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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law

Posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:01 PM PDT by RandDisciple

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-226 next last
To: Petronski
Well it was a stupid law IMO
161 posted on 05/02/2003 1:52:16 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
"Ergo, a ruling was necessary to settle the issue. "

And shut McCain up for awhile.
162 posted on 05/02/2003 1:53:56 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
It was a stupid law and I think Bush signed it knowing the courts would knock it down. At least by having it go to the courts, we have a ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

That would be my guess .. only question is .. will McCain finally shut up?

163 posted on 05/02/2003 1:55:25 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part: I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). My colleagues’ per curiam opinion and their other opinions ignore the statute’s transparent infirmity and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidatefocused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers. Their reasoning and conclusions treat a First Amendment with which I am not familiar.
164 posted on 05/02/2003 1:55:57 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
...will McCain finally shut up?

I doubt it.

165 posted on 05/02/2003 1:56:52 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I gave it a quick read (300+pages) and as far as I can tell, the only dissent was an expression of a desire to throw out the whole damnable thing.

Judge Scalia????

166 posted on 05/02/2003 1:57:08 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The First Amendment says Congress shall make NO laws. In my opinion the entire statute IS on its face unconstitutional. I'm not sure about the other jurists' reasoning and conclusions either. Its plain as mud they aren't reading the same Constitution the rest of us are.
167 posted on 05/02/2003 1:58:01 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: alnick
~~~Don't worry; they won't let that stop them.~~~

No kidding!

Obfuscate/fabricate/adulterate/obliterate
168 posted on 05/02/2003 1:58:11 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
True ... but it will be fun to rub this one in his face ..
169 posted on 05/02/2003 1:59:50 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
A radio report today siad it had to do with the amount of money a party could spend on a campaign.
170 posted on 05/02/2003 2:01:44 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus (ax accountant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher; dittomom
fyi...
171 posted on 05/02/2003 2:04:01 PM PDT by Dog (Please write your complaint legibly in that box - - - - - - - -->[ ].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
HOT DAMN! Good news!

(should never have come to this though...but I'll take it)

172 posted on 05/02/2003 2:04:33 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
If Henderson wanted to strike down more, she would have issued a concurring opinion in part, and a dissenting opinion in part. Media is obviously either clueless or lying, as usual.
173 posted on 05/02/2003 2:07:06 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
That was MY reading too. The dissent was to throw out the entire bill.
174 posted on 05/02/2003 2:07:45 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
McCain? Shut up? In our dreams! LOL!


"C-C-C-C-Campaign Finance Re-re-reform"

175 posted on 05/02/2003 2:10:54 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
If Henderson wanted to strike down more, she would have issued a concurring opinion in part, and a dissenting opinion in part.

That's precisely what she did issue. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

176 posted on 05/02/2003 2:13:14 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Henderson now a possibility for the US Supreme Court in my opinion. What, the RATS are going to oppose a woman circuit judge from the distinguished DC circuit?
177 posted on 05/02/2003 2:13:53 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Yes, but the media is spinning this as a 2-1 decision, not a unanimous decision. They are scheming liars.
178 posted on 05/02/2003 2:14:37 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Wellstone's legacy was that election-eve advertising ban. Poof, it goes away.
179 posted on 05/02/2003 2:18:29 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mware
The $2K limit is great. There should be no limit at all, just full disclosure as Bush has said.
180 posted on 05/02/2003 2:19:19 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-226 next last

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