"Not True"

Turns out Samuel Alito was right when he attempted to stand up to the bullying for President Obama and the Senate Democrats standing behind them trying to intimidate a CO-EQUAL branch of government. 

The Great Brad Smith lays out Obama's claims:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

What a shock, I know.  Barack Obama, nose firmly in the air, attacking an equal branch for doing their job - standing up for the Constitution.  Much more must be said about Obama's attack of the Court, but history has shown us what happens when a president starts messing with the Court.  But its so telling of Obama's real treatment of those who disagree with him, for in the same speech he called for a renewed civility and bipartisanship he then attacks the Court in a manner never seen by lying about their decision.  The Supreme Court is a guest of the Congress and the President at this event, and they should be shown the respect their offices demand. 

Its just the microcosm of the State of the Union.  A long list of half-truths and doublespeak.  While calling for bipartisanship, he was partisan.  While calling for fiscal restraint, he talked about programs and spending.  While saying we must look forward, he spent time blaming every problem he had on George W. Bush, then refusing to take responsibility for the bank bailout disaster, for the health care disaster, for the debt ceiling being risen, for the deficit skyrocketing under his budget and his watch.

I would like to see Justice Alito break the Court's silence and come on to one of the Sunday shows and explain exactly what the decision means and how Obama was simply dead wrong, lying, and used that lie to rile up Americans.    

Comments

[200 Grande]

What a douchebag.

[The Strongman, Vladamir Putin]

If this were Russia, Alito would arrange (how do you say?) special ingredient for Obama's next halal hamburger: polonium.

[Dan]

First of all, the absolute worst thing that Justice Alito could ever do is go on Sunday talk shows and inject himself into a political debate. The Executive and Legislative branches are often referred to as the "political" branches of government. The Supreme Court is NOT a political branch and any justice who attempted to make it so should, in my opinion, be the subject of an immediate impeachment effort. That sort of politicization of the Court would be incredibly damaging to both the Court and the nation.

Chief Justice Rehnquist is said to have felt that the Supreme Court Justices should not even attend the State of the Union address. Because they properly sat there neither applauding nor showing any other approval or disapproval, he said they sat there looking like bumps on a log. But bumps on a log is the proper way for members of a branch of government that MUST be above and apart from the political fray to behave. Regardless of how one feels about any decision of the Court or another's comments about it, Alito was dead wrong to respond that way in that setting. I hope we never see a repeat performance by any other Justice.

As to the decision itself, it seems most folks are viewing it through a narrow partisan lens (surprise, surprise). Most knowledgeable observers realize that this decision greatly benefits the Republican Party. At least in the short term. So we see Republican partisans hailing it as a great and beneficial decision that was properly decided. For the same reason we see Democratic partisans taking the opposite position. Perhaps it would be wise if we considered the impact the decision will have on the nation rather than its impact on the fortunes of either political party.

Brad Smith, who you cite in your post, is a law professor. I'll stipulate he probably knows far more about constitutional law than I do. But I think it is fair to say his argument is tendentious. And you have to admit that President Obama's credentials in the area of constitutional law aren't too shabby either.

What Smith says about the law as it pertains to foreign individuals and foreign corporations is correct. I certainly wouldn't dispute that. But, as with so many specious arguments put forward to advance a partisan position, it ignores some important points that must be considered when assessing what the real world results will be of this sweeping decision.

If a corporation is foreign owned BUT is incorporated in the United States it can pour as much money as it likes into American elections as a result of this decision. If a foreign owned corporation has a subsidiary corporation in the United States it can funnel big buckets of money into American elections through that subsidiary under this decision because the subsidiary is an American company.

It is time to stop cheering this decision because it has short term political benefit for the guys wearing the jerseys for your team. It is time to take a sober look at the impact this will have on the United States of America. And that impact is not a positive one.

It is also ironic that the very folks who have made careers decrying "activist" courts should be lauding this sweeping display of judicial activism. The Court was presented with a very narrow case to decide and twisted and turned and jumped through hoops to broaden it so that they could then overturn previous precedent. And some surprisingly recent precedent at that. It is hard to see what has changed since 1990 except who sits in a couple of the chairs that would justify such a sweeping disregard for legal precedent.

[200 Grande]

I think Dan makes a very good point regarding foreign entities and the ambiguity in the nexus of their participation in ownership of American business and how U.S. election laws are situated to deal with them.

If only Obama brought up this matter in this context, but he's a douchebag.

Too bad both parties will insist on politicizing this issue.:)

[Dan]

Interestingly, many folks believe that corporate money already so saturates our political process that it won't be that big a deal. Sadly, they may be right. Which would mean we are already farther gone than one might have hoped.

[local gop]

I think its especially interesting that Alito was the only juror to make a visual sign of disagreement with the remarks. Interesting because his confirmation hearings were especially brutal if I remember correctly. I would even say that he got a much harsher treatment than any other juror...maybe there's some hidden animosity between him and the dems that grilled him i.e. Obama

[Dan]

I know Alito's wife was very upset at his treatment during confirmation. But I think we can all understand that and accept that she isn't exactly an objective observer of the matter. We all get our backs up when we perceive someone we care about is being attacked.

I don't believe Alito was the subject of an extraordinarily brutal confirmation process. And it was not a particularly lengthy process. He was nominated on Oct. 31, 2005 and his confirmation was voted in the full Senate on Jan.31 2006.

With the intervening holiday recess it is difficult to see how the nomination could have been acted on much faster. Hard to see how such a speedy process was brutal to the nominee. Unless you call asking the guy a few questions before installing him on the Supreme Court brutal.