David,

I don't get it. How does this defer to Congress and the President?

The former passed it, the latter signed it.

So all three branches abetted the passage on an unconstitutional law. Were we a vigorous and truly liberty-loving people, like our ancestors, we would deploy the impeachment tool against all of them -- each for breaking oaths sworn before God.

A year ago, this law was passed and everyone thought it would be summarily rejected. But the court is probably just telling the politicians: "you wanted it, now you got it".

Besides, since when are Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer ever going to be absolutists on anything (that is not a penumbra)?

And the politicians will be back in court in 5 or 10 years, arguing about some new law that tries to restrict blogging. Maybe the legal defense funds should start collecting now.

The problem with that being, Paul, the same problem as led to the passage of CFR in the first place. Congressmen and the President are of various parties, from various parts of the country, are different colors and genders and sexual orientations and believe different things, but each and every one is an incumbent. As a result, the only truly bi-partison (omni-partison?) laws are those that protect incumbents. They're not going to impeach each other for enacting laws near and dear to their own hearts.

In the end, the blame lies with us. We don't care if the Supreme Court makes origami of the Constitution. We don't care if the First Amendment now forbids school children singing "Jingle Bells" while allowing political speech to be prohibited because an election is near. And by "don't care", I mean that only a few extremist wing-nuts will even notice, and no action will be taken. No incumbent will lose a single vote over this issue -- I plan to vote for one myself.

Paul: And, one cannot impeach an Article I representative.

Chris:

I stand corrected.

David:

Indeed, the blame does lie with us. I said as much when I wrote "Were we a vigorous and truly liberty-loving people, like our ancestors, we would deploy the impeachment tool against . . . "

Paul and Chris: We're (ok, I'm) probably getting a little too caught up in terminology. Impeachment is a legislative tool, not something the voters can do. What we can do is not reelect anyone who voted for or signed CFR. Not only won't we as a population do it, but in at least one instance, I won't do it. Also, although the process differs from "impeachment", each House can toss out members if it wants to.

Let See. "Free Speech" rights "protected" by the First Amendment:

Lap Dancing
Flag Burning
Obscenities on T-Shirts

Not protected by the first amendment:

participating in political campaigns.

OK folks, This is a joke. The Supreme Court continues to make it up as it goes along.

The good news is that this decision ratifies a system that is near total collapse and will really screw the Democrats.

Best scenario. Lanslide Republican win in 04 followed by court packing/replacement of current Supreme Court justices with hard core and very partisan Republicans.

Robert --

Three of the five members of the majority -- Stevens, O'Connor and Souter -- are Republican appointees.

David and Paul: Sorry. I was just being cute. On the substance, sadly, you're both right.

David:

Three of the five members of the majority -- Stevens, O'Connor and Souter -- are Republican appointees.

Its like the scene in Godfather (II?) where they talk to some mobster about how the noble romans would slit their wrists for the good of the cause. And he takes the hint.

Rather than a court packing, maybe we can get a majority of the Supreme Court to resign or die or otherwise not be able to discharge their duties at the same time the Dem's are able to keep their filibusters going to prevent any replacements. Two or four years with no functioning Supreme Court to rule on anything might instructive and useful.

And if flag burning is political speech, does this mean that it's now illegal to do it in October, but legal the rest of the year? If I do a campaign ad consisting of porno video with a voiceover by James Carville of an appeal to vote Democrat, which part of that obscenity takes precedence?

Raoul: That last was beautiful. I'm actually crying now.