Comments on: Supreme Court deals blow to BCRA

By: Al in St. Lou

Al in St. Lou — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:19:26 +0000

misterpeasea on June 27, 2008 at 11:00 AM

I believe it because I wouldn’t know who to vote for if I didn’t believe it.

By: misterpeasea

misterpeasea — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:00:36 +0000

We need McCain picking our next Supremes, but considering his BCRA, he can count on the entire blogosphere to do some serious vetting, pre- and post-selection.

Maquis on June 27, 2008 at 8:49 AM

How bizarre is it that McCain has promised to nominate judges who will find his signature legislation unconstitutional? And how believeable?

By: jerseyman

jerseyman — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:49:02 +0000

This is the difference between McCain and Obama. McCain sincerely believes in doing what is right and has the will and determination to fight for it. Unfortunately, he can be mislead as stated by OUTLANDER and others, that result in truly unintended consequences. Obama on the other hand, knows full well what he is doing, and while dodging and flip-flopping to hide the truth and keep afloat, either Obama or the people behind him know that his policies are intended to undermine freedom and prosperity in America.

By: Outlander

Outlander — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:21:18 +0000

I think McCain firmly believes that the huge dollar amounts in campaigns endangers the integrity of our elected officials. His concerns are justified, I think. But I think McCain got talked into believing that BCRA was a way of effecting campaign finance reform that was compatible with the First Amendment. The Bulkley v. Valeo decision could be read to leave some doors open for at least a good chunk of BCRA, and so forth.

I don’t absolve McCain of responsibility for ensuring that the laws he creates and votes for are constitutional. Indeed, his oath of office requires him to uphold the constitution–not violate it. But McCain is a true believer in the evil of money in elections and probably motivated him to ignore that little First Amendment angel on his shoulder.

By: MrLynn

MrLynn — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:05:37 +0000

It has long puzzled me how John McCain can latch onto patently wrong-headed, even unconstitutional, legislation and hang onto it like a dog with a particularly tasty bone. I think the answer might be that he is temperamentally prone to ’causes’, even though he might not understand the subtleties or science involved (campaign finance, illegal immigration, ‘climate change’, etc.). This can be an admirable trait in a leader, but also a foolish one if once he has decided on a course of action, he is unwilling or unable to listen to new information.

The concept of the ‘BCRA’ was flawed from the get-go (as sponsorship from Russ Feingold should have alerted everyone), but apparently Sen. McCain would not listen to Constitutional or other caveats. He has similarly bought into the ‘climate change’ mythology, without (apparently) any interest in learning more about the Earth’s climate or the serious problems with the computer models used so disingenuously by the ‘climate change’ proponents.

But it looks like McCain is all we’ve got to stop the Obambi parade of glassy-eyed youth and aging hippies. Never has ‘the lesser of two evils’ dilemma been more acute. But there’s no choice. McCain may often be misguided, but Obambi is a tool of interests which would sell this country down the river.

By: tarpon

tarpon — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:49:31 +0000

The different rules for different people is a hallmark of the Democrat party. It’s time we took that down.

By: Maquis

Maquis — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:49:20 +0000

We need McCain picking our next Supremes, but considering his BCRA, he can count on the entire blogosphere to do some serious vetting, pre- and post-selection.

By: Right Voices

Right Voices — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:24:59 +0000

The law of unintended consequences apparently is immune from Supreme Court rulings…

Supreme Court deals blow to BCRA

……

By: BigD

BigD — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:13:34 +0000

Well, how does get away with speaking at a church then? No, I know the answer. He’s a Democrat. Double standard. Sorry to digress from the topic at hand, Ed.

By: Ed Morrissey

Ed Morrissey — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:04:05 +0000

I assume he was speaking at a church.

By: BigD

BigD — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:53:11 +0000

Not to go off topic right out of the gate, but how does Obama get away with a backdrop like that?