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

Skip to comments.

Justices Seem Skeptical of Scope of Campaign Law [McCain-Feingold] [Hillary, The Movie]
The New York Times ^ | 2009-03-24 | Adam Liptak

Posted on 03/25/2009 8:29:07 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

WASHINGTON — A quirky case about a slashing documentary attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton would not seem to be the most obvious vehicle for a fundamental re-examination of the interplay between the First Amendment and campaign finance laws.

But by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which regulates the role of money in politics.

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bipartisanship; campaignfinance; elections; feingold; hillary; hillaryclinton; mcbama; mccain; mccainfeingold; mccainlegacy; mccainsfault; mccaintruthfile; mcqueeg; scotus

1 posted on 03/25/2009 8:29:08 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stockpirate; Eaker; ducdriver; ChrisInAR; AvOrdVet; MaggieCarta; indylindy; roamer_1; calcowgirl; ..
*Ping!*
2 posted on 03/25/2009 8:29:33 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Bump!


3 posted on 03/25/2009 8:37:08 AM PDT by houeto (I see Obama voters...and it's changed my tipping habits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
“We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which said Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?” Justice Scalia asked.--

--ah ha!--a justice who knows the Constitution--

4 posted on 03/25/2009 8:39:08 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rellimpank

Yes, most uplifting to read this blurb. It sounds like Congress is going to get spanked, but good, by the First Amendment/ Supreme Court.

Thank GOD!


5 posted on 03/25/2009 8:44:10 AM PDT by bboop (obama, little o, not a Real God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON — A quirky case about a slashing documentary attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton would not seem to be the most obvious vehicle for a fundamental re-examination of the interplay between the First Amendment and campaign finance laws.

It sure seems like an obvious vehicle to me. Once again, the NYT shows how clueless it is. How could anybody think this documentary would not be the PERFECT, most obvious vehicle to test McCain-Feingold?

6 posted on 03/25/2009 8:50:49 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

—I frankly hope it’s more like “bludgeoned” rather than “spanked”—


7 posted on 03/25/2009 8:51:11 AM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the MSM tells you about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
The article points out that Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She was part of the 5-4 decision upholding McCain-Feingold. The government attorney's extreme take on it may lead to a 5-4 decision overturning.
8 posted on 03/25/2009 9:08:01 AM PDT by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Several of the court’s more conservative justices reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from a government lawyer about the scope of Congressional authority to limit political speech. The lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.

Ummmmm . . . . . . 'scuse me but, didn't any of them READ the d@mn law before ruling to uphold it in 2003? At the time it was passed, it was assumed that Bush wouldn't sign it because it clearly violated the 1st Amendment. However, Bush ducked the issue and went on TV to tell us that the bill sucked swamp water but he was going to sign it anyway and dump the whole mess in the SCOTUS' lap. The SCOTUS ducked the issue and left most of it intact.

In an ironic twist, McCain circumvented his own law during his campaihgn last year so that he could accept certain contributions!!

I fervently pray that, one day, sanity will return to America and its so-called "justice" system.

9 posted on 03/25/2009 10:18:06 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Supreme Court nominees are one of the main reasons I voted for Bush and I think that will be his real legacy to conservatives. He did pretty good with his nominations.


10 posted on 03/25/2009 11:34:57 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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