The good news just keeps on coming. The first is no surprise to anyone (perhaps other than Nancy herself, who asserted the opposite just days ago) but the health care bill is D.E.A.D., with House Speaker Pelosi announcing, “I don’t see the votes for it at this time.” Specifically, she’s referring to votes in the House for the existing Senate bill, but cut it anyway you like: the monster has expired. Further along in the AP story is this, a statement from Nancy Pelosi so heavily laden with ironies that I cannot believe it didn’t sink through the earth and pop out in China somewhere:

“We’re not in a big rush” on health care, Pelosi said. “Pause, reflect.”

Pause, reflect and die. Oh, happy day!

…

And even I wouldn’t have anticipated hearing this so fast, but, on consideration, it makes perfect sense: Among Democrats, Calls to Extend Bush Tax Cuts.

Some Capitol Hill Democrats want President Barack Obama to extend tax cuts for wealthy Americans now scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, arguing that a tax increase could hinder economic recovery.

“I think there is a certain logic to leaving well-enough alone for now, given the fragility of the economic recovery,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D., Va.). “It’s a question of prudent judgment and timing.”

Priceless. But also exactly right. Things which just happen to be true are apparently getting a second look in Washington at the moment; who’d a thunk it?

…

The biggest good news of all today, however, is the Supreme Court’s decision that says the First Amendment actually might mean something kind of like what it says.

A divided Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate political spending, overturning two precedents in a ruling likely to affect campaigning in the 2010 elections.

President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street and other interests, and said he would work with lawmakers to craft a “forceful response.”

The ruling underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush’s two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority in ruling that a central provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations from funding political messages in the run-up to elections.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion.

[...]

[Kennedy] wrote that the effort to divide corporate political spending into legal and illegal forms chilled political speech. “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” he wrote. “This is unlawful.”

Thank you Justice Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia and Justice Alito. And thank you George W. Bush. Yes, I know he signed McCain/Feingold, albeit in the dead of night. It was the first serious mistake of his presidency, a tactical move to get McCain and the whole issue off his back, and I think that the way he did it reflected his belief that it wasn’t right. He had his fingers crossed that the Supreme Court would correct the error. Although all of the McCain/Feingold provisions have not been struck down, this is a huge blow that goes way beyond even that bill in its reach. Yes, people can express political opinions. Yes, people in groups — even ones called “corporations” — can express political opinions. And yes, if they need to spend money in order to get their opinion out there, they can do so. If the First Amendment doesn’t assert that, what does it assert? Some might advocate that it was only written for the sake of the New York Times and Hustler magazine. The Supreme Court today ruled otherwise. So thank you, finally and most of all, to the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

…

After the drought, the flood, I guess. I’m not sure I could take many more days like this! (But I’d sure give it a shot.)

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• Supremes
• Game changer?
• Lawyers, guns and money