Posted on 06/30/2002 9:42:25 AM PDT by LarryLied
Once upon a time, right-wingers were seen as hostile to the First Amendment, intent on quashing expression they deemed unpleasant or contrary to their values.
How times have changed.
Whether imposing speech codes on college campuses and in the workplace, championing campaign-finance reform, or pushing restrictions on advertising legal products, the left has emerged as the primary architect of modern efforts to suppress expression.
For further evidence of this stunning transformation, consider the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Thursday, the justices issued a handful of important rulings before adjourning until October. Among them was a case from Minnesota, where candidates for judicial office were prohibited from discussing a wide range of topics while on the campaign trail.
A three-time candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court sued, arguing the restrictions violated the First Amendment -- not to mention left voters with little substantive information upon which to base their choices.
Proponents of the speech limits maintained the constraints were necessary to ensure the integrity of the judiciary, that maintaining some sort of decorum was more important than an informed electorate or free-wheeling political debate.
In its decision, the Supreme Court sided 5-4 with the challengers, tossing out the Minnesota regulations. Who voted to uphold the Bill of Rights? The court's five more conservative members. Who sided with those seeking to suppress political speech? The four liberals.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia got it right. Minnesota sought to limit expression that is "at the core of our First Amendment freedoms -- speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office."
Meantime, the court's liberals were left mumbling about how even if judges are elected, they aren't really politicians -- as if that's justification for stripping them of their First Amendment protections.
The case has ramifications for Nevada, where judicial candidates are prohibited from making statements that "appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issue that are likely to come before the court."
Reworking those restrictions within the framework of Thursday's ruling will be virtually impossible -- and that's good. If a judicial candidate opts for discretion, fine. But it should be a matter of individual choice, not forced upon candidates and voters by those who would ignore the Consitutition when it suits their agenda.
Or we could get rid of big government liberals.
Yeah, we sure wouldn't want non-politicians to be protected by the Bill of Rights!
P. S., it's "jibe."
"Jive" is, "Muhfuh, whaddup..."
Gee, maybe I have a platform to run on.
maintaining some sort of decorumOf course, the arguments the left was making in that case had nothing to do with decorum. Regulating some bit of decorum is right and proper (such as slander and libel, blocking profanity over the airwaves, etc).
But that isn't what the left wanted. The left wanted to be able to prevent the people from having any way to make informed decisions.
Rightfully, it was overturned. Scary that four judges voted against throwing the restrictions out.
Bullshat leave the constitution alone and protect and defend it if they change it they might as well throw it away [ which is the liberals intent to begin with]
the court's liberals were left mumbling about how even if judges are elected, they aren't really politiciansOf course they are.
Just take a look at Judge Newman of the 9th Circuit, who authored the Pledge decision.
The very next day he ran to the cameras to stay the decision. This was a blatently political move, since by procedure the decision was automatically stayed for 45 days in order to give time for an appeal. His "stay" was meaningless, except for the political effect it provided.
Judges are politicians, even if they try to claim they are not.
Gives me the creeps. Do they sit down and plan repeating that word over and over? It it almost a religious chant.
I know you didn't write this article, but could you elaborate on this statement with examples?---(I am looking for ammo against liberals)
Think back to the 2000 election. There were so many words and phrases repeated over and over and over I thought I would go insane.
My wife thinks I did ;o)
http://www.academia.org/news/conservatives_equal_racists.html
David Horowitz was lumped in with Holocaust denyers and National Socialists. Bill Mullen of StoneHill college said free speech is not a right but "a prize to be won."
Lynne Cheney has been active on this subject. Click here for dozens of articles
Does not bode well for the Supremes upholding the Campaign Finance Reform law, does it?
Liberals and McCraniacs have got to be gnashing their teeth, which is good.
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.