Last Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that domestic corporations have the right to participate in our elections just like the rest of American citizens and that decision didn’t sit too well within the Obama White House already reeling from a series of humiliating political setbacks in recent months. Odd that Obama would be so concerned about funny money showing up during election cycles considering he was suspected of accepting tens of millions in donations from foreigners during the last presidential campaign.
Predictably Obama and the Democrats are beside themselves over the potential political repercussions of this ruling which is understandable considering they are in serious danger of losing many seats in both the House and Senate come November and with the never ending assault against America’s corporations from the president and Democrat leaders in Congress they are just a tad bit nervous that payback is gonna be a real bitch, starting real soon.
That said, many of us who sat through this yawner of a State of the Union speech were amazed that Obama had the audacity to stand there and publicly intimidate and diss the justices of the Supreme Court over the decision while they sat mere feet away from his podium. Chicago thuggery at its finest.
Justice Samuel Alito decided he wasn’t going to just sit there while the flunky-in-chief laid down the verbal abuse. Check out his response to Obama’s diatribe in the following video.
Sponsors... article continues below...
“NOT TRUE….NOT TRUE!”
Not quite a Joe Wilson “YOU LIE!” moment but nice to see he didn’t just sit there and take the abuse without responding.
Update 1-28-10: Randy Barnett a Georgetown law school professor calls Obama out on his crass behavior towards the Supreme Court justices, saying an apology from the president is in order…
politico.com–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….
Recall how quickly the media and the liberals were demanding Joe Wilson apologize for his truthful if inappropriate “YOU LIE!” outburst last September during Obama’s speech about healthcare.
Obama’s boorish behavior was bad enough but what really outta gall the justices is the fact he flat out got it wrong during his SOTU speech:
corner.nationalreview.com–The Supreme Court is not — and certainly should not — be above criticism. President Bush made it a point not to criticize the Court’s detainee decisions in Hamdan and Rasul — and probably missed a political opportunity. But he apparently considered it unpresidential to attack Court rulings.
By contrast, President Obama displayed an utter lack of tact in his criticism of the Court’s decision in Citizens United. Obama preened for political applause while members of the Court had to sit stoically on their hands. That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable — and not simply because he’s from New Jersey, as my South Jersey wife said. In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling. Citizens United is a 57-page opinion that most Americans wouldn’t have a good reason to read – and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t blame them for not reading it. Obama understands that most Americans are susceptible to misleading comments about the decision. In claiming that the Court had opened the floodgates to foreign corporations’ spending without limit in our elections, he sought to take political advantage of that susceptibility. Brad Smith, who has forgotten more about campaign-finance law than I’ll ever know, explained the applicable statutes in his post last night.
But you needn’t take Brad’s word for it. The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy expressly stated: “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.” In support of that carve-out, the Court acknowledged the statute Brad discussed, 2 U.S.C. section 441e, which bans contributions and expenditures from foreign nationals. So Obama’s attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation….