guns (my favorite issue), judges, federal spending, abortion, immigration, or any other hot-button issue, you again have the right to join your fellow Americans, take to the air waves and demand that your elected leaders respond.
This goes to the heart of our American system. A democratic republic only exists when the people can speak loudly enough that those in power cannot help but hear. It doesn’t guarantee a particular result, but it does guarantee the satisfaction of a fair fight.
Of course, the way to really get a politician’s attention is to be able to take out an ad either for or against their reelection when their name is on the ballot. Such ads are called election ads, and today’s opinion does not go far enough to restore that part of free speech.
But several justices made it clear today that they will take up that issue when it’s properly brought before the Court. The upcoming presidential elections may provide the opportunity for exactly that.
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA.
John McCain, enemy of the State.
B-b-but, I thought John McCain was thought by many Republicans to be a fine Presidential candidate. Could there be other snakes in the grass, too?
Oh how liberals love free speech. Of course they only love free speech when it is about child pornography, Christian-bashing, or other repugnant things. A liberal can't honestly read the Constitution if their life depended on it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
A very important line to keep. To do otherwise is legislating and would be a much abused precedent for liberal courts.
McCrazy’s assault on political speech ruled unconstitutional.
McCrazy’s amnesty for illegal aliens despised by 75% of Americans.
McCrazy for President!
“McCrazy for President!”
Not for much longer!
LLS
and they should be struck down....amazing that they were even passed...
John McCain, enemy of liberty, friend of the statists!
When everyone was wetting their pants about how "conservative" that aleto and roberts were "going" to be, I said " we won't know until a few years of decisions come down"
Now, these two had a chance yesterday to get rid of what most here would agree is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech....but noooo......
In my view, another in a longggggg line of bush hopes frustrated by experience.
I've never bought this line. The reason that enumerating and protecting freedom of speech is important is not because elections/accountability is so important. It's because if anyone tries to take away our freedom it will be the government. It's no less important to use our freedom to discuss science, religion, the meaning of life, etc. Gubmint isn't the center of the Universe. Just a necessary evil that must be watched and kept in a cage.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. - Thomas Paine
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. - James Madison
A Republic, if you can keep it. - Benj. Franklin
I'm going to remain hopeful that they'll properly address the rest of it next year. There certainly will be planty of lawsuits beginning in January 2008.
Be patient.
Yeah, it's really difficult to understand, isn't it. I ran the 1st Amendment through the MS Word readability check, and it's suitable for 9th graders.
"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."
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
You need to understand how a Conservative Court functions. It is not a mirror image of a liberal court.
LLS
Even more amazing that our dim-witted president signed it.
GWB is an absolute failure, with the possible exception[s] of his SCOTUS nominations.
Striking down unconstitutional laws is not legislating from the bench.
In any event, this has nothing to do with being CONSERVATIVE - Scalia is considered to be the most conservative member of the court and he legislates from the bench all the time. Time after time, Scalia, Rhenquist and even Thomas all ignored the clear meaning of the constitution in favor of "making the job of government workers easier".
The fact of the matter is that conservative justices have been shown to be just as likely to render their judgments based on their own world view just as much as liberal ones have.
The terms conservative and liberal are just vague labels and labels that have actually completely switched places over time. The term conservative now describes two distinct voting blocks - Christian socialists and "classic liberals" which believe in small government, property rights, civil liberties, free markets and constitutional limitations of government.
Unfortunately, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito fall into the category of christian socialists.
I am afraid if Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are not to your liking, I think you might find your future SCOTUS wishes are beyond reality.
LLS
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.