Dissenting Opinion
By Mitch Berg
Obama holds forth on Constitutional Law.
Justice Alito says “not so fast…”
This is going to be an interesting year.
I only caught the last twenty minutes of Obama’s Castro-length State of the Union last night. My impression on hearing that part – and the wrap-up analysis – was…
…well, a picture says a thousand words:
Seriously. “The American people are rejecting statist gigantism – so I’m going to give them more statist gigantism!”
They do breed ’em cynical in Chicago, though; the conventional wisdom was that Obama took a more “populist” tone, going after banks and “Wall Street”. In other words, he’s trying to give the masses the same ideological bread and circuses that always work in liberal cesspools like Chicago.
Are fiscal show trials going to turn back the Tea Party Tsunami?
January 28th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Forget the speech. Anybody can read a speech. We’ll know the President has repented of his errors when he changes his ways.
Today he’s in Tampa to promise a billion-dollar high-speed rail linking Tampa with Orlando, funded by stimulus money. The train will make 16 round trips per day. It’ll save commuters 30 minutes on the road (hour by train, hour and a half by car) each way.
Frankly, that doesn’t sound so great to me. I still have to get to the train station in Tampa and away from the train station to my job in Orlando. Will commuters be taking taxis everywhere? Shuttle busses out to the Disney property?
Sounds like a high-falutin’ big-spending Grand Idea in search of a problem. Adding another lane to the freeway might be cheaper and more effective in the long run.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Vice President Joe Biden also sided with Obama, calling the ruling “dead wrong” and saying “we have to correct it.”
So, the executive branch can now “correct” Supreme Court rulings, apparently.
I guess I missed that executive power in my high school civics classes.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I read the applicable statute citation on politifact.org this morning. The basis for Alito believing that foreign corporations will not be able to significantly influence US politics is based on this US law, (quoting politifact) : 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) — prevents “a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country” from making “directly or indirectly” a donation or expenditure “in connection with a Federal, State, or local election,” to a political party committee or “for an electioneering communication.”
Which may be an impediment to the parent companies of many US entities, but we have many US companies that are separate subsidiaries, headquartered in the US. I am not a lawyer, but I have not been able to locate anything during a quick search which would bar the parent company from directing a subsidiary to act in the manner that concerned Obama.
I took Obama’s statement to mean that he would support and encourage legislation that would address this – or as he put it “correct” the situation.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I can’t wait for this whole “free speech” issue to get corrected.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
That’s a magnificently obtuse way of defining “correct.”
After Obama’s big F.U. to the Supreme Court last night, if legislation does eventually come down the pike to “address” this, I imagine the Court would rule it unconstitutional, too. Way to go, B.O. Keep making friends.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Dog Gone, the reason for corporations having free speech rights is that if they don’t, they also have no right of redress of grievances. That goes contrary to the entire history of the corporation, which is (etamologically) to give a legal corpus, or body, to a nonhuman entity.
In other words, Obama (not to mention McCain and Feingold) are wrong not just for 100 years, but for two millenia. If you can sue an entity, you need to allow it to defend itself, period.
Awful nice of Ivy League law degree holder Obama to ignore that little precedent called “Marbury v. Madison” as well. Exactly what DO they teach at Hahvid anyways?
January 28th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Obama basically told the American people last night that we are too stupid to understand.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
So, the executive branch can now “correct” Supreme Court rulings, apparently.
Ok peoples I’m only 23 but correct me if I’m wrong. The last time a sitting prez directly challenged the SCOTUS was when parts of FDR’s New Deal was struck down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional. Then FDR’s response was to threaten to pack the courts with pro-New Deal judges. He did eventually get his way though. Has anything like that happened since the 1930’s? I’m not being an ass I just want to know
January 28th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Exactly what DO they teach at Hahvid anyways?
How to get around the law and constitution because people are so stupid that they need to be led by them because they know what’s best for us.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
What makes Obama’s “foreign” reference even more audacious is that foreign sources were pouring money into his campaign in 2008. A Chinese national put it best, referring to his support of Bill Clinton: “If you want to ride the subway, you have to put a token or two into the turnstile.”
January 28th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Obama, ex-Con Law lecturer, is now smarter than the Supreme Court. Is there anything that man can’t do?
January 28th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Terry, Peebo is having delusions of bacon.
January 28th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Mitch,
Samual Alito was supposed to keep his mouth shut, not say anything – his presence was SUPPOSED TO BE, like the rest of his peers, one of utter neutrality. That’s why none of them clap, none of the jeer (unlike Republicans and partisan hacks) – and why Alito showed himself to be injudicious – and perhaps improper as a selectee for the court. Before you phumper overmuch, you may want to investigate whether your ‘hero’ violated one of the fundamental rules of decorum. Had that been Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing Bush, I’m pretty confident the post today from you would have been outrage.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I noticed in the video that some other judges reacted to O’s comments. Satomayor closed her eyes, Roberts blinked several times and seemed to purse his lips, the justice sitting next to Roberts (I believe it was Kennedy) didn’t seem to change expression. Ginsburg sadly looked like someone should put a mirror under nose to see if she was still breathing.
The law clerk(?) to the far right in the tight shot was definitely animated at the initial castigation of the court by O, and even more so as a reaction to the applauding by the WH Staff thugs in chorus with rest of the “living breathing constitution” schmucks.
It is terrifying to think that this “learned” Harvard Law graduate will in all probability be appointing a replacement judge to the court, all the while contemptuously thumbing his nose to any legal decisions that don’t meet HIS interpretation of the law.
It was also curious to note that he didn’t advocate denying labor unions their right to monetarily contribute to political candidates. NO, that would be an infrindgment on their 1A rights. He demonstrates himself to be a hypocrite of the first order.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Samual Alito was supposed to keep his mouth shut, not say anything – his presence was SUPPOSED TO BE, like the rest of his peers, one of utter neutrality.
For starters, Pen, that’s balderdash. NOBODY in the room is “supposed” to be “neutral”. No SOTU address is ever neutral; depending on the President’s party, both sides routinely make a show of applauding, standing and applauding, or sitting silently during SOTU. You’re making the whole “”supposed to be” bit up from whole cloth.
Second of all, he “said” nothing. During the middle of an applause line (where the Dems were clapping and the GOP largely not), he said something essentially to himself. Indeed, he may not have been audible to even himself. There was nothing to hear; had there not been a camera on him, nobody would know.
So what?
That’s why none of them clap, none of the jeer (unlike Republicans and partisan hacks) – and why Alito showed himself to be injudicious – and perhaps improper as a selectee for the court.
Ever considered a career in fiction? Because the scenario you’re giving us, interesting as it may be, has no bearing whatsoever on reality.
Sort of like Obama’s view of the law.
Before you phumper overmuch, you may want to investigate whether your ‘hero’ violated one of the fundamental rules of decorum.
Tell you what; you “investigate” whether your scenario is within a light year of reality first.
Had that been Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing Bush, I’m pretty confident the post today from you would have been outrage.
Nope.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
“Had that been Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing Bush, I’m pretty confident” penigma would be defending her. Just another proof of Mitch’s Nth(?) Law.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Peev, perhaps the audience is supposed to sit respectfully regarding the President’s speech. In the same way, an Ivy League law graduate like Mr. Obama is supposed to be aware of the limitations imposed on the executive and legislative branches by Marbury vs. Madison, and not bluster on as if he’s somehow the superior mind in law to those of the Court.
So you judge. What’s worse; Obama’s demonstrably false and obnoxious calling out of the Supreme Court made public to the world, or Alito’s silent mouthing “you’re wrong” to the man who demonstrably was?
Ain’t.That.Complicated,Peev. Personally, I think that Obama’s speeches generally merit the same “bull ****” chant that greets bad calls in college football games.
January 28th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
bluster on as if he’s somehow the superior mind in law to those of the Court
Apparently the President also has a neighbor who knows more about the law than anyone else.
January 28th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
and perhaps improper as a selectee for the court
Unlike someone who would give extra value to the opinions of a “wise Latina woman”, right?
January 28th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
“And perhaps improper as a selectee….” Perhaps why?
January 29th, 2010 at 4:13 am
Althouse says this about the comparison between Roosevelt’s criticism of the SC vs Obama’s criticism of the SC:
January 29th, 2010 at 4:48 am
Terry,
Glad you found the FDR quote.
Penigma: interesting that you focus on Alito’s silent “disrespect” and utterly ignore the turd that Obama threw onto the SCOTUS desk.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:02 am
K-Rod said: “Obama basically told the American people last night that we are too stupid to understand.”
If true, I’m not sure *you’re* the counterexample, K-Rod. Just sayin’.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Angryclown will have to watch the replay, but it must have been a good speech. It’s got all you wingnuts in a regular tizzy today.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:09 am
From the Liberal Dictionary:
“Whining” – when a conservative dissents from something.
“Having a meltdown” – a conservative notices something and mentions it.
“It’s got all you wingnuts in a regular tizzy” – Simple observation.
Life got so much easier once I learned to interpret from liberal to English.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
AC: here’s Macbeth’s review of the Obama speech:
” a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.”