Justice Alito, Wuss?
Posted on January 29th, 2010 in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »
The Washington Post reports on the State of the Union’s awkward moment, when Obama criticized the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and Justice Alito clearly shook his head and muttered something like, “Not true.”
Obama led the fight against Alito’s confirmation, and there are sign that Alito hasn’t forgiven him for it.
He was a notable no-show when President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden accepted Chief Justice John G. Roberts’s invitation to pay a courtesy call on the court. Alito was the only member of the court not to attend the afternoon event, even though he had been at the court in the morning. He has not explained why he was absent.
Clarence Thomas, of course, is much the same way decades after his confirmation—petty, petulant, still sulking over the fight over his confirmation. What is it with these guys?
Here’s what Obama said of Alito back in the day:
“When it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.”
Apparently Alito can dish it out but he can’t take it.
9 Responses
1/29/2010 11:33 am
YOU LIE!
1/29/2010 12:59 pm
You might have mentioned that Obama was, in fact, wrong about his claim that the decision opened the floodgates to donations from foreign corporations. Laws prohibiting that were not overturned by the ruling. That doesn’t mean that Alito should have visibly made that comment, but it makes Obama’s public attack on the court that much worse.
The bigger issue is is fomenting public disrespect for courts when they make unpopular decisions (cf. the incessant right-wing attacks on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for its gay marriage decision). The justices have enough trouble with their jobs, and their personal safety, when they do things that make the crazies mad.They don’t need to hear it from the president in a forum like this—especially when the president has his facts wrong.
1/29/2010 3:03 pm
Harry,
What are you basing your claim about Obama’s wrongness on?
I haven’t read the ruling, but it seems to me that much depends on the way lower courts apply the logic of this decision. (Also, I’d be surprised if Obama as a constitutional scholar were going to let himself be caught with his pants down on this.)
Key quote from below link (which is from BEFORE the SOTU):
“It’s true that foreign nationals are currently prohibited by law from making independent expenditures in U.S. elections. But that prohibition has little teeth. According to experts, it doesn’t apply to foreign-owned corporations that incorporate in the U.S., or have U.S. subsidiaries.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_decision_creates_huge_opening_for.php
1/29/2010 6:20 pm
I plead guilty to being an amateur lawyer, talking about stuff that is way beyond my competence here (but isn’t that what blogs are for?). I actually read all the opinions and looked at the law before I posted, but I agree: so what? I am more confident in asserting my worries about the executive stirring up public anger about the judiciary. It doesn’t do any good (except politically perhaps, which I suspect was exactly the idea). IMHO, it’s just not appropriate in a world where judges regularly are the object of personal threats because of their rulings.
1/29/2010 6:30 pm
It’s a fair point. On the particular issue of campaign finance it’s hard to imagine that there are deranged lunatics out there taking their cue from the State of the Union address. And I’d add that FDR spent a bunch of one of his SOTUs criticizing SCOTUS anti-New Deal rulings. (But then again this is the very last area in which FDR should be a role model.)
In any case your point is a fair point, is what I meant to say.
SE
1/29/2010 8:36 pm
I am ignorant beyond belief. But what I thought had happened was that, although it remains illegal for foreign corporations to donate to political candidates, it is not illegal for those foreign corporations that have some kind of US base (or cooperative arrangement-not sure what the correct way to speak of this is).
Please correct me on this matter if you know something more concrete than I do. It’s very hard to get this straight.
1/29/2010 11:00 pm
Slight, and only slight, subject change:. Obama’s performance at Republican congressional rettreat is well worth watching in its entirety:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_442423.html
2/1/2024 2:17 pm
I think this SC decision has the potential to make a huge impact on elections and I am surprised that it is not a bigger story. Corporations can now spend what they want on political campaigns? Are you kidding me? Does this not at least create the potential for corporations to buy elections simply because they have a lot more money to spend than individuals? Not that they necessarily would, but could. How will lawmakers be able to ignore the fact that a corporation has the wherewithal to oust them at the next election? Corporations won’t need to spend the money, just threat is enough. In regards to looking at the big picture of the Democracy that the Constitution represents, I believe this is an irresponsible decision by the SC and should be called out by the President. Hopefully history will prove me wrong.
2/1/2024 2:51 pm
I agree with RT’s comment above.