Barack Obama just finished up his first State of the Union address. Lots of interesting things: jobs, gays in the military, health reform capitulation c’mon we’re so close we’ve got to do something…. Oh, and nuclear power plants are back on the agenda. CHECK YOU RADIATION LEVELS.
But the biggest legal news, at least from the perspective of your Above the Law editors, was Obama’s smackdown of the Supreme Court — while six of the nine were sitting right in front of his face.
It was so harsh that it inspired Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and to mouth the words “not true” at the president — very reminiscent of the “you lie” moment from the last time Obama spoke in front of a joint session of Congress.
The video and additional details — plus UPDATES, including a mini-debate between Kash and Lat, and a READER POLL — after the jump.
I think I’ve watched every State of the Union since 1984. I can’t say I remember them all. But I’m pretty sure that I’ve never seen a president attack a recent Supreme Court decision quite like Obama did tonight. Obviously, Obama’s ire was focused on the Citizens United decision.
Near the end of the first hour, Obama started talking about the deficit of trust between the people and the government. I expected the usual “lobbyists bad, fire bad” rhetoric. But then Obama added a little flair. Through the magic of TiVo, I was able to take down what he said:
It’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.
[Pause for applause.]
I don’t think that American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse by foreign enemies; they should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct … some of these problems.
Check out the video via Politico. You’ll see Alito’s very candid opinion of Obama’s remarks:
In general SCOTUS was … umm … not pleased with POTUS. If I may editorialize, Roberts had a stone-faced look, which reeked of a “oh, what a pity there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.” Sotomayor was looking off to the side, as if trying to hide a smile — or maybe feeling ill. And RBG, well, she’s a tough cookie, I hope she feels better soon.
I didn’t see Scalia, but I assume he was chomping at the bit when Obama said “pass a law.” In his world, that’s what is supposed to happen.
Still, it is exceedingly rare for a President to “defer” to separation of powers, and then smack up the Court in the middle of the State of the Union.
Of course, FDR-esque Court packing doesn’t seem to be Obama’s style. I can’t imagine any of the six Justices sitting there really cared about what the President said. But if there’s another opening any time soon, you can best believe that Citizens United will be a brand-new litmus test for would-be justices.
UPDATE (11:45 PM):
KASHMIR: There’s another side to this. SCOTUS doesn’t look smug to me. The justices look horribly uncomfortable. Obama is applauded for being smooth, but this was ugly. “With all due respect to the separation of powers… I am now going to smack the judicial branch upside the head.”
LAT: I can’t believe I’m (kinda) siding with Obama over the Supreme Court, given my usual leanings — but I see things differently, Kash. I agree that it was a bit — well, tacky — for Obama to call out the Court like that, and to make them sit there like chastened schoolchildren while everyone around them stood and applauded. But in the separation of powers, each branch gets to use its powers as it sees fit, to push back against and check the other branches. Tonight was a good illustration of that.
As the executive, Obama has the power of the bully pulpit. He can express disagreement with the Court’s rulings, even to the justices’ faces; that’s his prerogative. And that’s what he did in this evening’s speech.
As (life-tenured) members of the judiciary, the justices can respond by ignoring him, in effect saying: “You might not like some of our decisions, but there’s really not a darn thing you can do about it. Does Justice Alito mouthing ‘not true’ violate the Good Behavior Clause? No; the justice from the Garden State is just kicking it Jersey Shore style. So, suck our gavels.”
UPDATE (11:50 PM):
What do you think of what went down at tonight’s State of the Union? Take our (admittedly vague and unscientific) poll:
Justice Alito’s ‘You lie’ moment? [Politico]
Earlier: Breaking: SCOTUS Expands Free Speech in Politics By Liberalizing Campaign Finance Rules
Glad Alito dissented from Obama’s opinion.
Glad Alito dissented from Obama’s opinion – not very presidential.
THIRDski!!!!
Poor taste for Alito.
(1) Obama tried to filibuster Alito. Alito owes Obama little respect.
(2) I’d be shaking my head too if I were in his chair and Obama were trying to s#!^ on the First Amendment like that.
Poor taste for Alito.
How was that a smack down? Obama said that the court opened the way for corporations and special interests to spend without limits in our elections. Then Congress stood up and applauded them for it. That wasn’t a smack down. That was a jubulant circle jerk.
bullshit part of it is that Alito is a judge and supposed to be beyond politics. his decision last week was to be based on law… there was no need for him to disagree with obama… i found that it only gave the appearance that alito and scalia are busy with their political agenda, and not interpreting the law. he could have just as easily nodded yes to Bam, and said “true, true, but the law is the law.. we invite congress to change it.”
Poor taste for Alito?
Poor taste for Obama trying to vilify the Supreme Court in the face of an American public who knows little about the first amendment and nothing about that case. Zero class.
“You lie!!!!!”
- Samuel Alito
I see Obama is continuing to change Washington away from politics as usual…
11 – leftist troll.
The whole thing kind of reminded me of some great lines from Talladega Nights: The Balad of Ricky Bobby (admittedly not Farrell’s best work):
Ricky (Farrell/Obama): With all due respect, Mr. Dennit, I had no idea you’d gotten experimental surgery to have your balls removed.
Mr. Dennit: What did you just say to me?
Ricky: What? I said it with all due respect!
and
Ricky (Farrell/Obama): Mr. Dennit, with all due respect, and remember I’m sayin’ it with all due respect, that idea ain’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin’ it on.
I guess Obama thinks it’s ok to disparage the Justices when they have no opportunity to respond, as long as he says it “with all due deference.” Very classy.
That was very unpresidential. Obama seems to want to go down swinging.
Who is the blond lady sitting at the end of Alito’s row?
I think our court is corrupted, especially with this last ruling. I did notice Justice Allito mouthing the words, “That’s not true” when Obama said foreign entities can influence elections through corporations. I also saw this article that details the good bad and the ugly about this past ruling
http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/citizens-united-v-fec-%E2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-104
14 is spot on.
7 is right. He didnt use negative language. He simply stated that they made it possible for more money to come into elections. He did not say he thought that was a bad thing. Everybody clapped.
8 – You are an idiot. The (campaign finance) law is not the law and the SCOTUS does not invite Congress to change it when the SCOTUS opinion is that the law already passed by Congress is unconstitutional.
Wait till you’ve taken Con Law before you speak next time.
Poor taste for Obama – what an embarrassment. A better response by Alito could have been to simply yawn at Obama’s rantings.
cant believe obama got accepted to hls. he should have been relegated to some TTT like GULC.
-WCL 3L
Obama was entirely appropriate. He said it overturned a century of law (true) and then said what he believed would happen (a political position).
Apparently, Alito thinks the First Amendment is super-important for corporations, but that the President doesn’t get to give his opinion on a court decision.
Alito is an embarrassment.
A different President would not have expressed thoughtful disagreement SCOTUS in the SOTU. A different President would have invoked a “unitary executive” theory to disregard Citizens United and rendered the majority Justices to Syria in the name of national security. A different President would’ve been sooo much better, yeah…
A different President would not have expressed thoughtful disagreement with SCOTUS in the SOTU. A different President would have invoked a “unitary executive” theory to disregard Citizens United and rendered the majority Justices to Syria in the name of national security. A different President would’ve been sooo much better, yeah…
Alito showed little class with his action. Almost as little as Obama did in attacking a recent Supreme Court decision in the SOTU. Simply grotesque.
Justice Alito Jersey Shore style! One shot, Obama, one shot!
alito muttered something to himself. obama was broadcasting a state of the union address to the entire world.
By the way, to those that think that Cogress stood up and applauded, a more accurate statement would be that left-leaning memebers of Congres stood up – which is not the entire house of Congress – thank God!!!
A longer video is posted on Politico.
Violates Canon 1 and 5 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2004 Edition.
I hope someone files an ethics complaint with his state bar.
I agree with obama, the ruling was terrible but i was so surprised when i heard him say that. The Supreme court is an apolitical entity and they should be treated as such.
Citizens United is a disgrace. Cheers for Obama for calling out the S.Ct.
31 – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.
Have you ever heard of Bush v. Gore?
Clinton v. Jones?
Dred Scott?
Haha – the Supreme Court is an apolitical entity? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all week and I’ve been reading a lot of conservative media.
33 – FTW!
Obama is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.
$100 Alito apologizes before the week is out. His clerk is drafting his apology to Obama as we speak.
Hey everyone, vote for ALITO in the reader poll just added to the post!
34 – Want a real good laugh? Simply read the regular (liberal) media!
What Obama did here was to politicize a Supreme Court decision. He reduced a fairly sophisticated legal issue into the same sort of spin-doctored sound-bite and counter-sound-bite that he so frequently exchanges with the GOP leadership. Now, you might say “justice” has always been politics by other means and, perhaps, you may be right. But consider how many of the most important social advances of the last century came from Supreme Court decisions that were politically controversial at the time. It seems unwise to undermine public respect for an institution that has done so much to ensure the equal treatment of all Americans because you disagree with the result of one opinion. And, make no mistake, Obama undermined public support for the Supreme Court tonight. People who follow Obama will mentally tack the Supreme Court to their political enemies list and/or view it even more as a political prize to be re-captured and not as an objective arbiter of constitutional boundaries. For those of you on the left who can’t see beyond the present day, consider this. There may come a day when a popular Republican President uses this same sort of tactic to whip up opposition to a comparatively liberal court. That President’s ability to attack the foundations of our constitution just got a little bit easier.
Palin/Jindal 2012
27 FTW. You got a shout-out from Lat in the update.
This proves that Alito is a fucking republican piece of shit. not to mention he can’t even hide it which makes him an idiot too. at least Roberts smiles before he stabs us in the back. what an embarrassment for republicans!
to 31 and 40 -
You are fooling yourselves if you think that SCOTUS is apolitical. The citizens united case was decided 5-4 exactly down ideological lines. On top of that, justices are chosen for their political views. What Obama did tonight was not new.
I’m confused. For those of you critical of Alito, why exactly is it that a Justice of the Supreme Court shouldn’t be allowed to shake his head in disagreement to a politician’s opinion about a judicial decision? The leader of the executive branch tells the leaders of the judicial branch how to do their jobs and, what, it’s Alito that’s being disrespectful?
Alito should have said CHECK YOU FIRST AMENDMENT
Check you Canon 1 and 5 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Now that I’m a S.Ct. Justice I can say “Screw you Model Code, I do what I want.”
The reader poll is very close, almost evenly split.
60%
Justice Alito must be related to Joe Wilson, neither know how to control their mouth.
60%
Well done, Lat.
Justice Alito must be related to Joe Wilson, neither know how to control their mouth.
In the midst of the sadly predictable ideological posturing, I think people are missing the tactical angle. Obama just put the Supreme Court on notice that whatever legislative “response” he comes up with, no matter how carefully worded, is actually an attempt to overturn the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the limits of free speech. Now, I’m just an unfrozen caveman lawyer, but doesn’t the Court sometimes look to legislative intent to determine whether a law is an affront to constitutional rights? Hasn’t Obama just about guaranteed that any legislation he and Congress come up with will be overturned, rightfully, as an attempt by the legislative and executive branch to reverse a Supreme Court decision?
Although Alito probably should have controlled his head shake, it’s absolutely appalling to think that a President who had a very big deal made of the fact that he was a lecturer on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW felt that it was appropriate to scold the Supreme Court in the State of The Union address just because he said “with all due deference to the separation of powers.”
Poor decorum all around, probably slightly more so on the part of the President.
54 – No. The Executive and Legislative serve as a check on the Judiciary as well. The Judiciary is not necessarily the final say on this. It will take months to pass the overturn and years for the Court to get the proper case. Check you Roberts/Alito.
Forget for a moment about whether most of us have studied the law at issue in Citizens United to have a truly informed opinion (a few of us probably have, though not me). But, in light of the substantial disagreement among serious academics about the actual effect of this decision (a point that was key to the outcome of the case, by the way), I think anyone who says they know for sure what will happen is just displaying a tremendously careless intellect. I don’t know either. It is fun to talk about and think about and read about. But it drives me bonkers to hear people say they are certain one way or the other. This board is mostly populated with lawyers and law students, which means we all have college educations. We’re supposed to have a better understanding of how knowlege is acquired and a more careful understanding of how often well meaning and very smart people have thought, with great assurance, that they understood something perfectly, only to be proven absolutely wrong. Many of us are far, far too sure about issues we have at best a cursory understanding of. We could all use a bit more intellectual modesty.
not only did idiot Alito say “not true” but it appears he is such a fucking dork, that he said “simply” not true. HAHAHAHAHAHA. what a dbag.
For the past several years I respected Obama on an intellectual level while disagreeing with many of his policy views.
After this I can only disagree with his policy views.
BTW, Obama’s slim lead over Alito in a poll of overwhelmingly left-slanted ATL readers indicates the egregiousness of his remarks.
Lobbyists For Foreign Corporations Begin Fight To Ensure Foreign Money Can Influence American Elections …….thanks to the likes of Alito.
It’s bad enough we are losing jobs to foreign corporations & now some of you want to see our elections ran by foreign corporations.
Obama called on Congress to pass legislation that will reduce what he sees as the very negative consequences stemming from a Supreme Court decision that overturned long settled doctrine.
Alito quietly expressed disagreement about the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Nobody’s in the wrong. Not every political or legal disagreement is something to get all worked up over. Seriously, chill out people.
58 hahahahahaha so true
With all due deference to Obama, he is a political hack (although I bet he has made game when it comes to critical race theory).
Besides, what is wrong with reducing a complex area of 1st Amendment law down to a soundbite?
With all due deference to Obama, he is a political hack (although I bet he has made game when it comes to critical race theory).
Besides, what is wrong with reducing a complex area of 1st Amendment law down to a soundbite?
- STATE OF THE UNION SECURE
Um who the funded Obama’s campaign? Lots of corporations.
KFC
Neither was disgraceful. Why isn’t that an option in your poll?
You want a POTUS who mistreats SCOTUS? How about Andrew Jackson saying “Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it.” As in, the executive will not enforce SCOTUS’ opinion. At least here, he’s asking for laws curtailing the opinion. And as for “congress can’t cause SCOTUS said it’s unconstitutional,” the opinion does not answer everything. It does not address the narrower issue of foreign corporations donating, Congress should ban that (if they could actually define foreign corporation accurately given all the US divisions as subsidiaries). There are plenty of things Congress can do that SCOTUS did not address despite the >100 pages of legal writing.
As for Alito disgracing SCOTUS? Come on. Other justices have done far worse. Some of Scalia’s comments have been far worse. Alito is allowed to be the douchy, cocky, arrogant SOB he was when he was appointed and when we was a gunner in law school (guessing, don’t know). He has life, enjoy it.
As the only person in that chamber who was elected by the populace, the President gets to smack down the SCOTUS.
As the only person in that chamber who was elected by the populace, the President gets to smack down the SCOTUS. Now that SCOTUS is throwing stare decisis to the wind, it should overturn Marbury v. Madison.
Lat – fix the poll and restart it. we need a “neither was out of line” option
68 – I don’t think the poll is saying either was “disgraceful.” It is more like “with whom do your sympathies lie”?
If you think both were fine, then just vote for the one you’re closer to politically (Obama if you’re liberal or Alito if you’re conservative).
I completely don’t understand how this is analogous to Joe Wilson. Alito muttered something to himself; no one else probably even heard him (it was not shouted like Wilson; the only reason you know what he said is by reading his lips on the tape because the camera man decided to zoom in on him), most likely, hardly anyone in the room even saw him. If it wasn’t for that some camera man decided to zoom in at that moment, none of us would have any idea. And yet, people are seriously suggesting that it’s a breach of judicial ethics to shake your head, mutter to yourself that you disagree about whether there’s a century of precedent being modified?
I mean, Biden spent the entire time frowning and shaking his head or freakishly smiling at Obama’s remark; even Pelosi occasionally muttered something, and they *knew* they were being filmed the entire time. You’re really suggesting Alito, as an audience member, merely expressing his personal disagreement about whether he did his job correctly (in a way likely imperceptible to 99.9% of people in the room), did something horribly wrong?
If any of you ever #1 read Citizens United and #2 clerked, you’d realize that Citizens United was premised on overturning precedent and judicial overreaching. I shudder whenever a political figure criticize the decision of the judiciary—such criticisms undermine the faith in the judiciary and unnecessarily politicizes a judicial decision. In regards to Citizens United, however, the majority discarded the integrity of the judicial institution for a political agenda. The 5 unelected, unaccountable-to-the-public justices #1 reached a constitutional issue when a it could have resolved the case on non-constitutional basis and #2 decided the case as a FACIAL challenge to the statute when the facial challenge was dropped below. Consequently, Citizens United is not entitled to the apolitical respect that should accompany judicial opinions. The main line of the majority’s argument is that money = speech, speech = protected by the 1st Amend, so ergo corporations should be able to drop their entire treasury to campaign advocacy. Now, what the majority fails to realize is that the money = speech argument contemplates PEOPLE as speakers. Last I checked, corporations are not people. The Citizens United is based upon numerous false premises to arrive at a political goal. I believe criticisms can at be leveled when SCotUS fails to adhere to the role contemplated by the Constitution. Accordingly, I believe criticisms of Citizens United is warranted—not necessarily from a political perspective, but from a judicial perspective. The Democrat in me agrees with PotUS’s criticism of Citizens United, but the lawyer in me cannot but disagree with the inevitable politicization of his criticism. Shots, bitches.
CHECK YOU PLAYED OUT MEMES.
QE PARTNER
CHECK YOU PLAYED OUT MEMES.
QE PARTNER
Obama is allowed to be a political hack…he’s an elected official with an agenda.
Alito, however, should not be.
I think Obama’s remarks were carefully worded so as to be factually accurate and yet get his point across that he thinks it was misguided. Reminder, this was a split decision. Four justices on the same court didn’t agree with Alito either. And were just as forceful about their opinions.
Obviously SCOTUS is not the final say. Nor should it be. If so, we’d still be living under Dred Scott. As for those who think passing law to overturn SC decisions is novel…remember in 1990 when conservatives were up in arms over the flag burning decisions and proposed all kinds of asinine amendments to try to overturn them? Funny how so many are okay with corporations getting free speech but flag burning is a big no-no. I say pass as many laws as possible to build fences around this decision and start the groundwork to pass an amendment limiting corporate involvement in politics all around. Stop being pussies and accepting the constitutional status quo.
If this http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk analysis is accurate then Alito’s reaction was absolutely appropriate. Saying “not true” to a statement that is not true is hard to argue with…
74 thinks Lochner and Casey live in harmony.
Judicial super legislature FTW. YLS SECURE.
Obama’s words were cold and calculated to play out to as large an audience he could possibly reach. Obama went to the state of the union address with the intention of undermining the Supreme Court before the nation and with the purpose of deliberately misleading the public on the Congressional power to overturn a supreme court ruling on the first amendment – in the name of false populism.
Agreed that Alito’s words were disrespectful given the forum, but those words were reactionary, immediate, and were practically spoken under his breadth in the wake of what is a shocking comment, given the forum, to come from any post-war president. (Acknowledging that such decorum has not necessarily been the norm for 200+ years). It does not sink to the Obama’s level.
CHECK YOU MANNERS FOR FAILING THIRD RATE PRESIDENTS OBAMA!
Griswold, Check MY CHIVAS AND CHRONIC INTAKE. YLS SECURE.
Griswold, Check MY CHIVAS AND CHRONIC INTAKE. YLS SECURE.
Griswold, Check MY CHIVAS AND CHRONIC INTAKE. YLS SECURE.
Sotomayor Wins!
I thought Obama’s SOTU address was excellent but for that one moment. SCOTUS heard a lot of cases last year, and came to a lot of reasonable decisions, even if Citizens United is scored as a wrong call. Either way, it was a much more nuanced case than the President implied – a bit rich for him to smack the Supremes over one case while striking a friendly tone with Congress after a full year of obstructionism and half-measures.
I wonder what would have happened if Bush had lambasted the Court about Boumediene in one of his SOTUs. I realize Boumediene came down too late, but humor me. Same result?
From my perspective, there was nothing really wrong about Obama’s remarks. It is emphatically the province and duty of the White House to behave like a hyper-partisan jackass, so it’s not especially surprising.
Obama is the douche solution inside the douche bag.
obama’s expressing himself. alito’s expressing himself. all them standing ovationers expressing themselves. it’s just a grand ol’ madonna video.
It is “champing at the bit,” dingbat, not “chomping.” I bet you say “doesn’t cut the mustard,” you ninny.
86, in fairness, if Bush had done it, he would have said: “In all due respect to our differences … and the powers of separation protected in the Constitution … of America, the Supremes … you know, the Court overturned … the law. I mean, you guys just got it wrong.”
Sorry, I can’t sleep.
–Elie
For all the people (74) who say “a corporation is not a person” so it cant be covered by the 1st amendment…so the NAACP is not covered by 1st amend? The Sierra Club is not covered? Unions not covered…please…associations of people are clearly covered by the 1st amendment and a corp is an association of people!
FYI: the ACLU supported the majority in Citizens.
Also…its quite hilarious for the prez to denounce the Citizens decision for letting special interests rule politics just weeks after he made probably the biggest special interest deal in history with his proposed huge $30 billion exemption for Union healthcare plans from the cadillac plan taxes.
Obama showed just how much of a disgraceful bozo he is by criticizing the Supreme Court!
@78 Alito starts making disgusted faces even before Obama says the part about foreign influence, so that’s irrelevant.
Given the fact that Obama used public funding to finance his election campaign, he has earned the moral authority to criticize the amount of private money in politics.
Stick it to ‘em, Barry! Fight those special interests!
@90 (Elie)
That’s some cutting-edge satire right there
@78 — What you are blindly missing is foreign shareholders of U.S.-domestic corporations. I suppose you received your education from this Capital University professor a/k/a National Review dingbat.
Unions, by virtue of their democratic structure and the fact that they aren’t themselves for-profit organizations, are clearly different than for-profit corporations. A voluntary collective democratically representing their own group’s interests and supporting a candidate should be viewed differently than an oligarchial organization (corporations) that has two parties (shareholders and employees) necessarily at odds to some degree. The latter group will almost certainly wok against the interests of parties with vested interests (livelihood, benefits, ideology) without giving the disadvantaged party any say or vote in the matter.
Since corporations can draw from the general coffers now to support individual candidates and issues, these fundamentally undemocratic organizations that have none of the characteristics of an actual person, nor are republican or democratic structures in any egalitarian sense can have increasingly undue influence in elections to further own ends in an unending vicious cycle.
I couldn’t applaud Obama more for his grandstanding – it’s necessary given the politicized ignorance of jurisprudence that was the Majority decision.
Uhm 94…what planet were you living on in 2008? Barry definitely DIDNT use public financing..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25259863/
Basically your argument is that unions are “more equal” than corporations so they deserve more protection?
Someone (shareholders or one person) OWNS the corporation. Shouldnt the owners be able to say what they want?
Do Union members get to vote on every political candidate/party their dues are spent on by the union bosses?
Sure unions are “for-profit”…making more profit(wages) for their members…thats just silly.
also, before this corps still spent money…they just routed it through PACs…then to candidates and no one knew where the f#ck the PACs got their money unless they dug.
Perhaps now we will actually know who is spending the money.
97 – You are a moron. Reread DGCL 141 10 times and then hit yourself in the head with a tack hammer.
Foreign corporations may be prevented from directly contributing, but their US-based entities are not. As a non-US business owner, after Citizens, what is stopping me from channeling my hard earned foreign currency into a US corporation established for the purpose of funding a candidate of my choosing?
Alito speaks (mutters, mouths, whatever) the plainly obvious truth. Obama never read the decision. Obama is a one-term loser.
HOPE-OBAMA-CONTINUES-TO-FAIL SECURE.
Elie, 90,
Post nudes.
Now.
What? Wages =/= profit. If Wages = Profit, then Corporations themselves would have to be non-profit. Profit-sharing and/or employee owned corps would fit this notion a bit more, but the dividends they receive are separate from their wages.
Of course, I see these things through a lens of extreme radicalism – i.e. I personally believe that the constitution’s guarantee of liberty and property are necessarily mutually exclusive, as property is theft, and wage-work is a form of slavery.
Oh, and I don’t see how DCGL proves that corporations are democratic in any sense other than an oligarchial sense, nor that their fundamental interests (especially on a political level) conflict heavily with the well-being of their employees. It’s simply that the general understanding and definition of this conflict is so skewed towards “free market” ideology of the most strident kind that the duties of corporations and their major shareholders/proxy board members are seen as legitimate to begin with.
Worst president ever.
104 – “i.e. I personally believe that the constitution’s guarantee of liberty and property are necessarily mutually exclusive, as property is theft”
Drop your shit off on the corner when you get up.
Slightly more, or less, disrespectful was that Ginsburg was dozing off during the speech.
Right after Obama commented on the initiative to build more nuclear power plants her head almost fell into Breyer’s lap because she fell asleep.
@77,
Dred Scott? Hello? Are you not aware that the SCOTUS reversed Dred Scott ITSELF? Con law FAIL.
78 Fail
103 – You must be lost. Here you go, http://www.4chan.org/
CHECK YOU SAFEST POWER GENERATING TECHNOLOGY STATS
I heard that Ex-Katten Corporate NYC Pussy Pass Associate is going to be the next appointment to the Supreme Court.
She blew Obama and Biden last week to sweeten the deal.
No one but Kash and Lat care about this. More job information please.
It was in poor taste for the president to attack the SCOTUS like that.
Furthermore, he completely misstated the holding of CU.
See the NYT commentary.
Quick Con Law Exam! What basic misunderstanding of Con Law does this statement in ATL’s article evidence:
“I didn’t see Scalia, but I assume he was chomping at the bit when Obama said ‘pass a law.’ In his world, that’s what is supposed to happen.”
Elie, for a Harvard grad, you sure don’t know much about how elected government works and what they can easily get around this decision. Here are two ways that legislation could be created to do something about the decision: First, set up a tax on any non-natural, for-profit “person” in an amount equal to 5 times the income that “person” generates in any calendar year in which that “person” buys speech that is protected by Citizens United. Second, mandate, as a part of SEC compliance that any corporation that wishes to have its stock traded on any regulated exchange must certify that it has placed no political ads within the last 4 years.
I love how republitards are upset about this. Ooooh No Obama has desecrated the “sanctity” of the supreme court!!! Like its some religious deity that cannot ever be wrong.
The court is most certainly not “apolitical” and it never has been.Corporations aren’t people, and they should not be allowed to influence elections with unlimited spending on campaign advertisements.
Out government was already corrupt, now we have no hope. How Ironic that fascism would come to America and one major political party would be cheering it on, calling it a victory for the first Amendment. What a joke you people are.
91 – Voluntary associations such as the NAACP are distinct from for profit business entities. The first amendment says association, not corporation, fool.
Money = speech is an ABSURD LEGAL FICTION. It is so absurd that the Court should be bitchsmacked over it. Obama did the right thing.
Why is the First Amendment read so narrowly at other times — when genuine freedom is on the line — but when it comes to a something like corporations and unions corrupting the electoral process, we suddenly need an overly-broad ridiculous interpretation?
118 – Your copy of the Constitution has the word “associations” in the 1st Amendment? Auction it off, probably worth a lot of money.
My free speech clause just says this: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
First, Alito did not shout out “Not true” and disrupt the SOTU. He simply mouthed it to himself. It is unfortunate that of the 71 minutes of the speech, the cameras happened to be on him at that exact moment.
Second, SCOTUS decided the case based on their view of whether the law was Constitutional. Obama’s complaints about the decision is its effect on politics, which is irrelevant to the issue that SCOTUS had to decide. Perhaps Congress should revisit this issue and pass a new law, but don’t blame SCOTUS for upholding the Constitution.
Linda Greenhouse comes down on Alito’s side. Delicious!
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/
97: Unions are a “voluntary organization” with no “profit motive.”??? Gimme a break! You obvioulsy never worked at a union shop while trying to pay off your tuition. Union member is far from “voluntary.” Even in “right to work” jurisdictions, unions thugs intimidate the heck out of non-union members. Also, the only “motive” a union has is to enrich senior membership and administrators. They care nothing for the ordinary worker and would rather see entire companies go out of business than make wage concessions. The world is not as simple as unions are good corporations are bad!
In the first place, trying to compare someone muttering under his breath to that idiot last year shouting in the middle of the speech is just plain stupid.
In the second place, does Obama really think that prefacing the sentence with “With all due deference…” makes it somehow less of an attack on the other branch? None of the justices who dissented seemed to think so.
119: “Money = speech is an ABSURD LEGAL FICTION.”
Totally agreed. It’s an absurd fiction. Good thing this is not what the Citizens stands for. What Citizens does stand for is that speech *costs* money. How wide of an audience can you reach without spending a penny? Can you reach more people with a TV ad or with a blogspot account? In most cases, it is most assuredly the former.
“Why is the First Amendment read so narrowly at other times — when genuine freedom is on the line[?]
Would you mind defining the term “genuine freedom”? Preferably in a way other than “shit that I support.”
Obama, you suck.
Sincerely,
America
119 if lobbysist are such a threat to freedom – so much though, that the Constitution need not be followed – as you and Obama seem to believe, then why does he have lobbysits working in his administration? Why is he working to give union members tax benifits other Americans do not enjoy and why does he take so much money from them? As you can see there is a difference between what he says and what he does.
119 if lobbysist are such a threat to freedom – so much though, that the Constitution need not be followed – as you and Obama seem to believe, then why does he have lobbysits working in his administration? Why is he working to give union members tax benifits other Americans do not enjoy and why does he take so much money from them? As you can see there is a difference between what he says and what he does.
108- Umm, he wasn’t saying that Dred Scott was a “correct” decision. He was just using that as an example of when politics directly influenced a SCOTUS decision.
Reading Comprehension FTW
Although I agree with the result in Citizens United, I do not like the manner in which the court got there and do think it was blatant judicial overeaching. On the other hand, so was Roe and Wickard and a bunch of other cases decided by lefty activist courts. I actually believe in stare decisis but find it hilarious that the same people that supported 30+ years of liberal judicial activism in the name of “social justice” now cry foul when the same tactic is used by a conservative court to reign in years of liberal rulings with no constitutional foundation. While whats good for the goose is not always good for the gander, FDR’s court crossed the pomoerium line years ago. There is no going back now.
Oh, and anyone that thinks Citizens United wasn’t a major game changer, check out this post on scotus blog. http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/the-new-world-of-campaign-finance-law/
Obama’s comment reminded me of a few lines from the best movie ever made, Talledega Nights:
Ricky Bobby: With all due respect, Mr. Dennit, I had no idea you’d gotten experimental surgery to have your balls removed.
Mr. Dennit: What did you just say to me?
Ricky: What? I said it with all due respect!
Mr. Dennit: Just because you say that doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want to say to me!
Obama: With all due deference [respect] to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court [had our balls removed with its decision]…
At least he said with all due deference.
125: Yes, I always found it exceedingly difficult to understand why the first amendment gives some perv the right to look at porn in a library but can prohibit groups of people from spending money to voice their opinion in an election. Check you original intent!
0BAMA LIED, THE CONSTITUTION AND CAPITALISM DIED!!!!!!!!!
Where was Scalia? Also, is Pelosi’s rack store bought? Those must have been some nice ones in her prime.
Alito is an embarrassment to the Court. He should have kept his mouth shut and taken it like a man instead of a whiny little child.
Alito made a decision to get his rich friends richer as Congress is overtaken by big corporations. He wins in the long run. So he should take the well-deserved Presidential bitch-slap and be thankful that’s all he’s getting.
Obama is not worthy to polish the shoes of these Supreme Court Justices. Come to think of it, I’m not sure he’s worthy to polish my shoes either. Worst President ever.
All in all a very cocky speech for a guy who hasn’t accomplished anything yet.
125, money=speech is the ideal upon which the whole the ruling is premised. CHECK YOU DENSENESS
Looks to me like Alito says “completely untrue” instead of “that’s not true.” Anyone agree? Not that it matters. The message from Alito is the same. Perhaps Alito should have tried the “pretend to scratch my nose with a middle finger approach.”
I never liked Alito. To me he has always seemed stubborn, angry and dangerous. Honestly, I kid you not, he has always reminded me of Bernie Goetz. No joke!
This is what happens when underqualified hacks become SCOTUS justices – they behave as badly as they reason.
What can you expect from a president that is an HLS grad? Certainly, not a basic understanding of the first amendment.
141, as opposed to Sonia Sotomayor, the intellectual giant who brought us brilliant legal opinions such as Taco v. Burrito?
It is very, very good for the Justices to get criticized in person because it is so very rare. They receive way too much deference; a little humility would be good.
14 is perhaps the best comment I have ever read on this blog.
Bottom line is Alito was right. As even LINDA FREAKIN GREENHOUSE has acknowledged, Citizens did not overturn a century of precedent, and that was the line Alito reacted to. The case a century ago dealt with corporate campaign contributions, not corporate political speech. And the section ruled on in Citizens is completely distinct from the section regarding foreign corporations, which remains in effect and undisturbed by the ruling in Citizens. You would think our Con-law professor President and the moronic minions on this board would understand these distinctions.
I am surprised there isn’t a post on the POTUS’ remark regarding student loan payment shouldn’t be more than 10% of your salary and after 20 years they are forgiven.
As if there was ever any doubt, Alioto reveals himself as a right wing judge incapable of any restraint, let alone the right -wingers favorite mantra of “judicial restraint.”
So it’s OK to stand up and applaud every few minutes at things you like in the speech, but not ok to quietly say to yourself “not true” to something you believe is not true?
As a conservative who thinks Citizens United was properly decided according to the 1st Amendment, I think there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong w/ President Obama’s statement. The President, Congress, and SCOTUS all take oaths to defend the Constitution. Reasonable men and women may differ in their interpretation, and while the Supreme Court’s decision is binding on the other branches, their analysis (known as an opinion) is not sacrosanct. I think we would all be better off if the executive and legislative branches did some self-assessment regarding the constitutionality of their actions rather that waiting SCOTUS to speak from on high. Public discourse about our Constitution’s meaning is a good thing! The American people are a smart bunch, and it is appropriate for more than just lawyers to have an opinion about the Constitution.
- Thanks and sorry my post is so long.
As a conservative who thinks Citizens United was properly decided according to the 1st Amendment, I think there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong w/ President Obama’s statement. The President, Congress, and SCOTUS all take oaths to defend the Constitution. Reasonable men and women may differ in their interpretation, and while the Supreme Court’s decision is binding on the other branches, their analysis (known as an opinion) is not sacrosanct. I think we would all be better off if the executive and legislative branches did some self-assessment regarding the constitutionality of their actions rather that waiting SCOTUS to speak from on high. Public discourse about our Constitution’s meaning is a good thing! The American people are a smart bunch, and it is appropriate for more than just lawyers to have an opinion about the Constitution.
- Thanks and sorry my post is so long.
@148, yes, especially when he followed up his head-shaking and mumbling to himself by having the audacity to deliver the Justices’ Response to the State of the Union Address, which was carried live on all the networks. Now THAT was unrestrained.
Considing how much ass-kissing the Supes demand in their venue, you’d think “Punkinhaid” Alito could have kept his mouth shut.
And by the way, Mitsubishi has all the free speech rights of an American citizen now.
Thanks to the Bushit appointees and affirmative action justices.
don’t make me laugh. Goldman has and will give plenty of money to Dem coffers. The hypocrisy is mindnumbing.
147 -
I wonder if when the availability of credit is reduced because banks will refuse to make loans on those terms, the inflation of higher education prices will slow because fewer people will be able to afford it?
154:
You mean Goldman will give plenty of OUR money to Dem coffers.
I thought that both Obama and Alito were fine. Obama has a right to criticize the Court’s opinion, and Alito has a right to silently disagree with Obama’s (incorrect) interpretation of a recent decision. If Alito had verbalized his disagreement, then that would be another matter, but I thought both sides acted approrpiately. Thus, the reader poll is flawed in my view.
Correct me if I am wrong, but one candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election complied with campaign finance laws and opted to take public money, while the other candidate’s name was Barack Obama, whose biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. Talk about hypocrisy.
I know I’m supposed to be deferential to Samuel Alito because he was able to suck enough ass to get voted on to the Supreme Court, but you know I can’t do that. He’s a mediocre mind and didn’t even write this result-oriented, pedestrian opinion No, we all know that it was cut and pasted from a Federalist Society brochure by that dipshit John Roberts.
ALITO = EPIC DOUCHE
Seriously, what happened to the Supreme Court’s tradition of either (a) not attentding SOTU, or (b) just simply sitting stoicly through the entire speech? Like it or not, that is what has been long established as proper decorum for the Justices. Alito shit on that and in the process made himself look like a tool and a political hack.
In addition to being an Appellate Federal Judge, Alito was also a Constitutional Law Professor, dickwads. Barry can criticize him and Sammy can do it right back. Thats America, fuckwads.
So, how long before SCOTUS decides to grant cert to a birther case now?
@157, I agree with you in putting Obama and Alito on the same plane, but I would say that both behaved badly. Their behavior was not unethical, and certainly not illegal, but it was tacky. Directly criticizing a recent Supreme Court decision in a State of the Union, with the justices sitting right in front of him was tacky, and trying to score political points by criticizing the decision as political was particularly hypocritical. It was also tacky for Alito to react visibly – the other Justice managed to avoid applauding, head-shaking, or mumbling, and he should have done so as well.
Capitalism died the day Reagen pushed for deregulation.
It was a battle, and Alito was banging the beat.
Goldman Sachs creeps may be jerkoffs, but they’re American jerkoffs.
Punkinhaid Alito and the gang of 5 have opened US elections to foreign corporation money.
Too bad these legal geniuses didn’t even both to consider the difference between US corporations and foreign corporations when the voted their brilliant deduction that a legal fiction is the same as a human being.
REAL BRIGHT, NUMBNUTS!
“Hey SCOTUS, be cool with this..” “You guys dropped the ball…now go back to the geriatric ward so we can do some change that that we believe in…”
- Thanks, POTUS
166 = xenophobe
Which Indian tribe are you from?
166, try reading the opinion. Different sections of the statute apply to foreign vs. domestic corporations. This decision did not involve the restrictions on foreign corporations and the court explicitly made that point.
Umm, 129,
You need a little reading comprehension yourself. I didn’t say anything one way or the other about whether or not Dred Scott was “correct,” nor did 77. Where did that come from? All I said is that 77’s contention that we’d still be living with Dred Scott if the almighty Congress hadn’t intervened is specious. Have fun in class today, though.
-108
How about a poll as to how many people actually read a SCOTUS decision before commenting here? If all you are doing is reading some value-ladden headline in a newspaper (i.e. “Court lifts limits on corporate spending” vs “1st Amendment prohibits limits on political speech”) you have no business being an attorney and no business posting here. Good day.
166, try reading the opinion. Different sections of the statute apply to foreign vs. domestic corporations. This decision did not involve the restrictions on foreign corporations and the court explicitly made that point.
Is anyone embarassed that the President thinks you can overturn the 1st Amendment (intepreted by SCOTUS, whether you agree with the ruling or not) through Congress?
Alito’s remark at least puts his tenure in perspective – he obviously doesn’t know what the fuck he’s doing when he signs onto an opinion!
“What do you want me rule now Scal Pal?”
What’s all this shit about SCOTUS “defending the Constitution” and being an “apolitical” body? Ya’ll must be YLS folk. If you’ve even read ONE – or 1 – even Uno will work – “SCOTUS opinion then you see that EVERY vascilates between original intent v. modern realities / stare decisis v. overruling / historical meaning v. modern realities whenever they need to justify their political leaning in a case. Seriously people, haven’t you figured out what a sham SCOTUS is yet?
Conservatives are such thin-skinned pussies. Yeah the court is SUPPOSED to be apolitical. But that doesn’t mean that politicians are supposed to be apolitical vis-a-vis the court and it’s decisions. Have you notices how Republican presidents talk about Roe v. Wade?
With regard to whether it was bad form to criticize a decision while members of the court were in the audience, the justices are not required to attend the sotu. They are invited. The sotu is a constitutionally mandated address from one politician, the President, to the hundreds of politicians in congress describing the state of the union and making reccomendations for legislative action. Obama did just that–recommend congress act to blunt what he saw as the deleterious
effects of a scotus decision.
Alito, as a member of a supposedly apolitical branch should have shut his mouth or, if he just lacks the proper temperament to do so, stay home and shout at the television like other conservative yokels do. Instead, he, as a member of an apolitical branch, spoke out against a political point about the effects of a decision.
Obama is a Japanese robot.
30 – I’m guessing that you were a lower 50th percentile TTT, who has never had any interaction with the judiciary. Why don’t you dig into the comments for the Model Code of Judicial Conduct 2004 Edition and read what they actually say. I pray for our profession.
166– But OJackoff wants to extend U.S. Constitutional rights to foreigners. So whats the diff, besides the flavor of kool-aid you’re drinking?
Two wrongs do not make a right. A lack of decorum on the part of both Obama & Alito.
96 – fail. obama referred to “foreign corporations” specifically, no room for saying he meant foreign shareholders of a domestic. but nice try moron
@176 – The State of the Union is not a constitutionally-mandated speech, it is a constitutionally-mandated report. (The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union . . . .”) Washington started a tradition of a giving an oral report, but Jefferson discontinued it and started a new tradition of the President sending a written report, which was read to Congress by a clerk. In other words, the irony is that Jefferson would write the report and have someone else read it, whereas modern presidents do just the opposite.
The tradition of the president delivering the report as a speech to a joint session of Congress did not firmly take root until Wilson. The justices are invited, like the president and the cabinet secretaries, but the none of them really have to be there and the “host” for the evening is the House.
Alito didn’t “speak out” about anything, which is why there is no audio of whatever he said to himself. He would have done better not to have reacted visibly to Obama’s criticisms, like the other justices who managed to show no emotion. Still, he was presumably surprised by Obama’s remarks and his reaction was spontaneous, whereas Obama’s political attack on the court was premeditated and, indeed, carefully rehearsed and read from a teleprompter. So I wouldn’t give either of them an award for decorum, but I think Obama was by far the ruder of the two.
182 FTW.
The virtual elimination of separation of powers should be egregious enough to rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Time to start drafting up impeachment papers. OH WAIT. He never said the oath properly to boot.
162 = Orly Taitz
@182. You’re missing the point completely. Fine. It’s a constitutionally mandated report. Really a distinction without a difference. The point is that it’s a message from one political branch to another. The justice, who is supposed to be apolitical, contested a political point the president was making whether audibly or inaudibly (it doesn’t matter given that the cameras were sure to turn on him when Obama made the point. By doing so, he discredited the idea that the court is apolitical (slightly).
As to which person was more rude, I don’t think either one was at all. I think we need to get past the idea that disagreeing with each other, even in each other’s presence is rude. Sure, shouting, “You lie” is rude both because it was an attack on a Obama’s character and was a distraction while he was speaking. Although Obama is not a king and Joe Wilson had every right to do it. Alito, by contrast, wasn’t rude in the least. He just did not maintain the appearance of impartiality that the rest of the justices did a better job of projecting.
Class presidents in my high school used to say mean stuff about the nerds in the chess club all the time, and the chess club nerds would shake their heads and maybe whimper a little, and it was no big deal.
FRAT STUD
Alito is correct. . . Once again OBAMA lies
187-are you kidding me? Obama is grown-up Steve Urkel. That’s reason the White House always showing him playing basketball (with his defenders standing 10 feet away), so he doesn’t look like a complete dork. I am guessing that Alito did far better with women than Obama did back in the day.
187-are you kidding me? Obama is a grown-up Steve Urkel. That’s reason the White House always showing him playing basketball (with his defenders standing 10 feet away), so he doesn’t look like a complete dork. I am guessing that Alito did far better with women than Obama did back in the day.
With apologies to Larry David, “A President goes up on stage, ‘I have great respect for the separation of powers. Having said that, You people are a bunch of morons.’”
To everyone saying the Justice Alito showed poor form:
It does not show partiality to negatively respond to an Presidential attack on the Judiciary.
CHECK YOU TRIAS POLITICA
The SCOTUS deserved what it got last night and then some.
The kindest thing that can be said about Alito is that he is a complete asshat.
The camera clips destroy the whole context of what really happened. Just before panning to Alito, Sotomayor whispered to him, “Sam, I heard you weren’t always such a douche bag. Is that true?”
The rest is history.
@164 Common sense died the day you were born.