Little-Acorn
11-14-2008, 07:51 PM
This one's over the "Hillary: The Movie" production. Since the movie was intended to show why she should not be elected, the lower court ruled that it had to be restricted since it was too close to the election, with the producers having to jump through various hoops before the government would let them show it.
Most interesting thing about this case, is the question of whether the Supreme Court will reverse their 2003 decision approving the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" law. That approval came as a 5-4 decision, with the usual four socialist justices voting for, the usual four law-abiding justices voting against, and weathervane O'Connor swinging to the FOR side this time.
The four law-abiding justices wrote thundering dissents, with Antonin Scalia summing them up: "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 restrictions 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." Previous court rulings had decided that restricing money that paid for political speech, was not materially different from restricting the speech itself.
Now the weathervane O'Connor is gone, as is law-abiding Rehnquist, both replaced by law-abiding justices Roberts and Alito. If the same issues were on trial today as were in 2003, it's likely the vote would be 5-4 against the unconstitutional CFR law.
I don't know if that basic issue will be raised. Or whether the lawyers will confine themselves to arguing only whether the Hillary movie meets the CFR law's criteria, and ignore whether the law itself is unconstitutional.
The lower court didn't examine the constitutionality of the law, since it did not have the power to overrule the Supremes' 2003 decision. But the Supremes can overrule themselves. Will they?
It's interesting that the Supremes granted cert on this one AFTER the election is over. I would have thought they would deny cert, on grounds that the election is over and the producers can now show the movies as much as they want to now... as though they would have any interest.
Could it be that the justices decided that there was a worthwhile issue here that did NOT depend on the timing of the move around the election?
We can always hope.
----------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94ESUO80&show_article=1
High Court to hear appeal over anti-Clinton movie
Nov 14 03:15 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law.
The justices, in an order Friday, said they will review a lower court ruling that the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was clearly intended to influence people to vote against Clinton in her run for the presidency. The movie was made by Citizens United.
A three-judge court in Washington said the group had to attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors in order to run ads promoting the movie.
James Bopp, Jr., the group's lawyer, has devised repeated legal challenges to the 2003 campaign finance law that sets limits on corporate- and union-funded political ads that run close to elections and identify candidates.
Although the Supreme Court invalidated those restrictions for ads that are not express advocacy, the judges who ruled in this case said the movie could be seen as nothing but anti-Clinton and intended to influence voters.
It was produced solely "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her," the judges said in a unanimous ruling.
The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.
Most interesting thing about this case, is the question of whether the Supreme Court will reverse their 2003 decision approving the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" law. That approval came as a 5-4 decision, with the usual four socialist justices voting for, the usual four law-abiding justices voting against, and weathervane O'Connor swinging to the FOR side this time.
The four law-abiding justices wrote thundering dissents, with Antonin Scalia summing them up: "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 restrictions 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." Previous court rulings had decided that restricing money that paid for political speech, was not materially different from restricting the speech itself.
Now the weathervane O'Connor is gone, as is law-abiding Rehnquist, both replaced by law-abiding justices Roberts and Alito. If the same issues were on trial today as were in 2003, it's likely the vote would be 5-4 against the unconstitutional CFR law.
I don't know if that basic issue will be raised. Or whether the lawyers will confine themselves to arguing only whether the Hillary movie meets the CFR law's criteria, and ignore whether the law itself is unconstitutional.
The lower court didn't examine the constitutionality of the law, since it did not have the power to overrule the Supremes' 2003 decision. But the Supremes can overrule themselves. Will they?
It's interesting that the Supremes granted cert on this one AFTER the election is over. I would have thought they would deny cert, on grounds that the election is over and the producers can now show the movies as much as they want to now... as though they would have any interest.
Could it be that the justices decided that there was a worthwhile issue here that did NOT depend on the timing of the move around the election?
We can always hope.
----------------------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94ESUO80&show_article=1
High Court to hear appeal over anti-Clinton movie
Nov 14 03:15 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law.
The justices, in an order Friday, said they will review a lower court ruling that the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was clearly intended to influence people to vote against Clinton in her run for the presidency. The movie was made by Citizens United.
A three-judge court in Washington said the group had to attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors in order to run ads promoting the movie.
James Bopp, Jr., the group's lawyer, has devised repeated legal challenges to the 2003 campaign finance law that sets limits on corporate- and union-funded political ads that run close to elections and identify candidates.
Although the Supreme Court invalidated those restrictions for ads that are not express advocacy, the judges who ruled in this case said the movie could be seen as nothing but anti-Clinton and intended to influence voters.
It was produced solely "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her," the judges said in a unanimous ruling.
The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.