{"id":21752,"date":"2003-12-10T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T07:15:18","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T07:15:18","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T07:15:18","slug":"supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

[Reading from an Associated Press wire story:] “A sharply divided…” There\u2019s nothing “sharply divided” about this. We got four liberals and we got two Republicans who read the editorial pages – or two conservatives who read the editorial pages – on the Supreme Court. Let me just stick with the details here, and then I will ad-lib my commentary and analysis after presenting to you the facts. “A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation\u2019s new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling today that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties, soft money.”<\/line> Now, they did this – remember what started all this. This is a bunch of corrupt politicians saying that it was the money that corrupted them. “Too much money in politics, and it corrupts all of us,” said Senator McCain. We\u2019re all corrupt here, a lot of us are, and we got to get the money out of this. And the Supreme Court agreed! The Supreme Court, they just took a knife to the First Amendment here. They just carved up the First Amendment, said, “Yep, because there might be corruption we are going to limit what can be said when and what can be spent by whom, where.”<\/line>[AP:] “Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals capitalize on a loophole in the existing Watergate-era campaign money system. The court also upheld…” This is a biggie, too. This is. We\u2019re going to rue the day, folks, that this has happened. “The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television or radio ads often feature harsh attacks by…” Oh, how horrible! Really? Harsh attacks? Why, we can\u2019t have that in a country with free speech, can we? Certainly not in a political arena, where the free speech First Amendment that\u2019s written about political speech, we can\u2019t have harshness, can we? <\/line><\/p>\n

Who gets to decide what\u2019s harsh, anyway? It doesn\u2019t matter anymore. You can\u2019t say anything, 60 days, 30 days before an election. “The television or radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates, so-called soft monies is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps.” Basically soft money is what you used to be able to give to the parties in unlimited amounts, and there\u2019s always been a limit on what you can give to a candidate. It used to be a thousand. Now it\u2019s two grand. Yip yip yip yip yahoo.<\/line>Now, “The court was divided on the complex issue. Five of the nine justices voted to substantially uphold the soft money ban and the ad restrictions, which are the most significant features of the new law. Here we go, justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O\u2019Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring candidates for federal office from raising soft money. The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money.”<\/line>“The court has given government…” This is the last paragraph in the story by Anne Gearan at the Associated Press. By the way, AP has a reporter named Nedra Pickler, and we\u2019re concerned about her job here at the EIB Network. We\u2019re going to be taking steps here to save the job of Nedra – maybe it\u2019s NEE-dra, I\u2019m not sure how you pronounce it – Pickler. She\u2019s a reporter of the Associated Press. She\u2019s actually pointed out errors, mistakes and lies that the Democrats are uttering in their debates. Now, she hasn\u2019t gotten the message or she slipped by them in the interview process or something, but if we don\u2019t take action fast here to save her job she\u2019s going to be toast. <\/line><\/p>\n

So we\u2019re going to be doing that, folks. Just hang in there. It\u2019s a three-hour show for a reason. Here\u2019s the last paragraph of the story. “The court has given government…” This is amazing. I just don\u2019t believe it. I cannot believe – I really – I am not speech little because I\u2019m speaking, but I am apoplectic. Do you know what this does? Let me read the paragraph to you. “The court has given government an extensive role in the area [TV commercials and so forth] on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said.”<\/line><\/line>Folks, it is almost over. Once the Supreme Court is going to give the government the power to determine whether or not something might cause corruption, or give the power to root out corruption, or even the appearance of it, that concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech? Holy shmoly, Supreme Court! This is unbelievable! We\u2019re going to get to the point here we\u2019re going to have to ask a question: “Is your speech government approved?” And I don\u2019t mean the speech you\u2019re going to give, just whatever you\u2019re saying is what you\u2019re saying here government approved, because if it\u2019s not, I\u2019m calling Senator McCain and Senator Feingold. <\/line>You may as well call Republicans, too. They supported this thing. The cowards. They supported this, and everybody thought Supreme Court would never do this. “Supreme Court? They\u2019re going to make sure. They can\u2019t! You can\u2019t abridge the First Amendment.” They just did. They just did. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech? This concern about corruption? Freedom of speech is not how you get to corruption! You get to corruption in court. Let me tell you who benefits from this. If you watch any mainstream news organ today or read any mainstream news organ, these people – it\u2019s going to be the greatest decision in the world. This is the greatest thing the Supreme Court\u2019s done. They\u2019re just going to be ecstatic; they\u2019re going to be happy. <\/line><\/p>\n

I mean, this ruling today will serve almost as an Orgasmatron for these people because I\u2019ll tell you why. Not only, not only do they like it politically, but in terms of business, the mainstream press, anybody that\u2019s considered to be a news program will benefit tremendously from this because there are no bounds. You know, ABC, CBS, NBC, whoever, 30 or 60 days before an election can go get any guest they want to pummel any opponent they want. Go get some academic, pointy-headed political scientist from over there, or some liberal fruitcake from over there, and they bring them on for 20 minutes, half hour, ten minutes, whatever it is, and bash Bush or bash a Republican, bash a conservative. <\/line>You know they\u2019re not going to be bashing Democrats on these network news shows. Can\u2019t touch that because that\u2019s not a commercial, my friends. That\u2019s not a bought-and-paid-for commercial. So the media, newscasts are considered untouchable here. So you can look for all kinds of documentaries and special election hour specials in this period because this is the time when most people make up their minds who they\u2019re going to vote for. So what\u2019s happened now, the mainstream press, they\u2019ll go get whoever guests they want and they can trash whoever they want. That person who has been trashed cannot respond on television, can\u2019t buy a commercial, can\u2019t get a commercial run, can\u2019t do it. Got to be invited by the press to come on and counter. <\/line>That\u2019s the way this is going to shake out. And, you watch, this is going to go into effect. We\u2019re going to see it in the 2004 presidential election cycle – and we\u2019ll see if it doesn\u2019t just manifest itself this way. I don\u2019t know how else it can. That\u2019s another reason why these people are happy, because they\u2019re going to look at this as having immense power now with no competition. Let me read to you the dissent by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, “The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make all donations to the national parties suspect. But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech is not a surrogate for corruption. It is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court\u2019s willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands congress\u2019 ability to regulate political speech.”<\/line><\/p>\n

This is unheard of! You\u2019ve heard the phrase the Founding Fathers are “rolling over in their graves.” They\u2019re about to wake up from their graves here, folks. This is unbelievable, I\u2019m telling you! To assume that a contributor and a recipient are colluding and engaged in corruption is what\u2019s at the root of it Supreme Court decision? “Yep, we have to consider that. Somebody giving money to a politician, yep, that could be corruption so we\u2019re going to limit the ability of that activity to take place.” This is encapsulated now as constitutional law, the whole McCain theory that money corrupts politics. And, by the way, if you think this is going to keep money out of politics, they\u2019ve already found ways around it. These little organizations calls 527s. <\/line> <\/line>Ever heard of George Soros? How about campaign finance reform laws now encapsulated in the Constitution and Soros can give the Democrats $10 or $15 million to MoveOn.org, Americans Coming Together, whatever organization he wants. Pile on the money. There\u2019s no limit on it. How does this happen? How come that money isn\u2019t corrupting the Democrats? How come George Soros\u2019 money isn\u2019t corrupting the people that get it? Hmm? Now, ladies and gentlemen, excuse me. I think we have to be very afraid now when the Supreme Court takes up an important case because we have four liberal ideologues on the court. They\u2019re Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Those are the four liberal ideologues. <\/line>We have two judges, justices, that appear to be politicians, and that would be Sandra Day O\u2019Connor and Anthony Kennedy. And who is – I think it was Kennedy who said, “Yeah, we must look at international law.” I\u2019m not sure about Kennedy, but the Supreme Court recently has admitted it\u2019s looking at international law to decide U.S. cases as well. But apparently Sandra Day O\u2019Connor, in this case, didn\u2019t much care what\u2019s in the Constitution when she reached her decision. It\u2019s apparent that they pay a lot of attention to the press. If they had struck down this law, if Kennedy or O\u2019Connor – in this case O\u2019Connor – had voted the other way, with the minority in this case and made it the majority, the editorial pages of America would have never forgiven her. <\/line>They would have been all over her like you can\u2019t believe. They would have been trashing her, “What\u2019s her corruption? What does she seek to…?” You can imagine they would have said, and she knows it. So a very clear and precise sentence in the Constitution preventing the federal government from restricting free speech has basically been read right out of it. The First Amendment. It\u2019s not number 10, number 7 – not number 19. It\u2019s #1! “Congress shall make no law abridging, among other things, free speech…” Just wrote it out! <\/line>But stop and think, my friends. What else has been going on during this Supreme Court term? Sodomy, my friends. Sodomy is a constitutionally protected right now. Free speech, political speech, is not constitutionally protected. I\u2019m sure, I am confident that\u2019s what the Founding Fathers and the framers of the Constitution intended and had in mind, right? Sodomy protected by the Constitution, free speech not. So the question now is, you cannot run a commercial, a candidate cannot run commercials 60 or 30 days before a primary or general election, but sodomy is legal throughout the country. The question now is: “Can a candidate be sodomized 60 days before a general election.” <\/line>END TRANSCRIPT<\/line><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[Reading from an Associated Press wire story:] “A sharply divided…” There\u2019s nothing “sharply divided” about this. We got four liberals and we got two Republicans who read the editorial pages – or two conservatives who read the editorial pages – on the Supreme Court. Let me just stick with the details here, and then I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"[Reading from an Associated Press wire story:] “A sharply divided…” There\u2019s nothing “sharply divided” about this. We got four liberals and we got two Republicans who read the editorial pages – or two conservatives who read the editorial pages – on the Supreme Court. Let me just stick with the details here, and then I […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment_.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment_.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment_.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T07:15:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T07:15:18+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"[Reading from an Associated Press wire story:] “A sharply divided…” There\u2019s nothing “sharply divided” about this. We got four liberals and we got two Republicans who read the editorial pages – or two conservatives who read the editorial pages – on the Supreme Court. Let me just stick with the details here, and then I […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment_.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment_.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment_.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/","name":"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T07:15:18+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T07:15:18+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2003\/12\/10\/supreme_court_takes_knife_to_first_amendment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Takes Knife to First Amendment"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21752"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}