Drudge reporting that the USSCt upheld restrictions on pre-election ads. I haven't seen the opinion.

Fuck.  Everyone was counting on them to overturn that unconstitutional law.

If they really did, they will have OK'd criminalizing pure political speech. Much ugliness may follow.

The unconstitutional law [b]THAT BUSH SIGNED!!!![/b]

fuckin pigs!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!
[pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed]


Let's recap, shall we?

No free speech, and no 2nd amendment as ruled by the 9th and not heard by the SCOTUS.

Are you keeping score?

Well, FWIW, I was mad at him for signing it too, because he had every right not to.He decided to pass it on to the Supreme Court to avoid political fallout of opposing campaign finance reform.

Did you know Bush hasn't used his veto perogative ONCE since he's taken office?

Noe can not make new friends in the democratic party by vetoing any of their legislation.

Remind me again why Bush is any different than any other democrat?

I don't know what to say.  There had to be a severability cause in there that would have allowed the others to stand, while removing that little tidbit.

How the SCOTUS can think that the severly restricting political speech during a campaign is fine via the 1st, is beyond me.  This isn't a fucking bannana republic you know...yet...

The 2nd may just yet be declared to be about duck hunting!

Once I read the opinion, I'll start trying to figure out if I have the balls to get a group together to violate the law and await ARREST in the UNITED STATES for voicing a POLITICAL OPINION during an ELECTION.

This is the biggest political news since the AWB in 1994, folks.

Every single branch of the federal gov't has just nullified the 1st Amendment.

[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031210/D7VBJPD00.html[/url]

Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law

Dec 10, 10:33 AM (ET)

By ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.

Those donations, called "soft money," had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.

Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system.

The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

The so-called "soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations.

Federal election regulators had allowed soft money donations outside those restrictions so long as the money went to pay for get-out-the-vote activities and other party building programs run by the political parties.

Supporters of the new law, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it.

The court was divided on the complex issue; five of the nine justices voted to substantially uphold the soft money ban and the ad restrictions, which were the most significant features of the vast new law.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring candidates for federal office, including incumbent members of Congress or an incumbent president, from raising soft money.

The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money, and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money.

Without soft money, politicians and political parties may only take in donations that are already allowed in limited amounts, such as a private individual's small re-election donation to his or her local member of Congress.

That means no more huge checks from wealthy donors, and no contributions from the treasuries of corporations or labor unions.

The Supreme Court's 300-page ruling on the 2002 campaign finance overhaul settles legal and constitutional challenges from both the political right and the left. Although the reform effort was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, many politicians and others in the business of politics were leery of it.

The law is often known as "McCain-Feingold" - named for its chief Senate sponsors, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. McCain built his maverick 2000 presidential campaign largely around the assertion that the old system of political money laws was full of holes.

The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. The high court ruling means those rules remain largely untouched as the political seasons heats up. The first delegate-selection contests are just weeks away, in January.

A lower court panel of federal judges had issued its own, fractured ruling on the new law earlier this year, but the Supreme Court got the last word.

The justices cut short their summer vacation to hear an extraordinary four hours of oral arguments on the issue in early September. The court's regular term began a month later.

The case marked the court's most detailed look in a generation at the complicated relationships among those who give and receive campaign cash. The case also presented a basic question about the wisdom of the government policing political give and take.

[b]The court has given government an extensive role in the area on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said.[/b]

The case is McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674.


****************************************

WE ARE IN DEEP SHIT BOYS AND GIRLS.

Dear God, it's really happening..... [:(]

There really is going to be another revolution, isn't there? We're not going to be smart enough to simply follow the founding documents. We're going to have to fight for them, and our own government is going to be the enemy.

Jesus, I don't know what to think at this point. If the courts themselves ignore something as simple as freedom of speech, what else can happen?

FLA1A is right. Much ugliness is going to follow. Oh, man, this is BAD. BAD, BAD, BAD!

[v]

The SCOTUS ruling is here:

[url]http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf[/url]

2.2MB/300 Page PDF.

WHAAAAAT!!!

Even the appearance of something can justify limitations on a constitutional right!!!  Thus, even the appearance of safety can justify banning guns.  The appearance of crime fighting can justify due process, and search and seizure protections...  

Who needs socialists to kill our liberties, when the douchebags in our own government are willing to do it themselves.

We'll see just how many people are willing to risk normalcy to defy this POS legislation in 2004.

This is huge news, people. Huge. Bigger than huge.

W-G isn't kidding. This has got to send shockwaves throughout the political spectrum.

It's now illegal to voice a political opinion before an election...

I can't believe I just wrote that. It's simply incomprehensible...

I hope, I HOPE, that GWB is looking in the mirror right now and thinking, "What the fuck was I thinking when I signed that POS!"

I doubt it, though! [v]

I wonder if anyone will have the balls to simply ignore it. I hope......

Yeah, right... [:(]

The Republic is lost.

I don't entirely understand the implications of this law. Anyone care to educate me. It sounds to me like this could stop the NRA from influencing candidates on gun related issues prior to election. Can someone break this down for me.

Quite possibly yes, but our culturally ingrained pacifism makes it highly unlikely.

- LS

WOW......I really cannot believe this is happening.  

Somebody pull up the stat that shows how many of the colonists actually revolted....

...and our public school systems will now be teaching our children how the brave federal gov't stepped-in and did something to curb curruption and saved our elective process.

We are in a world of shit, folks. This is bigger news than any gun legislation. The gov't has now effectively nullified political free speech that was protected under the 1st Amendment.

We, as a free people, are now fucked.

Who's "everyone", white man???

Since exactly WHEN, has the Supreme Court UPHELD the Constitution???

Hmmmmmmm??  

My understanding is that [b]no one[/b] can run ads about political candidates in the weeks before the election EXCEPT network news agencies (socialists).

Still. Like the AWB, I do have confidence that work arounds will be found. Plus, hell... just violate it. WTF are they going to do about it?

Really just job security for SCOTUS, because its going to show up on their doorstep AGAIN as soon as someone decides to practice their 1st amendment rights.

- LS

Dayammm.

Who do you expect to violate it?

ABC?
NBC?
CBS?
CNN?
MSNBC?
CNBC?
The New York Times?
The Washington Post?
The Los Angeles Times?
The Miami Herald?


Get it? THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN VIOLATE THE LAW DON'T [b]WANT[/b] TO!

The only one that MIGHT is Fox News, and you KNOW that the scumbags on the left will pull its license in a heartbeat, and the courts will back them up! In order to stay in business, they HAVE to comply!

JESUS we're FUCKED! [pissed]

We already knew one facet: we can't trust the courts to get it right when everybody else screws it up deliberately, ie, declare a known unconstitutional law unconstitutional.  We have an example now.

I was wondering how the "appearance of (insert bad thing du jour)" doctrine would make its way into official government decisions, and when.  It was inevitable.

The Constitution doesn't mean anything.

I don't believe there will be any kind of revolution, in the strictest sense of the word.  There has to be a sufficient numober of people creating the problem (looking for handouts, etc) or a sufficient number of people willing to work to solve the problem.  Intangible concepts don't move people until physical conditions make life uncomfortable or painful.  Hunger and pain will make people patriots yearning for freedom much more easily and quickly than a thousand years of teaching, preaching and propaganda.  

Quite frankly, I am not real worried about a revolution.  What I am concerned about is merely surviving the collapse.  Any revolution is many many years away.  A collapse could happen next week, depending on what type of collapse it is.  Are we ready, not just to survive, but to step up and take control?

No we're not.  We already know that the pet issues of the left are very high maintenance.  They have a finite lifespan, and eventually must short circuit.  The leftist society eventually must collapse, or at least the policies of such a society must go by the wayside if the society is to keep functioning.  Question: How can it be made to happen, without breaking laws?
Look on the bright side: we may be fucked, but we have condoms and KY jelly. [;)]

Amen! THIS is the kind of SHIT the RKBA is intended to protect against!

I do believe that most violations of the this law are classified as FELONIES.

I’m scanning the decision right now.  Lots of background information about how things got to where they are.  It’s really obvious just how corrupted the process is and how much “big spenders” throw at candidates and parties to get special treatment.

Still, this sets a VERY dangerous precedent.

Are we the only ones that see that each time you limit a right that the next time they’ll just build on that limitation to create more restrictions and justify the new restriction by saying the previous ones make the current ones OK?

paper bag... breathe deep... you [b]will[/b] be ok. [:D]

My wife works for a conservative PAC and their lawyers are in session as we speak. The "just violate it and let them TRY to prosecute" option has already come up and is being considered.

- LS

I'm going to violate this piece of shit law in a big fucking way and go from there.

I'm going to call every radio talk show I can, state my name and my hometown, and tell America that this is one citizen who has had enough.

I'm going to be "in your face" about this in a polite way.

I'm going to defy the destroyers of our Constitution.

I'm going to draw my line.

I'm going to dare the destroyers to cross it.

If I get shit-canned from this world, I will do it as a free man, not cowering in fear as peasants do.

I will explain all this to my wife and children and perhaps some day they will understand.

The Goblin is on the warpath.

You would think this would be bigger news by the way people are reacting. The front page news on CNN is 9 kids dead from an airstrike in Afghanistan.[rolleyes] Fox is covering the war in Iraq as it's front page stuff. Noone seems too excited yet. Tonight should be an interesting news night. I hope this thing ruling gets a reach-around. THere has to be a way around it.  

Rush, for whom I have no great love, is howling. Hopefully the response will match the threat.