The Supreme Court was supposed to have issues a ruling this week on whether the speech limits imposed by the McCain-Feingold law applied to an movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton and made during the 2008 Presidential campaign.
Instead of ruling, though, the justices have asked for additional argument on what could be a very significant issue:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has failed to decide on whether a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton that was shown during the presidential race should be regulated as if it were a campaign ad.
The court said Monday it will hear arguments in the case again in a special session on Sept. 9. The justices said they want lawyers to address whether the court should overturn its earlier rulings on limiting corporate and union contributions in federal elections.
This seems to indicate that there’s at least some sentiment on the Court for revisiting previous ruling and, perhaps, putting a stake into the heart of one of the most invidious pieces of legislation of the past decade.
One can only hope so, at least.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Read your title, Doug, and was going to comment.
However, my comment was your tag line.
Great minds think alike. On the First Amendment, at least.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
[...] already been heard once by the Court. However, in June, the Court took the somewhat unusual step of asking the attorneys for both sides to re-brief and re-argue to address the question of “whether the court should overturn its earlier rulings on limiting [...]