I don't understand fully the implications of the latest SCROTUS decision. The limitations of campaign contributions and political speech. I feel like I'm missing something big here.

I dont know the story either but I am very eager on hearing their reasoning and the dissentions.  I hope this isn't O'Connor and Ginsburg evoking cosmic law instead of what the Constitution actually says.  I'll just have to wait.

Yep.  Looks like O'Connor/Ginsburg/Souter were on the ruling side while Scalia. Thomas, and Rhenquist were on the other.

Don't worry - all this means is that instead of having to put up with those endlessly annoying "attack-dog" style campaign commercials that pollute the airwaves in the weeks proceeding every election - we'll just have to rely on people like Dan Rather to give us the straight news on the candidates.  

Nothing to worry about here.

I just had it explained to me that news media outlets can continue with their left wing agenda all day long, but if the NRA runs an ad prior to an election it is illegal? Good lord this is hard to swallow. How can voicing your opinion on an election be construed as corrupt? I just don't get it. I can't put this together in my head. IT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Er, noo.  The government passed a law saying we are forbidden to run certain types of advertisements in the months ahead of elections.  The government has no authority to do that.  What the fuck is the Supreme Court doing, upholding this blatently illegal law?

How can running an advertisement be seen as corrupt? Because the people that have more money can have more ads? I thought this law was passed on the assumption that there was an appearance of corruptness.

This court is becoming worse than the 9th circus.

I fault GW Bush for this whole mess.  I remember when he said that he would sign the bill despite concerns over the constitutionality of it.  He passed the buck assuming that SCOTUS would overturn it and make him guilt free, all the while being able to say "well I signed the bill, what more could I do".  Back fired, don't you think?

This is why I hate politicans.  If he did what his oath of office required of him, he'd vetoed that bill as soon as it hit his desk...

I hate the fact that virtues and values don't matter to politicians...its about polls and the next election cycle.  People want to stay in office so bad that they will do or say anything to get re-elected.  Say what you mean, mean what you say.  If people like your beliefs your cool, if not, then you shouldn't be there.

I try to like politics...but everytime I follow it, I become disquested beyond toleration. I held an office in the college republicans in school.  I left when it became obvious that the other officers were only there to advance their personal agendas and not further the conservative cause on campus.  Made me sick then an still does...worse slim than used car saleman and clergy that steal from the church.

Not that I'm an authority, but as soon as I can get a copy of the (reportedly 300pp) opinion, I'll post whatever analysis I can put together.

Exactly.  I am sure Bush and his staff knew it was complete crap, but signed it anyway to avoid being criticized as "anti campaign finance reform".

Plenty of people criticized him for passing the buck on a clearly wrong law, now look what has happened.

This is incredibly disappointing.  Bush has truly failed here on this.  I was bummed on the steel tariffs and farm bill, but this was so avoidable and easily beaten, the consequences so dire........this is a major catastrophe for Bush in my eyes.

So is that it? Are we stuck with this crap or can we hope someone in Congress does something?
Can this law be repealled or replaced?

The SCOTUS decision means 5 of the 9 justices need to be tried for crimes against the people.

Well, now you know why TV stations are in demand (even the NRA wants one.)  One thing about the human specie, they are the cleverest......maybe because they desire freedom?

In a nutshell, this ruling means our Constitution is null and void.

Agreed!  I heard today that O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Souter are now looking at [red]INTERNATIONAL LAW [/red] when they are rendering their decisions!!!  Holy FUCKING shit, it's gone...its all gone!  All they're talking about on the TV and radio is Dru Sjodin (which is important) and the lack of flu vaccine.  Supression of free speech is the first tactic of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Hussein, now I guess its ok for the USA too.  

W-G has the right of it in this and other threads tonight.  I won't vote for a democrap, but I am going to find it hard to stomach voting for Bush.  I know that by not voting for Bush I may just be helping hasten the inevitable.  We may have been better off with the legislature and the executive branch in deadlock. [:(]

I don't think I'll be voting for Bush again, either.

Abuse of RICO
No knock warrants
Patriot Act I & II
NFA
GCA
AW ban
Roe v Wade
Recent SCROTUS decisions on faggotry
Abuse of emminent domain

It all adds up to neofascism. Simple as that. A return to oppression and despotism. The era of freedom and liberty coming to an end? Imagined security in exchange for our freedom? There will only be one way to get it back.
I'm starting to think that I may actually need a tinfoil hat...

12/10/03 was a terrible day for Liberty. She was raped on that day and may not survive much longer...

We are in VERY deep shit boys and girls.  VERY deep shit indeed.


[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35484[/url]

The globalization of U.S. courts

Posted: November 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

There has been a lot of talk recently about international law and custom seeping into American constitutional law. Alarmingly, this dangerous idea hasn't just come from pointy-headed academics but from our United States Supreme Court justices.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a speech to the Southern Center for International Studies, said that American courts should pay more attention to international court decisions when deciding their own cases.

Perhaps because she wasn't speaking to a group of lawyers or students of the Constitution, O'Connor placed an undue emphasis on matters having nothing to do with her proper role as a judge. But that's no excuse. She said what she said, and to lovers of liberty and the Constitution, her remarks should be exceedingly disturbing.

She said that in recent years, the United States Supreme Court has broken from its practice of "declin(ing) to consider international law when reaching important decisions," and is now "acknowledging the thoughts of the global community." This from a Republican-appointed Justice? There's more.

Relying on foreign court decisions "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all-important good impression," said O'Connor, as if addressing diplomats at the United Nations. Of course it is true that the impressions we create in this world are important, but "creating good impressions" is not the function of the Court – interpreting the Constitution is. But her statement is no surprise.

Many Supreme Court decisions purporting to interpret the Constitution do anything but that. In many cases, the justices merely substitute their opinions – based on whatever suits them at the time, including international law – for the plain meaning of the language or the Framers' original intent.

Indeed, O'Connor said, "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

Sadly, Justice O'Connor is not alone. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is similarly unapologetic about the court's increasing resort to foreign authority. She acknowledged "the growing effect of international law" on the court's decisions, especially in death penalty, race admissions and gay-sex cases.

"Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change," she said. Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

Nothing in the Constitution suggests that the court has any authority whatsoever to rely on the decisions of international courts in rendering its own decisions. If the highest court in the land can just fabricate bases upon which to decide cases, our entire legal system, the structural framework for our republic, is in grave jeopardy.

How is it that such justices do not understand that when they rely on extra-constitutional authority, they are arrogating to themselves power not granted to them in the Constitution, but more importantly, divesting the American people of their sovereignty?

If the American people want to adopt the laws and customs of other nations through their duly elected representatives – even though our ancestors fought a revolution and subsequent wars for the right to establish our own criteria for governing ourselves – they are free to do so. But the unelected judiciary has less than no business doing so. It ought to be ashamed for doing it and even more so for its unbridled arrogance.

Beyond the obvious damage this "international" mentality is inflicting on our jurisprudence, our Constitution and our liberties themselves, we should also be concerned with the larger cultural trend toward adopting the mores of other countries and rejecting those traditional values upon which our nation was built.

We are seeing the fruits of a radical secularism in our culture – the kind that dismisses Western Civilization and the unique American culture through the euphemistic disguise of multiculturalism. Liberal politicians are increasingly disrespecting American sovereignty and urging through another misleading euphemism, "multilateralism," that we allow other nations, essentially, to conduct our foreign policy without regard to our strategic national interests. And now we are witnessing this disturbing development with the courts.

If I were prone to conspiracy theories, I'd say there was a global conspiracy going on here. But conspiracy or not, the lines have been drawn between those in our society who want to preserve the system that produced the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world and those who act as though they are ashamed of that remarkable record. No one can afford to be neutral on these issues.

I honestly don't think this country can last another 20 years. Not at this pace.

happy morning guys!



can you recall supreme court judges?

Oh FVCK!

The lack of a check on the judicial branch is the greatest weakness of our Constitution. There should be a way to prevent legislating from the bench.
Gotta give the liberals credit, they are some underhanded SOBs. They have have managed to control who gets on the bench for decades, understanding full well the ramifications.

Oh THAT SCROTUS decision...  I thought you were trying to decide if you should shave your sac or not.

I thought it was pretty much a SCROTUM decision.

So who is supposed to put these traitorous bitches on our supreme court back in line? Is there anyone that can stop them from giving our freedom away? They are trading our constitution for laws they like personally from other socialist countries? How can they get away with this? Can't anyone do something? Good lord this is disturbing. I need a drink. [pissed]

The only way to remove a Justice(s) from the Court is via an Impeachment by Congress... The same Congress that created the law that SCOTUS just upheld.

In otherwords, we're fucked.

Given the fact that this ruling has barely caused a ripple in the press (and most of the talk is about money, not 1st Ammendment issues) there's no way that Joe Sixpack is going to begin to raise any stink about this.

Dec 10, 2003 will go down in history as one of those turning points that few at the time understood how tragic it was untill it was too late.