Shockingly it took 14 posts to finally see this one! Thanks.
However, it ain't gonna happen. They were warned just days before the coronation while a dozen cases were waiting for their review.
Posted on 04/29/2009 8:43:52 PM PDT by RobinMasters
For the first time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is offering some legal insight about the so-called Fairness Doctrine, suggesting the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench.
In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."
The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping for your list.
**the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it’s revived and brought before the bench. **
YES!
At least part of the government still cares about at least part of the constitution still. That is good news. The pinko “hate crime law” which interferes in free speech will probably get the axe too.
Oh, boy. This is the FIRST bit of good news I have heard today.
ping for morning
Clarence Thomas is my hero. I can’t think of anyone in the world I admire more. God bless him!
later
Thank God someone still understands the US Constitution.
Well, sure he does. It's why the lefties hate him.
Money quote:
“The text of the First Amendment makes no distinctions among print, broadcast, and cable media, but we have done so,” Thomas noted.
“It is certainly true that broadcast frequencies are scarce but it is unclear why that fact justifies content regulation of broadcasting in a way that would be intolerable if applied to the editorial process of the print media.”
1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...”
Which part of ‘no law’ don’t the liberals understand?
If the writers of the amendment truly intended for Congress to make _no law_, is there a better wording that would make it clearer than how they wrote it??
They won’t implement the Fairness Doctrine. They’ll go for local rules, which will be harder to defeat.
ping
This is of course excellent as far as it goes, but
- It is only one justice, and we need Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy and should work toward getting some or even all of the "liberals" as well. None of the justices I named above voted to uphold McCain-Feingold in McConnell v. FEC.
- Strictly speaking, our rights to talk radio and our freedom of internet communication are not in the First Amendment - they would exist, according to the Federalists who proposed the Constitution without a bill of rights, in the limited powers of the government. And while it is true that radio and the internet aren't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, Congress is given explicit authority "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" - and radio and the internet are merely "useful arts" for accomplishing the objectives which the First Amendment declares that we the people have a right to pursue.
Thomas is so mouthy during the SCOTUS sessions it's a wonder any of the other justices get a chance to speak./s
Absolutely right on. Now if only Thomas would come out and blast the hate crimes legislation that just passed the house yesterday as being equally unconstitutional I would be a happy camper.
The “Fairness Doctine” card ain’t gonna be played. The new method to silence talk radio is “Localism.” Local soviets, er, boards will report on radio stations to FCC on their support of “local interests.”
Solution, of course, is for conservatives to DEMAND that they be on those boards.
He is right.
Thank you, Justice Thomas, and thank God we have you on the Court.
This is a good start but we need to know where his other brethern on the court is. It’s not surprising he thinks this way. How does buzzy Ginsberg, or Souter or most importantly Kennedy feel on this subject?
I’ve no doubt that Justice Thomas is correct. If the Fairness Doctrine goes before the Supreme Court I don’t see it surviving,
Shockingly it took 14 posts to finally see this one! Thanks.
However, it ain't gonna happen. They were warned just days before the coronation while a dozen cases were waiting for their review.
I have always admired him.
The key phrase is “off the books”.
It will not stop the communists in our government from finding OTHER unrelated reasons for intimidating broadcasters.
They are getting real good at this back door legislation,
and lots of evidence will need to be gathered which demonstrates un-equal application/enforcement of unrelated laws in order for broadcasters to fight it... which they wont, because they dont have the money/time/will.
In written discussion on yesterday's ruling cracking down on indecent language on television, Justice Clarence Thomas called the policy "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters." The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission.
yep.
hooray for a great man.
This should have been dealt with before the coronation.
It would have only taken ONE "representative" and ONE "SINator" to object before certifying the electoral college. "Gut"less wonders, all!
yep...and it’s gonna be one hell of a mess when the BC FINALLY turns up...
I’m just wondering what in world the Chief Justice is DOING?
he’s had those lawsuits in his office for weeks now?...
Hello?
Well thank God that at least ONE SC Justice gets it!
I for one will not be silenced!
C'mon Kelly...Look again...a picture is worth a 1000 words!
for the left all laws are allowed until a judge says no and then can still be nuanced away.
The left would make a law putting slavery back in place and assume there is no way to dispute them.
Besides the left has already created virtual fairness doctrine via “local content” rules.
there is no case, also you have to know how next to impossible it is to disqualify a USSC judge.
Judges telegraph all the time in the dicta of opinions. Such dicta does not disqualify because there is no such case. (or even a law in this situation)
Don’t forget about Scalia! He’s rather high up on my list as well.
Right, through 'interpretations' by the Fed 3 and 4 letter agencies.
The left would make a law putting slavery back in place and assume there is no way to dispute them.
They're putting slavery back in place right now - it's based on the opposite intent of our Constitution - that the individual subordinates all interest and actions to the collective.
Ayn Rand:
“If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” (“Man’s Rights” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)
"There can be no such thing as the right to enslave, i.e., the right to destroy rights."
Besides the left has already created virtual fairness doctrine via “local content” rules.
That's one ploy but their biggest ploy is Columbia's School of Journalism. When you have biased journalists, you don't need a fairness doctrine or even a local content rule - those would be just 'icing on the cake'.
Would rather he make this comment regarding the “hate crimes” bill now headed to the Senate.
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.