In case you're keeping score, the following is free speech:
-- Computer-generated child pornography;
-- Burning the American flag;
-- Making rap songs about injuring women's genitals while having rough sex.
The following is not free speech:
-- Contributing money to a political party you favor; and
-- Speaking out against a political candidate.
When are we going to realize that the Supreme Court, along with many of the lower courts, are mainly comprised of petty tyrants? Sooner or later, we must (bloodlessly) remove them from power. They are a threat to our liberties, and we have to deal with them as Americans have traditionally dealt with tyrants. It's time to remove them from their judicial thrones.
I'm not saying that the supremes aren't tyrants by any stretch, but McCain-Feingold wasn't their creation. They just signed off on something they probably should have struck down which was originally initiated in congress and which George W. Bush signed. If anything, this is judicial coconspiriting with congressional (and presidential) tyranny, not judicial tyranny.
We do have to blame Congress and the President in the first instance of creating and signing this as well. We cannot rely on the courts to preserve our freedoms. This is really scary. I think we need to promote blogs open spaces for political statements for or against candidates for the 60 days leading up to elections next year. Maybe talk radio could join in the bandwagon as well! We can't count on TV or newspapers to be fair and evenhanded! When we can no longer speak out against political officials and cannot carry arms, we are in trouble. If the Dems want to take shots at Bush they ought to raise this issue. Only Dems that did not support it, however, can take those shots. This is a bipartisan political power grab out of the hands of the people.
Didn't the dems want something more restrictive?
Campaign finance reform has always been about each side trying to ensure their own power. The left wanted it because fewer ads favored the media, which was on their side. The right didn't want it for the same reason. But the current bill favors Bush, because he can raise more hard money than anyone else, especially with the new $2,000 contribution limit.
I remember hearing that Dr. Howie has said that he would institute federal funding of presidential candidates once he got into office. I'm not sure if that would exclude all private contributions, but it sure sounds like that.
There are in many cases means for impeaching judges. In many cases State and local judges come up for election.
When I go to the polls, their names are on the ballot, but I know nothing of them: Do they uphold or overturn the Constitution? Do they deny unalienable rights to the weakest among us?
Whether or not the courts will allow it, we need to have some group of people catalog the judges' decisions and comments and let the people know prior to elections, whether or not Generals Howe and Clinton approve!
I wouldn't put it past some renegade freshman Republicans in the House to file impeachment proceedings against the majority of the Court in this case. It wouldn't go anywhere, but it'd be cool to see.
So, you've noticed the tendency to judicial absolutism as well?
In my not-so-humble opinion, one of the worst examples of this is what has been going on in the Florida courts in the Terri Schiavo case, as I discuss on my blog, Thrown Back today.
I'm in favor of campaign finance limits. People with lots of money shouldn't have more voice than those with little. Right now big corps and groups can outshout anyone else.
The decision is nothing short of astonishing. What kind of a warped mind can say that porn is protected but political speech is not?
President Bush and Congress deserve their shares of blame. They are not, however, the final arbiter of laws that do and do not violate the constitution. The Court has become unmoored from the plain meaning of the supreme law, and they are enemies of our republic. They are not gods, nor are they our masters. It is for men like them that we have a Second Amendment -- at least until they get rid of that, too.
Gordon, your answer is too simplistic. The rich and powerful will always be able to get their point across -- that's one of the perqs of being rich and powerful. What this law does is prevent little people like us from forming groups and amplifying our collective voices.
Sic semper tyrranis!
They are not, however, the final arbiter of laws that do and do not violate the constitution.
That may be true, but it is important to remember that there is nothing in the constitution about Judicial Review and that the first two administrations in our history conducted business without it. The responsibility to uphold the constitution is first the duty of the congress, second the duty of the President, and only third the duty of the courts in the post Marbury V. Madison era.