John McCain takes another hit
This time via the Supreme Court. I didn't say anything on it yesterday because so many others have summarized the findings so well. First up we have the erudite legal minds over at Powerline.
"This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a case we wrote about here and here. The opinion can be accessed here. On a five-to-four vote, the Court affirmed the District Court's conclusion that Section 203 of McCain-Feingold would be unconstitutional if applied to prohibit the issue ads in question that were run by Wisconsin Right to Life.
The history of this decision can be summarized as follows: Section 203 makes it unlawful for any corporation (i.e, any entity other than a person) to use its "general treasury funds" to pay for any broadcast that refers to a candidate for public office and is aired in the jurisdiction where he or she is running, within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, decided in 2003, the Court held that Section 203 is not unconstitutional, so long as it is applied only to ads that "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a particular candidate, or are the "functional equivalent" of such express advocacy. McConnell left open the possibility that Section 203 could be found unconstitutional as applied to particular ads, and did not define functional equivalency."
The always tought provoking Captain Ed had this to say.
"While this is a good start, it does not eliminate the BCRA's restrictions altogether. It ruled that issue ads do not equal partisan campaign ads, and that the Wisconsin groups ads did not amount to a challenge to an incumbent. It does, however, make it much easier for outside groups to encourage voters to "contact their representatives" and identify incumbent Senators and Representatives in the final days of an election.
Unfortunately, only three justices appear ready to throw out the broader restriction on campaign advertisements, and therefore on free political speech. Unsurprisingly, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas argued for the broader ruling, but both John Roberts and Samuel Alito opted for a more careful approach. However, the surprise came from Anthony Kennedy, the moderate and now the swing vote on most matters, who sided with Scalia and Thomas.
Roberts probably wanted to gain a stronger consensus before declaring that portion of the BCRA unconstitutional. However, it represents a lost opportunity to gut the worst attack on free political speech in America since the Sedition Act of the first World War. Roberts -- and the rest of America -- may have a long wait before getting another opportunity to remind Congress of the explicit language of the First Amendment."
Gary over at Let Freedom Ring takes the dissenting minority to task in his post.
"Implicit in Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion is that political advertising ‘consumers’ (those that watch the advertisements) can’t judge for themselves which advertisements appeal to them and which ones disgust them.
Also implicit in Souter’s dissenting opinion is that the Constitution shouldn’t be taken literally. Most political junkies (I fit into that category) can recite the First Amendment but I’ll repeat here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The key operative word in the First Amendment is abridging. Here’s the first definition of abridging provided by Dictionary.com:
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one’s freedom.3. to deprive; cut off.
TRANSLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law that…cuts off the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
You’d also be right in translating it to say “Congress shall make no law that…deprives any person of their God-given right to speak freely on any subject…”
MEMO TO JUSTICE SOUTER: Notice that it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…except if it has corrosive effects on the political system.” The First Amendment said that the ninnies in Washington can’t make any law that cuts off anyone’s right to express their political opinions. To cut off one man’s right to air his grievances is censorship."
My biggest beef with Senator McCain has long been BCRA. Between that and now his championing of the amnesty bill, is it any wonder that his campaign is floundering to the point where pundits are trying to call when he will give up his Quitoxic quest for the Presidency?
"This morning, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a case we wrote about here and here. The opinion can be accessed here. On a five-to-four vote, the Court affirmed the District Court's conclusion that Section 203 of McCain-Feingold would be unconstitutional if applied to prohibit the issue ads in question that were run by Wisconsin Right to Life.
The history of this decision can be summarized as follows: Section 203 makes it unlawful for any corporation (i.e, any entity other than a person) to use its "general treasury funds" to pay for any broadcast that refers to a candidate for public office and is aired in the jurisdiction where he or she is running, within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, decided in 2003, the Court held that Section 203 is not unconstitutional, so long as it is applied only to ads that "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a particular candidate, or are the "functional equivalent" of such express advocacy. McConnell left open the possibility that Section 203 could be found unconstitutional as applied to particular ads, and did not define functional equivalency."
The always tought provoking Captain Ed had this to say.
"While this is a good start, it does not eliminate the BCRA's restrictions altogether. It ruled that issue ads do not equal partisan campaign ads, and that the Wisconsin groups ads did not amount to a challenge to an incumbent. It does, however, make it much easier for outside groups to encourage voters to "contact their representatives" and identify incumbent Senators and Representatives in the final days of an election.
Unfortunately, only three justices appear ready to throw out the broader restriction on campaign advertisements, and therefore on free political speech. Unsurprisingly, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas argued for the broader ruling, but both John Roberts and Samuel Alito opted for a more careful approach. However, the surprise came from Anthony Kennedy, the moderate and now the swing vote on most matters, who sided with Scalia and Thomas.
Roberts probably wanted to gain a stronger consensus before declaring that portion of the BCRA unconstitutional. However, it represents a lost opportunity to gut the worst attack on free political speech in America since the Sedition Act of the first World War. Roberts -- and the rest of America -- may have a long wait before getting another opportunity to remind Congress of the explicit language of the First Amendment."
Gary over at Let Freedom Ring takes the dissenting minority to task in his post.
"Implicit in Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion is that political advertising ‘consumers’ (those that watch the advertisements) can’t judge for themselves which advertisements appeal to them and which ones disgust them.
Also implicit in Souter’s dissenting opinion is that the Constitution shouldn’t be taken literally. Most political junkies (I fit into that category) can recite the First Amendment but I’ll repeat here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The key operative word in the First Amendment is abridging. Here’s the first definition of abridging provided by Dictionary.com:
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one’s freedom.3. to deprive; cut off.
TRANSLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law that…cuts off the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
You’d also be right in translating it to say “Congress shall make no law that…deprives any person of their God-given right to speak freely on any subject…”
MEMO TO JUSTICE SOUTER: Notice that it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…except if it has corrosive effects on the political system.” The First Amendment said that the ninnies in Washington can’t make any law that cuts off anyone’s right to express their political opinions. To cut off one man’s right to air his grievances is censorship."
My biggest beef with Senator McCain has long been BCRA. Between that and now his championing of the amnesty bill, is it any wonder that his campaign is floundering to the point where pundits are trying to call when he will give up his Quitoxic quest for the Presidency?
Labels: 2008, John McCain
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home