Supreme Court Takes CFR Case

US Supreme Court ^ | 5 June 2003 | US Supreme Court

[Congressman Billybob]

At the end of the day today, the US Supreme Court accepted the CFR case (McConnell, et al). The Court will take the case early in its 2003 Term. It will come in a month early, 8 September, for a nearly unprecedented four hour argument.

Briefs by all plaintiffs in the trial court, including Senator McConnell and the NRA, must be filed by 8 July. Defendants below must file by 5 August. Reply briefs must be filed by 21 August.

[rwfromkansas]

I am wondering that myself...perhaps nobody wants to not be a part of this case and will wait to announce retirement.

[Congressman Billybob]

Here's my web addy (which I thought was on my page): http://www.home.earthlink.net/~congressmanbillybob

BB

[rwfromkansas]

I can't imagine anybody deciding to resign during the court session either. And nobody would retire next year. Good grief; The amount of time that has passed between retirements is amazing. I just hope we keep the Senate next year when Bush is hopefully re-elected.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[votelife]

If no Justice will resign this summer, seems less likely for one to retire right before the 2004 election. Making judges in '04 even BIGGER.

[conservativefromGa]

I almost hope they rule it constitutional just to slap President Bush in the face for signing this piece of sheeot.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your views - but I disagree strongly on both counts.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Earthlink, eh? Did you know that's a Scientology-controlled company? Do you really want to be sending your money to those folks?

[htjyang]

I don't think Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas need those prayers. The ones who do are O'Connor and Kennedy.

The others? I'm not convinced prayers will work. A lobotomy is recommended.

[InvisibleChurch]

[Lancey Howard]

bump

[rwfromkansas]

I am not happy that he signed it, but I don't think he would have without some private assurance from somebody with knowledge that it would get struck down. I do not see this President violating a promise for any other reason.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Supreme Court doesn't give "private assurances" to nobody, no time. However, any competent First Amendment lawyer could read the cases, read McCain-Feingold, and tell that parts of this law at least are dead for a duck.

Billybob

[Jesse]

Well, that's good. When Bush passed the buck to the Supremes, I guess it shows that it takes a committee to do what the compassionate conservative swore to do when he took the oath of office.

Hopefully, the outcome is as certain as all the "conservative" apologists who voted for this abomination which violates our most fundamental right ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech") said it would be.

Of course, since they all decided to ignore the United States owner's manual, who says the Supremes won't too?

[UlmoLordOfWaters]

Thank you!!!! I'll take a look!

[bybybill]

If Bush had vetoed this turkey, it would have given the Rats a never ending issue and he would have had to veto the whole bill. This way, the Rats have no issue and the Republicans got the donner limit raised. Pretty neat, huh?

[conservativefromGa]

yeah not standing up for the constitution and doing the right thing .. real neat

[conservativefromGa]

yeah not standing up for the constitution and doing the right thing .. real neat

[MeekOneGOP]

Thank you !

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks. I did several searches but couldn't find them.

Freeper Aristeides in post #30 has linked the information.