Justice Alito caused a silent disturbance that has become a loud controversy. He grimaced when President Obama admonished a Supreme Court decision during his State Of The Union address.
President Obama was upset because the Supreme Court wants to allow corporations to support the candidate of their choice.Justice Alito mouthed the words “not true” after President Obama expressed his fear that this would allow “special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
Let’s just abandon all protocol,guys!
Since Alito muttered his disent,a debate has risen over whether President Obama said something that was “not true.” Some folks beg to differ with Justice Alito. They say that President Obama’s assertion is true.
Here’s more from The Huffington Post:
“Conservatives and progressives may argue this morning about whether President Obama should have criticized the Court and about the severity of Justice Alito’s breach of protocol, but Justice Alito faces a bigger problem: Obama’s comment is true.
In fact, Obama’s carefully-phrased comment to the justices highlights two critical aspects of the majority’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, both of which constitute dangerous and revolutionary shifts in long-settled law:
- The Court ruled that the First Amendment makes no distinction among speakers — that the identity of a speaker makes no difference for purposes of government regulation of speech. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissenting opinion, this logic leads to some remarkable conclusions: “Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.” Stevens also clearly explained that the majority’s logic “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.” This is truly an unprecedented reading of the Bill of the Rights that could have consequences that reach even beyond campaign finance law. By eliminating any distinction among speakers, which, as Obama noted, has been recognized for at least a century, the Court hinted that any regulation that distinguishes between corporations and individuals may be problematic — raising the question of what other rights currently reserved for citizens the Court might soon extend to corporations. As Stevens noted in his dissent, under the majority’s logic, “it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”(End of Excerpt) Read the rest here.
And to make matters worse,it appears that Justice Alito may be holding a grudge against Obama. President Obama was one of the Senate Democrats who voted against his confirmation. Here’s more on that from Politics Daily:
“President-Elect Barack Obama strolled over to the Supreme Court yesterday to pay a visit to the Justices who will be scrutinizing his legislation and executive orders over the next four years. It was supposed to be a friendly visit, initiated by Chief Justice John Roberts, who will swear Obama into office next Tuesday.
But then one bad apple had to go and ruin it.
Wednesday’s meeting was described as a relaxed, get-acquainted session. It included Roberts, seven associate justices and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.
The absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was at the court Wednesday morning for arguments in two cases, was a mystery. He has, however, voiced lingering anger over Senate Democrats, including Obama and Biden, who voted against his confirmation three years ago. When walking on Capitol Hill, Alito has said, he crosses to the far side of the street whenever he nears the Senate Office Building.
What gives, Justice Alito? Are you really still mad at Barack and Joe for trying to Bork you? After all, they both voted against Roberts, too, and he seems able to forgive and forget.”(End of Excerpt) Read the rest here.
Vodpod videos no longer available.