The stupidity of the U.S. Supreme Court's December ruling on campaign finance reform notwithstanding, now comes a federal judge who ignores the fact that the Court upheld then and in the past this aspect of federal election law. All to please her labor buddies.

BTW, many folks here decried Judge Roy Moore's defiance of a federal judge's order re. the Ten Commandments monument. Where is the outrage over the above federal judge who ignores Supreme Court precedence to issue biased rulings in favor of her labor cronies? Such judges ought to be subject to impeachment.

Unfortunately, campaign finance will never bring the level of passion to public discourse that religion brings. It simply doesn't interest people as much. Of course it should. Campaign finance controls the public discourse in this country and whomever controls the finance controls the discourse.

However, I went and found the most conservative slant I could find in the mainstream media, Fox News story , and I can't seem to find the Supreme Court precedent this act has directly contradicted. An executive initiative has been put on hold by a judicial order on the basis that the order doesn't give the Unions enough time to implement. There is no question of this being a Constitutional issue, unlike the Ten Commandments case, which is entirely about the limits of First Amendment limitations of state sponsored religion.

This judge may very well have overstepped her bounds. Her decision could be overturned on appeal. But she will not have even approached the arrogance of Roy Moore until, after being overturned on appeal, she insists that her temporary injunction be honored.

MIB, perhaps you should read Judge Kessler's opinion. It has nothing to do with campaign finance reform.

It has instead to do with mandatory reporting of financial information by labor unions to the DOL. This is an amendment to reporting requirements that have been in place since the Eisenhower administration. Congress recently mandated heightened reporting requirements (under regulations to be prescribed). The DOL regulations implement the new requirements, which are massive in terms of the detail that the accounting systems of the unions will now have to spit out. It is customary for government regulators to give some lead time to organizations on whom they impose new reporting requirements, simply because accounting systems can't be reconfigured by snapping fingers. The DOL didn't give that lead time here. The final regulation was published in the federal register Thanksgiving week, and the rules purported to go into effect on January 1.

The preliminary injunction that Judge Kessler granted merely delayed implementation of the regs (while leaving the current, long-standing regulations intact and in force). This gives the unions time to comply, and gives the Judge time to consider, thoughtfully, the unions' claims on the merits.

When Judge Kessler rules on the merits, you can come back with criticism then if you think she's tilted too far to the unions' side. But you seem to all but accuse the Judge of improper bias.

You're a judge yourself, I'd think you'd be more temperate in making such accusations. People, after all, who sit on glass benches, should hesitate before throwing stones. Frankly, based on the tenor of your posts on these boards, I'd be filing my 2-1001(a)(2) motion within minutes of seeing your name stamped on my pleadings, if I knew who you were (and if I still practiced in Illinois, which I no longer do).

[ January 19, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Ski, you should be so lucky to practice in front of me. A fairer and more dispassionate jurist you shall not find.

That last post is a joke right?

Practice what in front of you?

Hehe, wouldn't you like to know, dear Texan? eek!