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 courts 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
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)
To: rabscuttle385
3
posted on
03/25/2009 8:37:08 AM PDT
by
houeto
(I see Obama voters...and it's changed my tipping habits.)
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)
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)
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
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)
To: rabscuttle385
The article points out that Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day OConnor. 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.
To: rabscuttle385
Several of the courts 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!!)
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.
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson