June 29th, 2009
01:00 PM ET
5 years ago

Conservative filmmakers will get another hearing

Monday the Supreme Court deferred a ruling in a case involving a documentary on Hillary Clinton.  The Court will rehear argument in the case in the fall.
Monday the Supreme Court deferred a ruling in a case involving a documentary on Hillary Clinton. The Court will rehear argument in the case in the fall.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will reargue an important campaign finance reform case dealing with a scathing documentary about former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The justices put off an expected ruling in the case, and will rehear the issues on September 9. It is unusual for the high court to return early from its summer recess to hear an appeal. The court normally begins its fall term in early October.

The justices apparently could not reach a conclusion on whether the film was subject to federal oversight regarding when and where it could be shown in an election year.

At issue was whether the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" - as well as television ads to promote the film - should have been subject to strict campaign finance laws on political advocacy, or was instead a constitutionally protected form of commercial speech.

It is unclear whether high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed in time to hear the case. If not, just eight justices will hear the appeal.


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Popular Posts • Supreme Court
soundoff (113 Responses)
  1. ck

    WAKE UP AMERICA!

    The liberal left is attempting CENSORSHIP in the media.

    If they succeed we are on a very dangerous downhill slide.

    June 29, 2009 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  2. dan in Tucson AZ

    Is this America, or not?
    In America we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those that oppose the documentary can boycott it, or come up with a rebuttal piece. That is the American way.

    June 29, 2009 11:10 am at 11:10 am |
  3. Libertarian

    The group "Citizens United" produced this film and use taxpayer dollars. This was a thinly veiled attempt by the RNC to pull a fast one on the voters using our own money. If there was truly a noteworthy Movie to be made here let the private sector do it. I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS used by either party for smear tactics. ENOUGH!!! Make them return the money and jail a few of the RNC for fraudulent use of tax dollars.

    June 29, 2009 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  4. mk

    Sanford said, "You take everything a day at a time. I wouldn't say anything definitive at this point. I say my hunch at a variety of different levels would be to continue on."

    Translation: "I don't have enough money to support the ex and 4 sons so I have no choice but to remain and do a half assed job. I have ruined my reputation, my children's lives, my mistresses life and my wife could care less. She is about to take me to the cleaners and I will be broke, living off of the State the rest of my natural life, unless, of course, I can con my mistress into taking me in."

    June 29, 2009 11:13 am at 11:13 am |
  5. Franky, Land of Lincoln

    @CK

    Na'h, is kind of what we were hoping and praying here...(right guys? You see.) LOL!!! :)

    Boy, I tell you, Conservatism is also dangerous too and fun, don't get me wrong but the liberals...they are just better, sorry, :).

    June 29, 2009 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  6. Henry

    Oh ck,

    Give it a rest. There are no shadows begind every tree. Unless you also want to consider the righwing fear mongering of eight miserable years.

    June 29, 2009 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  7. Kate in SW Fla

    Don't be too quick to assume this is a "liberal" issue. Any and all sides will be able to circumvent election law if this case is decided in favor of the so-called filmaker. Our political process is already a terrible mess, where money rules. Honestly, be very careful what you wish for.

    June 29, 2009 11:20 am at 11:20 am |
  8. Ken

    To label these filmmaking idiots as 'conservative' is a joke, and indicates the double-speak our society has fallen prey to. The moronic rightwing underbelly of this nation is NOT conservative. They are the biggest set of reactionary drama queens that have come down the pike since McCarthy and the Nazis before him. You need only read ck's contibution below to get a feel for the fearmongering that is resorted to when they have nothing of significance to talk about - and this kind of behavior is what passes for 'conservative' these days? These so-called 'conservatives' need to get their DNA checked.......human ancestors could not have survived in their challenging environment with the defects these people carry.

    June 29, 2009 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  9. craig

    Ck, there is one political party with a record of censorship and its not the liberals. I'm sure Rush has told you to hate the ACLU, and you aren't a critical thinker...so that leap in logic must be an easy one for you. My dad would say it is betfer to appear an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Bravo. We all know what you are.

    June 29, 2009 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  10. Jim in San Jose 2

    CK,

    We have been on a downhill slide for the past 8 years. I assure you that if this had been a dem-sponsored movie, it would have been subject to those same spending limits. No one is saying that you can't say things about candidates, just that you have to play by the same rules the opposition is supposedly playing by.

    June 29, 2009 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  11. Ryan Wing

    I'm not usually one to side with neo-cons but this is an issue of free speech.

    As inflamatory and unfair as the documentary might be, it's someone's opinion and its success should be assessed by whether or not people want to see it. My guess is that if it hadn't become a national legal case it would have disappeared into oblivion like most conservative films.

    June 29, 2009 11:24 am at 11:24 am |
  12. Bill Sampson

    The conservatives are so jealous of the Clintons it drives them nuts. Bill Clinton was a very successful president for eight years, elected and reelected decisively (unlike the failed George Bush, whose first "election" is questionable at best). He left the country in much better shape than he found it (and the American people recognize that), including huge budget surpluses for the first time in a generation. (We won't comment on GWB here, the sorry record is well known). Clinton has a very high approval rating as an ex president, traveling the world doing good works. He has managed to make about $100 million since leaving office (not a virtue, but more success that makes the right wing nuts!). Then Hillary becomes an effective and admired U.S. Senator from New York (reelected in a landslide in 2006), makes a very credible run for U.S. President, and then becomes U.S. Secretary of State. And whatever happened to Ken Star? Isn't he running a 3rd tier law school somewhere? It just drives the right wing cuckoo! Let them make their little angry movies that only Rush Limbaugh will go see anyway. It just makes them more pathetic.

    June 29, 2009 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  13. Ed Tallahassee FL

    If it wasn't during an election year would it matter? No

    I think it's a legitimate question. I think that it needs to be addresses by the courts.

    If Oliver Stone would have released W in 2004 before the election I think we would have seen similar situation.

    June 29, 2009 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  14. UNHAPPY DEM

    Oh, would not want anything bad said about ole hillary would we.

    June 29, 2009 11:31 am at 11:31 am |
  15. makesUwonder

    Henry June 29th, 2009 11:19 am ET

    Oh ck,

    Give it a rest. There are no shadows begind every tree. Unless you also want to consider the righwing fear mongering of eight miserable years.
    _________________________________________________________

    Actually.......ck...... don't "give it a rest". Just what "Henry" and his likes would like us to do. And Henry, if anyone is doing the "fear mongering" it's Obama and his group or are you not paying attention.

    June 29, 2009 11:39 am at 11:39 am |
  16. Libertarian

    It's obvious that most didn't read this story and understand the importance. This is NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP. This is not about Hillary.

    THIS IS ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING USING FRAUDULENTLY.

    The RNC found a loophole in CAMPAIGN LAW and exploited it. I don't want either party using my money to make "movies". Jail a couple of them now!

    June 29, 2009 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  17. Alan

    i do not know whether this is technically free speech or political activity - but I do know the conservatives will now try to delay Justice Sotomayor's confirmation to keep her from participating in the matter.

    June 29, 2009 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  18. Fla.

    ck,

    CONversely, your post is unfortunately another attempt at exaggerated fear-mongering from the far right.

    This case is not about censorship from an arguably conservatIve-leaning court, but rather an issue of campaign finance laws involving political advocacy groups. Please read.

    June 29, 2009 11:50 am at 11:50 am |
  19. Educate yourselves before you open your mouth and just let the words fall out

    I'm sorry, but a bunch of neo cons whining about how the liberal left media is attemping cencorship is just too crazy for words!

    June 29, 2009 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  20. girlymen love the GOP

    I considered the Clintons "closet republicans".Just look at his sellout of our work force to India and China for example and good old Nafta.

    June 29, 2009 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  21. Dan in Texas

    What I always find so astonishing from these self-righteous, pompus politicians is how quickly they are willing to throw the first stone. I always enjoy seeing them, for once, having a stone thrown at them.

    June 29, 2009 11:55 am at 11:55 am |
  22. slowgun

    ck June 29th, 2009 11:05 am ET

    WAKE UP AMERICA!

    The liberal left is attempting CENSORSHIP in the media.

    If they succeed we are on a very dangerous downhill slide

    ---------------------------

    You might want to learn the facts of this case before you post a message that clearly showns how little you konw about it. If it was just a simple free speech / censoeship issue, it wouldn't be in front of the Supreme Court.
    Stop getting all your information from Rush....maybe try reading a book or two

    June 29, 2009 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  23. Tony

    "If Oliver Stone would have released W in 2004 before the election I think we would have seen similar situation."
    WRONG!!
    Every liberal fascist under the sun would be braying about how this was an assault on free speech!
    I haven't seen the hillery movie and don't plan to. If it emulates stone's garbage, it isn't worth seeing. But the level of hypocrisy in attacking those who "defend" the hillary movie is nauseating, specially when linguistic analysis reveals that those who most vehemently attack are the same socialist fascists who would applaud the same type of garbage, such as that produce by stone.

    June 29, 2009 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm |
  24. Sniffit

    "THIS IS ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING USING FRAUDULENTLY. "

    Ding ding ding...we have a winner! Please step away from the keyboard if you don't understand the above.

    June 29, 2009 12:04 pm at 12:04 pm |
  25. Victim

    The film should have been released. The supression of information, especially during an election year, is nothing more than media control. What is Hillary so afraid of? The same slander and defamation employed by her camp during the campaign?
    We need more information than simply what the candidates want us to see.

    June 29, 2009 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |
1 2 3 4 5