Alito, 'Not True' and Obama: Lucky Scalia Wasn't There

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The narcissist continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, at his State of the Union BS, he wrongly (check this out, google Elito not true remark) cited a case that opens contributions from Unions and large Corperations to run political ads for or against specific candidates, (this by the way is a Democratic tendency), especially from Unions (run by Democratics). On the other side of his mouth, it could be said that he hired 40 ex-lobyists to his staff. Hmmmmmm. I bet they are ALL Democrats.
But then again, we all know he follows his narcissistic tendencies and denies anything negative about him or his actions. Discusting!!!!!!!!!

Joe Notarangelo of FL 3:23PM March 10, 2010

Legislating from the bench, these miserable excuses for judges Alito Roberts and Scalia overturned 100 years of precedent to legalize graft. If we don't depend on precedent, then all our laws are meaningless except of activist judges and mullahs like Alito and Scalia make up laws off-the-cuff at their wims and fancies.
Impeach Alito Roberts and Scalia.
Pass laws to criminalize corporate graft and keep sleazy money out of elections.

Sam of TX 3:15PM January 30, 2010

The court was wrong because they equated free speech with money. Those are two very different things. The court added to the imbalance in American society because their ruling values the voice of the wealthy over the voices of the poor. The Bill of rights was not designed to give our cherished individual rights to inanimate soul-less corporations. We have an activist court of the worst kind. A court that can be bought.

Bernie of DE 11:08PM January 29, 2010

Nor, apparently, has Jeff read the case opinion either.
First, a few definitions:
1. A "contribution" is when a person or corporation gives a political candidate or political action committee, or that candidate's campaign, a gift of value, whether cash or in-kind. When given by foreigners, it is a "foreign contribution".
2. An "independent expenditure" is when a person or corporation uses their own resources to make their own independent statement or expressions of their own opinions regarding a political issue.
Jeff seems to have seized upon Justice Stevens's dissent, which claims the Court rejected over a hundred years of election law history. Stevens couldn't have been more wrong. The Tillman Act of 1907 does prohibit corporate campaign contributions. Yet, that's not what the Citizens United case was about. The Tillman Act still stands today as valid law.
The Citizens United case was about independent expenditures. And the first SCOTUS case that allowed for the prohibition of independent expenditures by corporations was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which upheld an outright ban on the practice by a state.
As the opinion explains, Austin was clearly the odd-case-out with respect to First Amendment case law. So, last week the Court overruled the case, holding that an outright ban was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
So, what did the Supreme Court not do?
1. It did not overturn the Tillman Act. Prohibitions on corporate contributions was not addressed at all in this case.
2. It did not say that Congress and the states cannot regulate a corporation's independent expenditures; no, it only said they couldn't ban it outright.
3. It did not uphold foreign independent expenditures. Again, while the Court cleared away a GENERAL ban on independent expenditures, it did not rule unconsitutional a narrower law that would prohibit such expenditures by foreign associations or organizations, or from corporations with a significant proportion of foreign shareholders.
The third point strikes directly at what is called overbroad legislation. Analogously, the Court simply told Congress that if you intend to perform surgery, you must use a scalpel, and not a chainsaw. If Congress comes back with a law of appropriately narrow scope, the opinion hints that it's likely to be upheld.
Thus, Obama's characterization of the case is clearly incorrect, and Alito's statement was a simple statement of the falseness of Obama's statement. Alito was right.

Dave M. of OR 10:58PM January 29, 2010

If it sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck . . .
He can say whatever his senile, deludid perception of himself tells him to say. Facts are facts.
You are correct, he was at one time, but he's long since gone to the dark side after hearing that Ginsburg was his mother. I'm sorry, I just had to run with that one. Humor you know!:-)
His record, however, does not support his dubious conclusion. He tends to fall on the side of dissenting liberal opinions.
However, knowing that I'm likely more conservative, then your arguement would have been much stronger had you quoted Scalia, or Rhenquist. As it is, I would expect a quote from a liberal supreme court justice to be just that . . . a dogmatic liberal quote.

David of ID 7:14PM January 29, 2010

I was commenting on Obama's remarks distorting the ruling as it applies to foreign investment. That is what irritated Alito. Tell me Jeff, would you sit there quietly while someone insulted you with lies or at best, distortions of the truth?
I get the impression from reading your posts the answer would be, "No.".
You go on to compare the decision in question to the judicial insanity of Roe. A woman's right to her body - indeed. Can she "choose" not to wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet? Can she "choose" be a prostitute or take drugs? Is "jaywalking" or walking around naked her "choice"? It seems her legal "choice" is confined to her womb.
You really must learn to get your head out of your ideology.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 3:14PM January 29, 2010

A president is there to express his opinions and to serve the public. It is not the "good will" of citizens that the court is defending it is upholding and expanding the over-reaching of special interests, a problem that conservatives, liberals, AND independents almost universally agree is corrupting the government. In upcoming elections, we can expect the grass-roots efforts of American citizenry to be further drowned out by the loud, forceful voice of large corporations which already have undue influence in government circles. Expect more farm subsidies, wars to protect big oil and funnel money into the pocket of the arms manufacturers and aeronautics corporations, etc.

TG of NY 2:52PM January 29, 2010

Tom of NJ - Did you read the bill? It would be interesting if you did, because it was not a bill at all! It was a case. You know, in court. When you call people out for not knowing things it might be useful to have a clue yourself.
The decision the supreme court made essentially says corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence politics (political ads). This gives them unprecedented influence to put people in office whom they prefer, or attack those they don't, and screw the citizens of the US. Corporations in the US can be owned by foreign entities. Therefore, it would not be impossible for, say, Al Qaeda to start a corporation to support US politicians it preferred, or for China, Russia, OPEC, Iraq to do so.

Justin of WI 1:41PM January 29, 2010

So you think he's a liberal judge? Well, not according to Justice Stevens: “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all. I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”
Furthermore, to quote an article Jeffrey Rosen wrote for the NYT's magazine: Nevertheless, he emphasized that he still thinks of himself as a judicial conservative, which he defined as someone who tries to follow precedents and “who submerges his or her own views of sound policy to respect those decisions by the people who have authority to make them.” He insisted that although some people have called his record a “surprise,” his votes on the court have been consistent with the views he expressed during his confirmation hearings and as an appellate judge. “I don’t think that my votes represent a change in my own thinking,” he said. “I’m just disagreeing with changes that the others are making.”
David, I've quoted one of the most credible justices on today's Supreme Court; please get your facts straight before making assumptions about Justice Stevens. Your ad hominem response will not stand.

Jeff of IL 12:57PM January 29, 2010

You quote Justice Stevens, a liberal judge (and some would say the most liberal judge) of the court?! He's one whose jurisprudence is widely considered idiosyncratic. He's been a flip-flopper on several key issues like affirmative action. He's a judge who has voted to strike down federal laws that regulate obscene online content considered harmful for minors. He's a judge who sides in favor of abortion and favors allowing gay scout masters in the boy scouts. Favors criminal rights over societal justice.
Yeah, he's a great quote source.
Look, Jeff, if you quote someone, at least use someone with credibility. It would make your arguement much stronger.

david of ID 12:13PM January 29, 2010