Alito's 'Not True' Was Out of Line; Court Deserves Obama Smack

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Succinctly, corporations are business entities,not people. The statement was "We the people.." not "We the corporations..". In the biased delusional folly of this radically partisian political environ, we now have the best "subprime court" that Cheney and Bush were able to auction off to the United Corporations of America. Why decry government control and bend over for corporate domination?

pablo of FL 8:54AM February 04, 2010

The answer to those fearful of a corporation's influence - they can "buy" a legislator? - is information. The corporations that are making contributions to a campaign must disclose those contributions. If a foreign interest is trying to buy an election, the people can be informed of that by other corporations paying for ads or buy the opposing candidate. I have not yet read the opinion, but restrictions on fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny and must be tailored to solve the identified problem. Nothing says that corporations cannot be restricted, but those restirctions must be narrow.
This issue isn't as black or white as the author and most commenters here believe.

Kaliahk of AK 10:04PM February 02, 2010

Alito was right, Obama was wrong. And notice this: Obama knew that he was on camera, speaking to the public, but Alito said those words to himself, not knowing that the cameras were following him. It was a private comment that we happened to see because of the cameras. He was not being rude. He was simply being correct. Obama needs better writers who know what they are talking about, because it makes Obama look stupid for misrepresenting the faces.

Joel Heck of TX 9:55PM January 31, 2010

First off let me say that Mr. Magan's comment was the most thoughtful and free from sound bites and talking points. However I respectfully disagree.
The Constitutional passage reads "...the right of the people..."
Corporations are not people, and have none of the restrictions such as getting up with an awful backache or catching a cold as I do. Certain rights have been granted either though executive or congressional decisions but those are not based upon the constitution which is what constitutional law is all about. In short this is an example of legislation through the bench; which is a bad practice no matter who does it or for what political gains. Politics has no place in either the courts or the armed services.
The passage "Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. . ." to my mind means that any individual can (and perhaps should) take advantage of their ability to exhibit free speech including the right to exercise that right by making campaign contributions.
Also note that this ruling will apply to unions or other legal entities from making those same contributions without regulation. I fear that this will lead to even greater levels of campaign war chests as corporations and unions seek to outmatch one another. Also remember that corporations are not all of one mind and that legislation that could be beneficial to one might be detrimental to another.

Paul T from Illinois of IL 6:15PM January 30, 2010

I'm sure he was so shocked at the outright LIE coming out of the President's mouth, his jaw dropped and couldn't help mouthing the words of TRUTH.
The Judge's very job is TRUTH.

Lewis of MT 5:42PM January 30, 2010

Good for the Supreme Court Justice !
It is Obama that needs to be smacked down !
(oh, wait that already happened in Mass. didn't it !)
You and Obama both know the ruling said nothing about foreign contributions !
In addition, seems a little hypocritical considering the foreign contributions Obama's campaign received - what's that you say - fund raising in Europe !

jeff of NJ of NJ 3:29PM January 30, 2010

Yet again, the Roberts Supreme Court has sanctioned the rights of those with money to greater access to our elected officials and to extraordinary means (money) for getting them elected in the first place. It's no longer one voter one vote in the minds of those who interpret our Constitution and Bill of Rights for us, it's voters with enough money (few) against the rest of us (many).
Is that the line between Democracy and Plutocracy we see fading in America? And there we thought judges were supposed to be wise. Silly thought.

Ron W. Smith of UT 2:08PM January 30, 2010

The title of this article amuses me to no end. In a rather vulgar display, President Obama blatantly misrepresents the Supreme Court's ruling in a speech in which they were in attendance and it is Alito who "was out of line?"

Ryan Booker of CO 10:22AM January 30, 2010

To this day Harry Reid stands firm on what he said against President Bush. Opinion not fact.
Wilson now Supreme Court Judge state facts which are true. Yet they are maligned, not the liar (obama).
Seems un-American to me.

Bill Hedges of MO 10:19PM January 29, 2010

Obama said, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests..."
Really? How is it then he gave a payoff to the Unions so they don't have to pay for healthcare like the rest of the people? Maybe because those "special interests" spend money on him?

Joe Miller of WA 6:36PM January 29, 2010