[Poohbah]

This is one of those things that absolutely HAS to be killed dead once and for all.

The only way to do that, sad to say, is for the Supremes to kill it AFTER it has been made law.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

I would like to believe President Bush privately agonized over this decision, but is acting casual to mollify the liberals. Perhaps he believed that the only way to really bring the constitutional issues into the public consciousness would be to have a high-profile Supreme Court case. I'm not saying this justifies what he did, but I just don't want to think he truly would be so cavalier about this. It would soften my anger if I knew he was trying to do what he thought was the best for the Constitution. His approach may actually preserve the First Amendment more than vetoing would have. Just a thought.

[rightwing2]

There is only one other recourse, however unlikely in the extreme--that being--if the Senate turnsover to 50-50 Republican control in 2002 as I envisioned and the House stays Republican and if Cheney were to support to support legislation overturning it and Bush says he's willing to sign it. Of course, given that Bush supports it and the Congress passed it overwhelmingly, this is so much wishful thinking. It would have been so much easier if Bush had vetoed the damn thing for violating his alleged "principles" which it is now painfully obvious that he does not have.

[nocommies]

i hate his tactics, but im as sure as i could be that bush would never sign this if he wasnt confident the supreme court will kill it. nothing will come of this, just a bunch of grandstanding and politics.

[El Gato]

This is one of those things that absolutely HAS to be killed dead once and for all.

The only way to do that, sad to say, is for the Supremes to kill it AFTER it has been made law.

That doesn't stop Congress from passing it again either, as they did with the gun free school zones business. The SC told them schools were not commerce, let alone interstate commerce, but they just added a little more interstate commerce pixie dust in the "findings" and passed it again. They'll do the same with this. In fact in some sense this is passing something again after the Courts found the previous incarnation, with some of the same provisions, unconsitutional. Not as blatent as with the unarmed victims zone thing, but no different in principal.