Supreme Court Strikes Against First Amendment

[lawrocket 3]

As a lawyer, I have learned that there are four possibilities for any given motion, trial, procedure, etc:

1) You win when you should win - this happens roughly 40 percent of the time

2) You lose when you should lose - again, this is about 40 percent of the time.

3) You win when you should lose - this happens about 10 percent

4) You lose some you should win - this happens about 10 percent of the time.

It's just a fact. Judges make decisions.

The best judges are the ones that say, "I hate to make this decision, but I must." Sometimes they'll even say things like, "Hey, Legislature. See what decision I had to make? Pass a law so this doesn't happen any more."

In this context, you have judges who decide what policy prevails when two policies are at issue. The majority seem to be concerned with elimination of corruption.

It's a shame that the majority chose a value not expressed in the Constitution over a value that is.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

[Mr' Rodger's voice] Can you say "legislating form the bench?" I knew you could. [/voice]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

They did not legislate from the bench. They upheld legislation that was challenged as Unconstitutional.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The best judges are the ones that say, "I hate to make this decision, but I must." Sometimes they'll even say things like, "Hey, Legislature. See what decision I had to make? Pass a law so this doesn't happen any more."

Those are the ones in whose courtroom I wouldn't fear for my life.

Quote

In this context, you have judges who decide what policy prevails when two policies are at issue. The majority seem to be concerned with elimination of corruption.

So did they even set up a balance? A way to test it? Not that I've really seen. They just said "we're going to do this, and we're the supreme court so try and stop us."

Quote

It's a shame that the majority chose a value not expressed in the Constitution over a value that is.

See my reply to gravitymaster.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

I understand the difference, and I know that this is not legislating from the bench [they're saving that for abortion right now] but it's the same underlying principle: finding the answer you want and then making it happen, regarless of the law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Perhaps my years of practice have jaded me in this respect. I, too, used to think like you. In a way, I long for those days. The bright things seemed brighter to me then, and the dark seemed darker.

Unfortunately, I work in advocacy. My clients want solutions to problems, and I find rules and procedures that will allow those solutions. My opposition does the same thing. They have an intended result, and find ways to go about doing it.

In doing so, most of the same rules and logic are used. I'll argue that a felony conviction ten years ago is relevant to the character of the opposing party and should be told to the jury. The opponent will say, "It was once, and it was ten years ago. That isn't relevant now." The law would say we are both right, it's a tough call, and the judge has to make her decision weighing all factors.

The precedents that the majority cited DO support their positions. In fact, the Supreme Court - any court - has the authority to extend a rule or a law to meet a situtation where no case or statutory law is directly on point. In those instances, the personal feelings and biases of a judge (or law clerk) tilt the balance.

Sad? Not necessarily. True? Definitely. Can the Court reverse itself in the future? Sure it can.

Am I saddened by the decision? Yes. But I now have to work within its constraints.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Kallend is wrong on this one!

In Buckley v. Valeo, 474 U.S. 1 (1976), the court held that any limitations on the amount of money that a person or individual could spend on political speech was a de facto abridgment of free speech.

Why did the majority of the court get it wrong? Here's why.

The First Amendment does not guarantee equal free speech to all. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak all you want free from government interference.

In this matter, the majority of the court forgot that. The majority of the court seems to believe that "free speech" means "equal speech." Thus, the government must interfere with the abilities of some to express it to ensure equal speech.

This is, quite simply, hogwash. If I want to spend a billion dollars on Super Bowl ads stating that Howard Dean has publicly supported gun ownership rights, then the Constitution should guarantee my right to do so free from government intervention. Money = speech. The majority of the court doesn't think that it fair.

The minority of the court correctly observe that free speech is guaranteed by equal protection of the government to make such speech. Some may speak more loudly than others, but the government should not be allowed to stifle them.

Kallend. Is the minority wrong? Is "Free Speech" supposed to be "equal speech" or is it supposed to be the freedom from government intrvention?

I agree with the majority of the Supremes. The majority of the Supremes is, on Constitutional issues de jure correct. They can overrule previous cases if they so choose, and they can overrule the decision of any lower court. What they say is the law, IS THE LAW. If the minority was correct, Al Gore would be President.

SO, to summarize - I agree with the majority of the Supreme Court and you don't. What the minority says is irrelevant. What Harvard law professors say is irrelevant. What you say is irrelevant.

As a matter of law I am right and you are wrong.

And I thought you were a lawyer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Kallend:

Re-read the post. The Supreme Court is correct. That's why I cited Buckley v. Vallejo, which stands, inter alia, for the proposition that money equals speech.

You previously said indicated that money should not be considered speech. That's why I said you were wrong. As a matter of law, money can be speech.

Perhaps I should have provided a subheading on my additional arguments against the majority of the court's thinking. The Supremem Court has stated the law, and it will be followed until it is overturned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Kallend:

Re-read the post. The Supreme Court is correct. That's why I cited Buckley v. Vallejo, which stands, inter alia, for the proposition that money equals speech.

You previously said indicated that money should not be considered speech. That's why I said you were wrong. As a matter of law, money can be speech.

Perhaps I should have provided a subheading on my additional arguments against the majority of the court's thinking. The Supremem Court has stated the law, and it will be followed until it is overturned.

You are saying that the minority on the court was correct and the majority opinion is "hogwash" (your words). Since the majority rules, you are saying that the law of the land is "hogwash". As a matter of law, the minority opinion on its constitutionality is not correct.

This law was passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and in all but some minor respects declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Tough sh*t to those that disagree, it IS constitutional.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[captainpooby 0]

Quote

They did not legislate from the bench. They upheld legislation that was challenged as Unconstitutional.

That law is so obviously unconstitutional a third grader could see it.

[captainpooby 0]

Tough sh*t to those that disagree, it IS constitutional.

Apparently you have never read the first amendment.
A liberal professor out of Chicago disagrees with these Justices:"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.''

Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia:

``This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction 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 cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government...''

``The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy.''

Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas:

``The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is `too influential,' and that the `appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run `slanted' or `biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?''

"
I find it unbelievable that this law was upheld.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

They did not legislate from the bench. They upheld legislation that was challenged as Unconstitutional.

That law is so obviously unconstitutional a third grader could see it.

Well, the problem here, Billy, is that 5 of the Supreme Court Justices found it to be constitutional and 5 is greater than 4 (except in maybe Florida).

Maybe President Bush will nominate a third grader when the next vacancy occurs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You are saying that the minority on the court was correct and the majority opinion is "hogwash" (your words). Since the majority rules, you are saying that the law of the land is "hogwash". As a matter of law, the minority opinion on its constitutionality is not correct.

Pay attention Kallend. He was replying to an earlier post, not debating whether the majority of the supreme court decides what is constitutional.

Quote

This law was passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and in all but some minor respects declared constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Tough sh*t to those that disagree, it IS constitutional.

Uh huh. Yep, the supreme court is always right. Always follows the law, and never makes it up as they go. Yup, never makes the wrong decision. You no doubt remember the Dredd Scott decision. And Plessy v. Ferguson. And Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Tough sh*t to those that disagree, it IS constitutional.

Apparently you have never read the first amendment.
A liberal professor out of Chicago disagrees with these Justices:"Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:
etc.
.

And you are disgreeing with an official ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on a law passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

You lose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And you are disgreeing with an official ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on a law passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

see my last post.

ps - don't we all know how Republicans have always had a perfect record upholding civil rights.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

And you are disgreeing with an official ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States on a law passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

see my last post.

ps - don't we all know how Republicans have always had a perfect record upholding civil rights.

"Uh huh. Yep, the supreme court is always right. Always follows the law, and never makes it up as they go. Yup, never makes the wrong decision. You no doubt remember the Dredd Scott decision. And Plessy v. Ferguson. And Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States."

By definition, the Supreme Court is always right. That's what "Supreme" gets for you. They were right at the timewith Dredd Scott, and they are right now.

Quiz for you.

Who gets to decide if a law is constitutional?

a)Kennedy
b)Lawrocket
c)CaptainPooby
d)The Supreme Court of the USA, by majority vote.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=14222


Unconstitutional campaign rules prompt NRA to seek media status
Tribune Editorial
New and unlovely creatures continue to emerge from the Pandora's Box of “campaign finance reform,” so avidly touted by such luminaries as Arizona Sen. John McCain as the true path to political righteousness.

The latest is a plan by the National Rifle Association to have itself adjudicated through by the courts as a media outlet — and thus exempt from a provision in the McCain-Feingold law prohibiting it or any other group that accepts either corporate or union donations from airing TV and radio ads that mention federal candidates in the month before a primary election and in the two months before the general one. The NRA is also looking into the acquisition of a broadcast outlet to go with its several magazines.

Announcing the plan to The Associated Press, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre posed two rhetorical questions.

‘‘Why should they have an exclusive right to relay information to the public, and why should not NRA be considered as legitimate a news source as they are?” he enquired, referring to the news media that are exempt from the restrictions of McCain-Feingold.

The speciousness of the latter question is at once apparent: NRA is not as legitimate a news source as, say, Fox News, the Los Angeles Times or the East Valley Tribune because news gathering and dissemination are not its raison d’étre: gun-rights advocacy is. The NRA's publications do not offer a balanced view of the controversy surrounding those rights, and they make scant attempt to cover any issues unrelated to their preservation.

But in the former, LaPierre has a perfectly valid point — one made much more so by news organizations' own frequent failure to live up to their ideals. Why indeed should the media have “an exclusive right to relay information to the public” in the weeks before federal elections? On what basis is mentioning federal candidates in that time frame by groups such as NRA proscribed?

Certainly not that of the First Amendment, which states unequivocally that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”
Moreover, it is an unhappy fact that the mainstream media are hardly so even-handed in their reportage as to merit such an exemption, particularly in the case of gun-rights advocates.

The NRA can hardly be blamed for seeking a way around so unreasonable a set of rules as is set out in McCain-Feingold — but if it succeeds in its quest, a stampede of applications for exemption may be expected from every other advocacy group so restricted. Eventually defining and even licensing media outlets might fall under the purview of government, which would truly be a malign outcome. The right outcome, of course, would be a Supreme Court ruling throwing this pernicious provision onto the judicial dunghill as unconstitutional.

[lummy 4]

Just to put things in perspective, the NRA was planning on this before the Supreme Court made their decision.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/search/fastfind.cgi?jump=1&word_option=and&word=NRA+media

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=14222


Unconstitutional campaign rules prompt NRA to seek media status
Tribune Editorial
.

Supplementary quiz:

Who gets to decide if a law is unconstitutional?

a) The East Valley Tribune editorial board

b) The Supreme Court of the United States, by majority vote

c) Gravitymaster

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

The question here is "What defines a media outlet?"

Seven published magazines? Syndicated radio shows? Television programs? Internet websites?

If UPN can show programming 20 or more hours of the day and show news when they like, can OLN do the same? If OLN can, why could an NRA channel not do the same?

Quote

The NRA's publications do not offer a balanced view of the controversy surrounding those rights, and they make scant attempt to cover any issues unrelated to their preservation.

Actually, the NRA is involved in federal lands access, environmental conservation, hunting safety, etc.

Quote

Moreover, it is an unhappy fact that the mainstream media are hardly so even-handed in their reportage as to merit such an exemption, particularly in the case of gun-rights...

Well, they got that right.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gawain 0]

Overall, I like what the McCain-Feingold bill was seeking, but it does restrict "how and when" a person, or enterprise may express political views. To me, that equals a restriction on free speech, therefore, 1st Amendment.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Kennedy 0]

Yep. I have no problem with legislating campaign finances. That's their prerogative.

But messing with people and organizations, that's not Kosher.

And Kallend, save your supercilious quizzes. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between what's de facto legally correct and what's right.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Overall, I like what the McCain-Feingold bill was seeking, but it does restrict "how and when" a person, or enterprise may express political views. To me, that equals a restriction on free speech, therefore, 1st Amendment.

There is no doubt about that you are correct, but unrestricted free speech has not been a right since who-knows-when. Your rights to free speech do not extend to endangering public safety or national security, for example. And now the Supremes have determined that the national interest in free speech is outweighed by the national interest in fair elections. They, and only they, have the right to make this determination.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Yep. I have no problem with legislating campaign finances. That's their prerogative.

But messing with people and organizations, that's not Kosher.

And Kallend, save your supercilious quizzes. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between what's de facto legally correct and what's right.

And you are the final arbiter of what's right?

I'd rather trust the Supreme Court to make that call, no offense to you of course.

The FACT is, this law IS constitutional because the only body authorized to make that determination has decided that it IS constitutional. Anyone claiming otherwise, including the East Valley Tribune is simply wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Overall, I like what the McCain-Feingold bill was seeking, but it does restrict "how and when" a person, or enterprise may express political views. To me, that equals a restriction on free speech, therefore, 1st Amendment.

There is no doubt about that you are correct, but unrestricted free speech has not been a right since who-knows-when. Your rights to free speech do not extend to endangering public safety or national security, for example. And now the Supremes have determined that the national interest in free speech is outweighed by the national interest in fair elections. They, and only they, have the right to make this determination.

Unfortunately, your argument does not address the issue of political free speech, which is a cornerstone of our "free" speech. Freedom of speech never extended to infringing on the safety of others, or our nation as a whole. That argument does not hold water (IMO of course).

Fortunately, the law does not prevent these enterprises from expressing views independently of organized political parties (RNC, DNC, etc.). My concern is that it sets the stage.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!