Why did the Liberal Supreme Court judges vote against 1st Amendment rights?

Question

The Supreme court ruled in favor of free speech for an anti-abortion election ad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance

However, the Liberal judges opposed the ruling. I wonder why? I thought Liberals were in support of the first amendment!

So, why didn't the Liberal judges vote according to the 1st Amendment rights to give this group the free speech rights it deserves?

However, I AM pleased to see that the ACLU agrees with the decision. However, their name is right in front of the NRA. Is that a typo? Or did the ACLU and the NRA actually agree on something?

And why was the NRA involved anyway?

Answer 1

Socialist seek to rewrite the constitution using activist judges to accomplish their goals of destroying our constitution and our God given rights.

Keep that in mind, God gave us those rights, not man.

Answer 2

What so many of you seem to be missing is, what if me and my buddies deside to form a "activist group" to promote Pro-Life stances. We then decide to buy and ad to run it. The previous ruling prohibited us from running this type of ad, especially when showing who is on the other side of the aisle.

You guys just go on and on about the political groups being the runs running these special interest groups, when in fact it is the other way around. Now, politicians shouldn't be pushed into believing something simply because of one of these special interest groups or polls, they should stand for what they believe in. If the people don't agree with that stance, then they will vote for someone who does.

This issue was strictly a 1st admendment one, unless you can some how prove that the Republican party was the one financing this group and ad. Under such circumstances, then they should be following some guidelines. But that isn't the case here. It is a group, which as their name states, where everyone knows where they stand and what message they wish to get across.

The NRA was involved simply because they are interested in the outcome so they would be able to state the opinions of canidates on gun rights and legislation. Maybe to back someone, maybe just to get the word out on someone else.

Answer 3

The Liberal dissent and the NRA involvement are probably symptomatic of the same thing: The way abortion has been linked to other conservative and liberal causes.

It looks like the often-dispised ACLU is the only one in this case that wasn't sucked in by that, sticking to it's own free-speach agenda.

Answer 4

It's not a freedom of speech issue. The objection of the liberals was over a violation of campaign financing laws, not freedom of speech. It's all in the article you referred to:

"On Monday, Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal colleagues, said in his dissent that the court 'effectively and, unjustifiably, overruled' the earlier decision.

The ads could have been run, Souter pointed out, had they been paid for out of the group's political action committee, which is subject to federal campaign finance limits. Or Feingold's name could have been omitted, he said."

"The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections."

The NRA is one of those special interest groups, which explains their involvement. In my opinion, this is a conflict of interest for the Supreme Court because the conservative justices want to bend the campaign financing laws to give an advantage to the corporations and interest groups who back them. The liberal justices have nothing against freedom of speech but they want to uphold the law and prevent electioneering. They even said they would have no objection to the ads if they had been financed legally.

The hard part for me to understand is why the ACLU backed the decision. Apparently they believe freedom of speech is even more important than preventing unethical electioneering. However, since freedom of speech wasn't the real issue in this case, given that the ads would have been permitted if they had been financed legally, I think the ACLU should have stayed neutral.

Answer 5

The ACLU is 100% for all protests and demonstrations even in favor of the Nazis! the ACLU is not liberal, even though many people claim they are.

There are no liberal justices on the Supreme Court. A few are moderate and they did vote FOR 1st Amend. rights in a decision announced today.

The 5 right wing anti-first amendment fanatics on the Court all voted FOR censorship against the kid who held up a joking sign.

Answer 6

i can't read minds. i will tell you the connection between NRA and ACLU. the NRA has been attacked before over their ads,the ACLU works with and defends the NRA on that first amendment issue

Answer 7

Very typical.

You either don't understand the article you wanted us to read, or you were in too big a hurry to slam libs that you did not comprehend the reason for the liberal Justices to object.

Just one more of hundreds of outrageous claims and "questions" based upon misinformation (or outright lies) that cons will exclaim today.

There is not enough time in the day to properly educate you guys. At some point you're going to have to take the initiative and educate yourselves.

Answer 8

ACLU and NRA are never at odds. Why would you think differently?

The issue raised, and the reason for the dissent, is that political funding and advertisement is limited to prevent misinformation campaigns (like the one ran against Kerry by the SwiftVets).
However, the political parties just pour money in to "independent" groups like the one mentioned to do their dirty work for them.

The dissenting opinions recognize this underhanded dealings, and want to make the law apply as it was intended.

Answer 9

They cant let silly things like precedent and true American constitutional principle stand in the way of them rewriting America in their own liberal socialist image.

Answer 10

Self proclaimed "liberals" are the most intolerant people I know. I have no idea why the NRA was involved unless they are branching out to protect other constitutional rights now. The ACLU is like a broken day/date watch. Right about twice every 7 yesrs.