printHe’d have cried out “You Lie” at the president during the State of the Union, last night. It so happens that Justice Alito is a gentleman, so he didn’t. All Alito did was gesticulate in surprise at the president’s audacious “misrepresentation ” of the SCOTUS’ invalidation of “a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.”
Writes Judge Andrew P. Napolitano:
“The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, ‘What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?’ Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.”
“Thus, as a result of this ruling, all groups may spend their own money as they wish on any political campaigns …”
“On Wednesday night, during his State of the Union address, the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. When he said this, Justice Samuel Alito, who was seated just 15 feet from the president, gently whispered: ‘That’s not true.’ Justice Alito was right. The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling. So the president, the former professor of law at the one of the country’s best law schools, either did not read the opinion, or was misrepresenting it.”
For posterity:
Update (Jan. 29): Randy Barnett on “a shocking lack of decorum”:
“In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.”
The man’s ego grows by the day.
I probably cuss the Supreme Court as much as the next fellow but even I realize that the checks and balances set by the constitution are crucial to our system. Obama is a boor of the first water. He probably thinks he’s fixing a traffic ticket back in Chicago.
Our republic endured for 110 years without having a monarch giving a “State of the Union” speech before Congress, the Supreme Court, and our military. Our wannabe monarch took an oath to uphold the Constitution which says:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”
So what part of that is hard to understand? I feel sorry for those who have to sit there through that duplicitous teleprompter blather and either applaud like zoo seals or just look on in stony silence like the Justices and the Generals.
However, unlike many “conservative pundits”, I also am partially sympathetic with the leftists who decry the recent decision. America is a Democracy of the Booboisie (a Mencken term) of greedy, unprincipled, hypnotized, ignoramuses who will vote at the behest of slick, moronic TV ads. The ads are in furtherance of corporatist special interests – Agribusiness, Trial Lawyers, Unions, Military Contractors, Banksters – who view the government as a giant udder to be milked. The “speech” of these ads are just tools to elect their preferred Knights Exemplar (politicians) to further the special unconstitutional influence over the general population. Compared to these tawdry TV ads, pornography looks honest and uplifting.
As a rational decision maker, I found McCain-Feingold’s presumption that I’ll vote for whomever buys the most TV time rather insulting. I was amazed that Congress would even consider enacting such a law in the first place. What part of “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” don’t they understand?
I’m very glad that the Supreme Court nullified McCain-Feingold. Had I been presentat the SOTU, I’d have said something considerably less polite than, “You lie!” Actually, I did, but I was just talking back to my TV.
Gringo Malo: Sleazy ads and multi-zillion buck campaigns usually WORK – ask John Corzine, Michael Bloomberg, the Rockefellers, and the numerous hacks with their “war chests” of money. But just because most Americans are gullible boobs is not a reason to overturn FREEDOM OF SPEECH.