"This is a sad day for freedom of speech." He then adds, "Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography...tobacco advertising...dissemination of illegally intercepted communications...and sexually explicit cable programming...would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government."

This is a new low.

Maybe now, those who appreciate [i]only[/i] the First Amendment will heed our protests over the rape of the Second. The same processes have savaged both amendments.

But probably not.

This is why it is critical that we elect Republican Senators and Presidents. So that they can appoint, and approve, conservative justices like Justice Scalia.

You'd be correct if Republicans themselves were not far more to blame for this particular problem than the court itself.  If it wasn't for them, there would never have been anything to judge.

A lot of blame should be heaped on Bush for signing this when he could have easily killed it.  I was mad then, but took comfort in thinking there was no way the Supreme Court would validate it.  This is a fucking nightmare scenario.

...pass these POS laws in the first place.

[url]http://www.dailypress.com/news/sns-ap-scotus-campaign-finance-excerpts,0,7991275.story?coll=dp-breaking-news[/url]

Excerpts from the Supreme Court's ruling
 
The Associated Press

December 10, 2003

,Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, in upholding key parts of the campaign finance law:

"Many years ago we observed that "to say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard ... an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection.' We abide by that conviction in considering Congress' most recent effort to confine the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system. We are under no illusion that BCRA will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:

"The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the "close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties "suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..." "No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt."

I believe a clear majority of the court was appointed by repubs.

Quit making excuses for these people. Don't you see the total declaration of war by govt., on the people, in the laws, and court decisions of the last 20 years?? (Homosexuals, property, individual rights, racism??)

Brother, get out of denial!! This same court just upheld the State, in "Silveria"!! It is NOW the law of the land that the 2nd is NOT an individual right, and that the STATE can regulate weapons!!

Wake up... It is before you!!

As you well know, Liberty, the liberal judges were "wolves in sheep's clothing" when appointed.  They were indeed appointed by Republicans, but falsely indicated that they held conservative views.

Now that George Bush is trying to appoint conservatives again, the Senate is blocking the nominations.  If the Republicans held more of the Senate, we could approve them.

We [u]must[/u] get the liberals off the SCOTUS and replace them with strict Constitutionalists.

Hmmm, let's see:

A) The Republican Party controls the US Senate.
B) The Republican Party controls the US House.
C) The Republican Party controls the White House.
D) The Republican Party nominated and approved a majority of the current SC justices.

Did the US Senate vote to approve Campaign Finance Reform? Did the House? Did the President sign it into law? Did the Supreme Court validate it?

Exactly how many [i]more[/i]  Republicans do we need to change all this, O_P?

"It will probably take about three seconds to get to the W, I may hesitate on the period, and then rip through the Bush."

Your points are well taken, W-G.

But, as you know, saying that Reps "control" the Senate is misleading.  They do not have the necessary votes to over-ride a fillibuster.  And before anyone hollers, "Change the rules", remember that the Demos may some day control the Senate and we might regret changing the rules.

As far as Repubs nominating the present judges, please see my answer to Liberty.

Oh well.  I realize that I am out-numbered on this thread, but that doesn't make me wrong. [:D]

Maybe what we need to do is vote for Liberty on the "Flying Corvette and Constitutional Party" ticket. [:D]

Or put in such winners as O'Connor, Souter, etc...

Yep.  I too thought the Supremes would at least gut this thing.

Wrong.

5sub

And yer NOT gonna get that with GWB!! or ANY other repub!!

Bush signed campaign finance
Bush will sign AWB.
Medicare & Education expansion.
ENORMOUS debt.
Bullshit war.

You seriously think Bush will appoint a "Constitutionalist"??  [ROFL2]


What's it take for some of you?? Is it just too hard for you to look at??