If, on the other hand, they “change” the legislation to something they prefer, even if it’s something you like, it is activism. The judiciary isn’t there to write (or rewrite) laws, they are there to judge the constitutionality of the laws that are passed by the legislative arm of the govt, and approved by the executive branch, and then give a simple thumbs up or down.

This is why Roe was activism, there is no right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution. It simply is not there. They had to invent one, knowing full well that they were the final authority on what the Constitution says.

This is also why striking down the BCRA (and stopping there) would be a simple review. All they are saying is that the law, as written, is unconstitutional. Congress can then try again, but not the USSC.

Wasn’t Bush pushing unlimited contributions and immediate disclosure campaign laws in competition with BCRA? HIs caving on this was an early signal of his weakness on domestic policies.

WashJeff on June 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Without doubt Bush and Rove knew that BCRA was a poison chalice for the Republican Party.
.
It is hard to image why Bush, Cheney, Rove et al would desire to gut campaign funding for the Republican party even if they were soft on “domestic policies”. Why not veto BCRA, win in 2004, 2006 and 2008 and go soft on domestic policies in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008… anyway. No, more likely Senator Maverick-McCain forced the Republican Party to drink a cup of hemlock.

Wasn’t Bush pushing unlimited contributions and immediate disclosure campaign laws in competition with BCRA? HIs caving on this was an early signal of his weakness on domestic policies.

WashJeff on June 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Pres. Bush didn’t veto BCRA but instead kicked it over to the Supreme Court, I suspect, because McCain had cut the legs out from under him on this Democratic campaign issue.
.
I suspect that McCain and the DNC had maneuvered Pres. Bush into choice of accepting BCRA and hoping that the Supreme Court would later declare it unconstitutional and have a reasonable chance of Republican victory in the 2004 elections
OR
veto BCRA, suffer defeat in 2004 and watch the Democrats pass an even more onerous bill in 2005.

Primary his ass.

Sorry… bitter feelings are resurfacing.

BPD on June 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Write JD to encourage that.

portlandon on June 30, 2009 at 5:14 PM

You should go into business selling clams and rugs. I hear they have quite an appetite for both.

I moved here to Whorelando 20 years ago from SE near Mt. Tabor. Couldn’t stand the weather.
Of course, I was a young man in my 20’s. Loved Portland but don’t think I could deal with living in San Fran North/Seattle south at my age with my political orientation.

Lanceman on June 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Hello former Portlander!

Portland does have it’s charms. You are right about it being San fran/seattlesouth though. Portland is for Lesbians what San fran is for Gay men. The lib women up here wear flannel bikinis,don’t shave their legs, and spend the rest of the time in Home depot. It’s one huge pre-op sex change town. It’s hard being a conservative behind the enemy lines, but there is a resistance movement here. =)

progressoverpeace on June 30, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Could dubious financing be mentioned, sure…

Might there even be some substantive (albeit probably private) digging and unearthing of shenanigans, let alone a forensic audit? May be, but of course, those (shenanigans) would be “bipartisan,” or else the discoveries would be a partisan “witch-hunt” and “mudslinging.” (Recall Sen. Thompson’s Senate committee hearings on the 1996 Presidential elections financing.)

Why would the 2008 Presidential campaign finance reviews likely be private? Well, check out the timing on McCain-Feingold reconsideration. In September 2009, the White House, US Senate, US House and the FEC will be controlled by those with the most to lose from any kind of respectable audit. So, no House or Senate hearings and most certainly no cooperation (FOIA responses) from the FEC any time soon. What of the Obama campaign? Don’t bother, they’d probably be directing the cover-up. (And there’d be one for the ages!)

And how about that MSM asking all the tough questions and doing the hard-hitting investigative reports? That’s right, naught there. May be a lot of somethings will change in 2 and half months, but I rather doubt it.

We will have to rely on our trusty, long, elephant memories plus any private, non-MSM investigations we can get!

I moved here to Whorelando 20 years ago from SE near Mt. Tabor. Couldn’t stand the weather.
Of course, I was a young man in my 20′s. Loved Portland but don’t think I could deal with living in San Fran North/Seattle south at my age with my political orientation.

Is it possible that an auditing of the finances of the last Presidential election be ordered as this case is considered?

progressoverpeace on June 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM

I sure hope it’s being pursued. If we sent in our sharpest legal beagles, this case could become a platform for some great opportunities.

Never gonna happen, alas.

ConScribe on June 30, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Not even a full-blown audit … just a question about it … just a tiny, little mention of the totally anonymous donations that were enabled …

And I’m not even getting into the $800,000 that the idiot messiah gave to ACORN and called “lighting” or whatever.

Is it possible that an auditing of the finances of the last Presidential election be ordered as this case is considered?

progressoverpeace on June 30, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Never gonna happen, alas.

What ticks me off more than anything is that McCain, himslef, refused to defend his own un-Constitutional bill against a guy whose campaign financing actually broke normal campaign laws! It’s time that the idiot messiah’s finances were really audited and he was escorted by our military to a long vacation in Costa Rica … along with all of the criminals, morons, misfits, and traitors in his cabinet.

nukemhill on June 30, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Romeo13 on June 30, 2009 at 2:06 PM

I agree that it’s certainly a matter of perspective, although I view ‘Judicial Activism’ as the injection of personal ideology into a judicial interpretation, rather than dispassionate, clinical analysis of the original intent of the law – from the local/state/federal level all the way up to the Constitution itself.

LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 2:13 PM

Another way to think of it is this: When SCOTUS creates new “rights” or “federal government powers, ” (via penumbras of emanations from specific guarantees in the US Constitution,) it is judicial activism.

I don’t know about this bill and I don’t pretend to know what the answer is, but I am concerned about all the money going into campaigns. Obama raised $400 million in his bid to buy the White House and a lot of it was under questionable circumstances. Obviously McCain Feingold did not stop that.

I know that it is wrong for the state to tell us how to spend our money or to limit the right to free speech. But I am not sure that money always equals free speech. That just does not feel right to me.

Terrye on June 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM

I’m convinced that Money will find itself in politics no matter what’s done.

I’m all for what Bush suggested: Unlimited Donations… but EVERY dollar must be made public. None of this private small donations crap.

That way, we know who’s saying what with their money.

Chainsaw56 on June 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Agreed.

Sadly, by the time I moved here, I would have to say that there’s only about 20% of the population that actually deserves to call themselves “Americans”. The rest are merely cowardly sheeple being farmed for votes.

I would say – Without the Second Amendment, everything else is just words.
LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Agreed, words that can be ‘Changed’ at a whim.

It should be readily obvious why a government would want to disarm it’s Citizens, and that would be make them subjects.

You might think that this is from The Onion, a favored satirical site. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, California’s Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass responded to a question about conservative talk radio by calling show hosts……

Without the Second Amendment, there is no First Amendment.

Chainsaw56 on June 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I would say – Without the Second Amendment, everything else is just words.

Which Portland are you in, Don?

Lanceman on June 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Peoples Republic of Oregon.

The First Amendment is the first one for a reason…
TexasJew on June 30, 2009 at 2:12 PM

…closely followed by the Second, for a reason ;)
LimeyGeek on June 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Without the Second Amendment, there is no First Amendment.