Why the Court Protected Us On Thursday

Fox News ^ | January 22, 2010 | john R. Lott Jr.

[JohnRLott]

Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised? Or what books can be sold? Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed. On Thursday, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had been used to stop the advertising or showing of "Hillary: The Movie" during the 2008 presidential campaign. No one doubts that the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton and that its release was timed precisely to hurt her presidential campaign. What the court couldn't abide was letting the government decide when a movie crossed the line and became too political. The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election.

Campaign finance laws aim to restrict how much money can be spent on campaigns, but, just as Justice Antonin Scalia warned in 2003, “expenditures” can take an essentially unlimited number of forms. "If history teaches us anything, [it] is that when you plug one means of expression, the money will go to whatever means of expression are left," Scalia warned during oral arguments when the McCain-Feingold law was first heard before the court in 2003. . . .

[massgopguy]

The Plaintiff’s lawyer specifically asked if it was a book that ended with “Vote For X” would the government move to ban the book. The government lawyer said Yes. This brought several Justices to their feet in disbelief.

[goldstategop]

The essence of campaign finance reform isn't to prevent politicians from being corrupted by outside money; its real intent is to enable the government to keep speech of which it disapproves from being heard at all. The more honest term for it is "censorship." Its an end run around the First Amendment. Liberals are usually in favor of freedom of speech but carve out a big exception for the wealthy. But they are careful to exempt the State-Controlled Media that is tune with their views. You can find plenty of corruption in the government - for instance surrounding Obamacare. None of it would have been addressed by CFR and the US Supreme Court reached the correct decision on Thursday.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[BabyBMW]

Rush said Chief Justice Roberts was really upset after he answered that question.

[ichabod1]

Then later, Buzzy Ginsberg asked the obama lawyer if he would like to revise that statement, if perhaps he had meant something other than what he plainly said, and he said, nope, statement stands.

[freekitty]

We could have gone the way of the Communists.

[a02001]

“The Plaintiff’s lawyer specifically asked if it was a book that ended with “Vote For X” would the government move to ban the book. The government lawyer said Yes. This brought several Justices to their feet in disbelief.”
Next time they will be more subtle- “Gee, I’m not sure.”
Had they not made this mistake it might have gone the other way :-(
The country and freedom was granted a reprieve this time.
What is very troubling is that it was a 5/4 decision. “Free” Speech is on the “Critical List”. Let us hope it will be upgraded to “Good”.

[Repeal 16-17]

Fortunately, five of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court disagreed.

Just a little clarification. Keep remembering that there are four Justices who don't care about Free Speech or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Also remember that they are one vote from being a majority.

[Tucson]

If our “press” were doing the job for which the First Amendment was originally intended, that would be headline across America: “Four Supreme Court Justices Reject Free Speech and the First Amendment”. Instead, they long ago abdicated their obligation to that original intent; to be an absolute watchdog on government.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Justices are only human. Jumping to their feet in disbelief — ha! They CARE. Thank God.

No, the problem is our sickening indoctrination system called ‘college’.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Kelo and F.E.C. are very definitive rulings of justices, I think.

Three justices ruled against the Bill of Rights both times:

Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer proved themselves to be tyrants in Kelo. Kennedy was the only Kelo “just-us” to cross over.

Kelo Court vs. 2010 Supremes: A Vast Improvement — for now
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2499753/posts

[Jim Noble]

Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised?

Yup.