Supreme Court

Million Reasons Why Not

The editorial boards the Washington Post and the New York Times are none too pleased with the Supreme Court ruling against the Millionaire's Amendment provision in BCRA that provided rescue funds to candidates facing wealthy, self-financing opponents. Read on for excerpts from the editorials.

From the Post:

Supremely Disappointing

In a 5-4 split the Supreme Court delivered another very conservative campaign finance decision yesterday, ruling the "Millionaires' Amendment" provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform (BRCA) law unconstitutional. While its impossible to say what the full implications of this decision are, its clear the Court is no friend to laws that seek to limit the influence of private money on our elections.

Turn Your Attention

Deborah Goldberg begins this article in The Nation parsing the recent Supreme Court decisions on political advertising and arguing that while disclosure requirements are all well and good, full public financing of campaigns is the ultimate answer to the battles both in court, and in the public sphere, about the best way to regulate campaign finance.

Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor blasts Tom DeLay

On NPR this morning, Nina Totenberg covered a speech by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in which she took DeLay to task, not by name but by deed. Here's a partial transcript, courtesy of Raw Story:

Texas redistricting

Lu Dubose, co-author with Jan Reid of The Hammer Comes Down: The Nasty, Brutish and Shortened Political Life of Tom DeLay, has a good piece over at TomPaine.com summarizing the DeLay

DeLay says separation of church and state not in U.S. Constitution

Associated Press has the direct quote:

"I hope the Supreme Court will finally read the Constitution and see there's no such thing, or no mention, of separation of church and state in the Constitution," said DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land.

Okay, Tom. Only if you don't count the First Amendment. Details schmetails.