Decision ‘08

SCOTUS To Take Up McCain-Feingold Again

There are many quite reasonable people who say that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, in that money donated to political causes is, in fact, nothing more or less than protected speech. As such, the law occasionally comes up for review, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take another go at it:

The Supreme Court today agreed to review a portion of the landmark McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 to see if it violates the free speech rights of advocacy groups by prohibiting them from running ads mentioning specific candidates before an election.

The court moved quickly to consider an appeal of last month’s decision by the federal appeals court here that part of the act–formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act–was unconstitutional. A divided three-judge panel lifted the ban on mentioning federal candidates in so-called issue advocacy ads, which the interest groups contend are meant to sway public attitudes on issues rather than call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

It seems rather quaint today, in a world dominated by headlines about Iraq, but it was this law that sort of began the troubled history between John McCain and conservatives…and in this case, I must say I believe McCain is wrong. I’m all for ethics reform, but the way forward is greater transparency, not restrictions on political activities. That’s why I was glad to see the Republicans stand firm in the Senate in the rush to adopt ‘ethics reform’ under any guise. By advocating for, and pushing through successfully, the Bennett amendment in the Senate package, Republicans derailed an attempt to require grassroots ‘lobbying’ to fall under federal regulation, a provision that some alarmists (though I doubt it myself) thought could even apply to blogs such as the one you are reading now.

What’s my point in this somewhat rambling post? I guess it is simply this: for all our recent problems, conservatives are more likely than not to base their stands on solid principles - and I still find myself in agreement with most of the core ones. I’ll bitch and moan with the best of ‘em, but at heart, I’m a conservative because (most) conservative principles are principles that I share…

2 Responses to “SCOTUS To Take Up McCain-Feingold Again”

1 Jake Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Here is my opinion on the McCain-Feingold Bill and the reason for my stance. Simply put because I am politically opposed to not being able to donate as much capital as I wish in an election. Secondly, on constitutional grounds, I view this act as patently UnConstitutional, under basic First Amendment grounds.

Take a look at this text folks.

“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”.

Could this Constitutional Amendment be any clearer?

I know their are many views on this, but one thing is for sure, and that is just this “the text does not lie” Just the political interpretations do!

Is there any other reason not to like this silly Act though? Well sure, BUT I DON’T CARE.

I will now tell you why I think this act is a stupid way to limit Congressional corruption.

I believe a better way would be to create Constitutional Term limits and Ban all Gerrymandering. That way more members of Congress would have to fight like hell to get Re-Elected. They would not be able to just say, “Oh I have a 60% Democrat district even though I’m so corrupt I should be in prison I won’t worry too much”.

Or looky here, I dont’t need to worry those silly republicans will blindly vote to re-elect me, by say 72% Like Always, Even though I’m so Liberal I might as well be a Democrat, just because I live in an overwhelmingly Republiucan District. I can just kick back and go fishing or golfing.

Think about it people. If you knew you could get Re-Elected my just yawning, would you worry if you had a problem with corruption?

Having a tougher fight will hurt both parties and Result in a much higher TURNOVER RATE in Congress!! Is that really a bad thing though?? I will let you all ponder that question.

This is simple mathematics, and you don’t need the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002″ or (BCRA) otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold Act, in order to accomplish this simplicity of removing corrupted politicians from office.

Corruption will always be around so long as there are people on this Earth. Term limits though will greatly reduce this problem! That would require a referendum like system that states have but use it on the National Level in order to allow the People to Over-Ride the Federal Legislature.

This of course would require a Federal Constitutional Amendment though and since Congress will never limit their own power this is not possible.

The Next Best Thing To Do THOUGH is to force Local and State Governments that Do Have a Referendum Process in their Constitutions, to create Voter Initiatives on their ballots that would create laws or even State Constitutional Amendments to BAN ALL Germandering for that State. If all States did this Vula Major Problem Solved! If only it were this easy.

This we can do though NoneTheLess! It all depends how much we care about corruption.

Back to the McCain-Feingold Act. Titles I and II which are the foundation of the BCRA Act are certain to fall when the U.S. Supreme Court issues it’s 6-3 vote sometime in Late June of 2007, in both of the cases that I have listed below “Now that Justice O’Conner is finally gone”.

Note to all Conservatives Justice Kennedy is on our side on the two cases to be heard in late April 2007.

The cases are FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life

and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

You might be asking yourself a 6-3 ruling must be a mistake and think I must of made a typo, but you would be wrong. The reason is because Justice Breyer seems to have been influenced by Justice Roberts (according to a close source)and is giving up ground from his past vote in McConnell v. F.C.C. This would be a change from his previous voting pattern and therefore accounts for the extra vote resulting in a 6-3 opinion assuming my secret friend is correct in the prediction. One thing is for sure, it’s either going to be decided by a 6-3 or 5-4 vote, either way it’s a Big Win for Conservatives!

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon Strike Down the Majority of this Sad Act called B.R.C.A. that President Bush Signed into Law in 2002. Finally President Bush’s Error will be fixed courtesy of Justices Alito and Roberts two Conservative Judges Presidemt Bush named to the Court.

Oh and McCain for your part, your Precious Handywork is now going to collapse and go down the drain by the very two Justices you voted to Confirm!! The Irony in voting to Confirm Justices Roberts and Alito in the Senate will soon come back to Haunt you and be your own undoing In The Best Possibe Way!!!
2 Jake Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 8:56 am
ALERT !!! This is a 45 minutes heads up until the U.S. Supreme Court releases the remaining (8) cases on it’s docket. I will try to predict the vote based on past votes casted by the justices and court precedent. Note, I will only guess on the (3) major cases that I have been following for the sake of accuracy.

1. (MORSE v. FREDERICK) the “Bong Hits for Jusus case” will be decided by a vote of 6-3, with Justice ALITO writting the Majority opinion and Justices BREYER, STEVENS, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and SOUTER in the majority.

The minority consisting of the Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices THOMAS, and SCALIA.

2. and 3. (FEC v. WRTL) & (McCain v. WRTL)

I believe both of these cases will have the same vote alignment.

These cases are extremely likely to be decided by 5-4 votes With Justice Kennedy writting the Majority opinion in both of these cases and Justice SCALIA, the Chief Justice ROBERTS, ALITO, and THOMAS voting for the majority.

The Minority of Justices voting the other way being Justices BREYER, GINSBURG, SOUTER, and STEVENS.