SCOTUS Upholds CFR - allows ban on free speech

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS Upholds CFR - allows ban on free speech

Posted: 12/10/2003 7:35:36 AM EDT

Supreme Court Upholds 'Soft Money' Limits

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.

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 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.

FUCK!

GWBush signed that POS Law saying he KNEW it was unconstitutional anticipating the SCOTUS would knock it down. Well a lot of good THAT did!

This is such a bullshit law and an even bullshitter decision.

We need to get CONSERVATIVES appointed to the Federal Courts and the ONLY way that's gonna happen is if more CONSERVATVE REPUBLICANS get into the Senate.

Posted: 12/10/2003 7:53:45 AM EDT

[#1]

I've been asking this everywhere. Macallan, would you mind explaining the implications in a simple way for my little brain. I don't completely grasp what this means.

Thanks,
2IDdoc

Posted: 12/10/2003 7:56:01 AM EDT

[#2]

This is how I've heard it put...

So If you are a big newspaper or a big media outlet you can say whatever you want, like NBC who devotes the first 15 minutes of every nightly news cast to telling us why Bush is the worst president we have ever had, and that everything he has done in office is a miserable failure.

But the NRA and its 3.5 million members cant run an issue ad for 30 seconds durring the same "NEWS" program.

View Quote

Posted: 12/10/2003 8:02:08 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
This is how I've heard it put...

So If you are a big newspaper or a big media outlet you can say whatever you want, like NBC who devotes the first 15 minutes of every nightly news cast to telling us why Bush is the worst president we have ever had, and that everything he has done in office is a miserable failure.

But the NRA and its 3.5 million members cant run an issue ad for 30 seconds durring the same "NEWS" program.

View Quote

Is this why the NRA has been trying to buy media outlets lately? I heard that they are trying to get ahold of a piece of the media. Is that how future elections are going to be sold? This is really REALLY disturbing considering the vast majority of news media and hollywierd are very left wing. I can't fathom how this could be legal. This is just to much for my little brain to handle. It's like the world has gone upside down.

Posted: 12/10/2003 8:18:34 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is how I've heard it put...

So If you are a big newspaper or a big media outlet you can say whatever you want, like NBC who devotes the first 15 minutes of every nightly news cast to telling us why Bush is the worst president we have ever had, and that everything he has done in office is a miserable failure.

But the NRA and its 3.5 million members cant run an issue ad for 30 seconds durring the same "NEWS" program.

View Quote

Is this why the NRA has been trying to buy media outlets lately? I heard that they are trying to get ahold of a piece of the media. Is that how future elections are going to be sold? This is really REALLY disturbing considering the vast majority of news media and hollywierd are very left wing. I can't fathom how this could be legal. This is just to much for my little brain to handle. It's like the world has gone upside down.

View Quote

This is exactly how it is going to go. Everything requires such a huge financial investment just to get your voice heard that you can't do it short of building or buying your own communication company.

Posted: 12/10/2003 8:23:50 AM EDT

[#5]

How can anyone bellieve that their 2nd Amendment rights are GUARANTEED by the Constitution now?

The 1st Amendment was the one that noone wanted to come even close to appearing to restrict because of its obvious benefits to citizens regardless of party affiliation. Now, a person's right to praise or criticize the government during an election has been shattered.

Just when you thought the courts couldn't get any worse!!!!!

Posted: 12/10/2003 9:30:44 AM EDT

[#6]

Who was it that said freedom of the press only belongs to those who can afford a press?

Posted: 12/10/2003 9:36:10 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

GWBush signed that POS Law saying he KNEW it was unconstitutional anticipating the SCOTUS would knock it down. Well a lot of good THAT did!

View Quote

It is pretty important, I think, that [b]EVERYONE[/b] understand that point and then take that knowledge and apply it to the AWB. He [i]said[/i] he would sign a new one, and many think he said it because he's sure he wouldn't get one on his desk.

If he does get one on his desk, we are [b]MORE[/b] fucked.

The guy [b]can not[/b] be trusted.
Scott

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SCOTUS Upholds CFR - allows ban on free speech

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us