Obama State of the Union Attacks on Supreme Court Justices

Last night did not watch the speech live because there was a previous scheduled event and knew there would be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking after the speech. One thing about a major speech is that you can view parts you missed, read the full speech the next morning or watch the full video. Must admit to being appalled last night when reading POLITICO about Obama's misguided attack on members of SCOTUS who were in attendance.

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who was in the House chamber, reported that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. After learning and seeing the clip of his attack, appalled has gone to outrage.

After reading various media outlets this morning, it has become clear that certain members of the media cannot get their facts straight either:

First, members of the mainstream media need understand that Obama is NOT and NEVER has been a Professor of Constitutional Law. He was invited to be a guest lecture to a class on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, but even then there were complaints that all he did was talk about sports so his short tenure as an adjunct ended. An assumption can be made that there was a connection in Obama being chosen as a guest lecturer through Bill Ayers a long time Obama friend and professor at The University of Chicago.

Second, some members of the media refuse to admit that Obama's facts on the current SCOTUS ruling are flawed. This was not a 100 year old ruling that was overturned, but one that is less then 20 years old. The portion of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform that infringed on free speech by outlawing ads against candidates paid directly by corporations and unions should have been overturned at the time by SCOTUS as most expected it would be. Unfortunately the Court upheld the law at time infringing on free speech. Now the current Court has given free speech back to the people who want to pay for ads in campaigns no matter who they are.

This Court ruling did not change the fact the portions of the law prohibiting foreign contributions and direct corporation contributions to candidates were not overturned. It remains illegal to take such contributions. The FEC should have investigated charges that Obama was accepting foreign contributions illegally but there were operating shorthanded since Democrats (Schumer) refused to allow a vote on Bush appointees and the recess appointments had expired to the Federal Elections Commission.

Makes one wonder if this attack on the SCOTUS ruling by Obama and the Democrats is their fear that corporations they have targeted for takeover by the Federal Government might decide to run ads against them in the 2010 election. Wouldn't blame them if they did. Anyone who lost an automobile dealership thanks to Obama would probably be first in line to pay for an ad against a Democrat candidate.

In searching the internet this morning for comments on the SCOTUS attack during the State of the Union, we found these comments by Professor Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center, noteworthy.

Randy Barnett Professor, Georgetown University Law Center :

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.

Source: Politico

In the New York Times Opinion Blog article written by Linda Greenhouse, she reaffirms that the SCOTUS ruling did not affect banned direct corporate contributions which Obama alleged in his speech. Greenhouse was the winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The New York Times from 1978 to 2008. She teaches at Yale Law School and is the author of a biography of Justice Harry A. Blackmun, “Becoming Justice Blackmun.”

January 27, 2010, 11:18 pm

Justice Alito’s Reaction
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

(snip)

Mr. Obama’s words were sharp, echoing his earlier criticism of the court’s decision last week in the Citizens United case to strike down the limits that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law placed on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” He urged Congress to “pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.”

(snip)

Some members of the court dislike the exercise so much that they never attend. Justice Sotomayor’s predecessor, David H. Souter, never did. For several years, Justice Breyer attended alone.

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election.

(snip)

Excerpt: Read More at New York Times Legal Blog

The bottom line is Obama attacked the Supreme Court Justices on their latest ruling overturning portions of McCain Feingold but did not have his facts straight. We agree with the Georgetown professor that he owes the SCOTUS members an apology but we are not holding our breath because this bully in the Chicago tradition does not apologize.