Ohio Secretary of State Appeal denied -- Early Voting Remains

Maybe it is because I grew up in Ohio where I cut my teeth on politics with my Uncle who was very active in Republican politics not only local and statewide but also nationwide, because I have been more livid then normal at what I have seen out of the Ohio Secretary of State  John Husted.  Doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is trying to do voter suppression in Ohio to give Ohio to Romney.  It is not working and now with this ruling all Ohioans not just Republicans will be able to vote the weekend before the election.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Leaves Early Voting In Place In Ohio | 

Earlier this month, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down an Ohio law cutting back early voting for most Ohio voters. Today, the Supreme Court rejected a request by the state to stay this decision. The Court’s denial of the stay did not explain the justices’ reasoning and did not include a dissent. Moreover, because their order only concerned the request for a stay, it is possible — if unlikely — that the justices will still decide to hear this case at a later date. Nevertheless, today’s order means that the new restrictions on early voting almost certainly will not be in effect during next month’s election.

Couldn't believed he appealed the unanimous ruling by the panel of Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Read that -- UNANIMOUS ruling and yet Husted cost the state even more money appealing to the SCOTUS.  So happy to see that the SCOTUS rejected the appeal.  For two elections Ohio has had extended early voting but along comes Romney running for President against President Obama and Husted has put up a roadblock every step of the way.  One of the most obvious ones was when he was going to allow Republican counties to have more hours to vote then Democrat ones.

Secretary of State in Ohio needs to be ousted in 2014 but frankly with his dirty tactics and then he falsely accuses democrats for being the problem should oust him from office early.  He is sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Ohio not the Romney campaign.  He fired to long time County Board of Election people in Montgomery County because the lawyers told them there was nothing to prevent them from having longer hours in what they read of the SoS ruling, but when they wouldn't back down, he fired two of them.  Know that area well.  Husted just messed with a County that is pretty heavy Democrat, and IMHO they will prove it on November 6th when the numbers come in.

I have found the voter suppression in Ohio to be an insult to the people who have worked their whole lives to make the Ohio Republican Party vibrant again after years of losing Senate elections.  Now with one partisan Secretary of State, he has wiped years of good will away.  I think Sherrod Brown is going to clean the ultra-conservative Josh Mandel's clock on November 6th.  Mandel is an Aiken/Ryan clone IMHO.  I cannot believe I am saying this but if I still lived in Ohio, I would not only vote for Sherrod Brown but I would be out working for his election.  Brown is leading a crusade to get Citizens United overturned to take the huge amount of wealthy donor money out of trying to buy elections.

Romney has taken it to a new low level of dishonesty with his big donors who are routinely breaking the law but they will send in amended returns AFTER the election.  Anyone with a brain can see the Romney reports for his campaign are including money meant for the RNC.  Also never saw a campaign with so little data on donors -- far outside the norm.  This is part of what Sherrod Brown wants stopped along with identifying all major donors so no one can hide behind a group where they don't have to reveal donors.

Republicans are proving that when there are no campaign finance rules in place, they take full advantage including groups who hide donors.  Rules no longer apply if you are a Republican.  I hope the voters of Ohio have the final say in sending Romney to defeat along with Josh Mandel showing that all the ads being bought in Ohio by the Super PACs mean zero, zip, nada.  Voters need to show the GOP that their votes are not for sale to all the negative Super PAC ads and vote their conscience by voting for the campaigns who tell the truth not lies which means their votes would go to President Obama and Senator Sherrod Brown.

Does President Obama understand the Constitutional duties of the three branches of Government?

Beginning to doubt if Obama ever took a course in Government 101 the way he went after The Supreme Court on their possible ruling on ObamaCare.  Who would have thought he would be so blatant in his attack against SCOTUS:

Yesterday (4/2) Barack Obama launched an attack on the Supreme Court that bordered on the bizarre. Apparently unaware of the most basic principles of constitutional law, going back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, he said:

I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. 

And I — I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of — of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and — and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I’m pretty confident that this, — this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step.

The President is now starting to step back from his comments he made on Monday which caught almost everyone off guard including a Federal Judge:

THE PRESIDENT:  

Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal. 

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. 

Powerline:  This is, of course, entirely different from what Obama said yesterday, but it comes no nearer the truth. First of all, when did Obamacare become an “economic issue,” a matter of “commerce”? I thought it was all about women’s health care, like Roe v. Wade. Evidently that was a misunderstanding. 

But that’s a minor point. Is there any truth to Obama’s claim that the Supreme Court hasn’t invalidated any statutes that are “economic” and relate to “commerce” since Lochner v. New York, which was in 1905? Of course not. To name just a few examples a great deal more recent than 1905, the Court ruled unconstitutional provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that had permitted only “for cause” removal of members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2010; the 1990 Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act in 2001 (this case was actually quite similar to Obamacare because the Court held unconstitutional provisions that required mushroom growers to contribute to mushroom promotion programs); provisions of the Patent and Plant Variety Remedy Clarification Act, the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, and the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in 1992; the Harbor Maintenance Tax Act in 1998; the Transfer Act which authorized the transfer of operating control of Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport from the Department of Transportation to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1991; and many, many more dating back to 1905. 

One could be charitable and say that Barack Obama is a bullshitter who makes stuff up whenever he is in a tough spot, or one could say that he is a habitual liar. Take your pick.   

Excerpt:  Read Moe at Powerlilne

Someone needs to brief the President on the Constitutional duties of the Supreme Court since he obviously still doesn't understand that the US Government is a three legged stool -- Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  How can someone be in office for this long and not understand how Government works?  Anyone who is a thinking person knows just because Congress passes a bill/law does not make it constitutional.  We applaud the Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith for standing up to the Executive Branch.

April 3, 2012 

Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith Orders Department of Justice to Address President’s Controversial Comments 

by Special Report 

Yesterday (4/2) President Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority, a democratically elected Congress.” 

Now an appeals court is demanding Attorney General Eric Holder to clarify the president’s comments. Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requested today, “I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday, that’s about 48 hours from now, a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific.” 

Charles Krauthammer told Bret Baier on Special Report that, “ObamaCare passed by seven votes, it was a very narrow majority … so on every count he doesn’t have an argument. The liberals are in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral arguments and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side.” 

Listen to the audio below from the courtroom and check out the panel debate on Special Report: 

The response from Attorney General Eric Holder is weak IMHO and not something I would expect out of an Attorney General.  Sounds like Holder is once again being a mouthpiece for Obama.  The jury is out whether Holder will allow the DOJ to provide the Federal Judge the information he is asking:

1:20 pm ET April 4, 2012

New Video: Eric Holder Responds to Request for DOJ’s Stance on Whether SCOTUS Can Overturn Law Passed By Congress

by Happening Now

In remarks earlier today, Attorney General Eric Holder responded to the request of an appeals court that demanded the DOJ provide a written explanation as to whether or not it believes it’s constitutional for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. Holder, in part, said the following: 

“What the president said a couple of days ago was appropriate. He indicated that we obviously respect the decisions that courts make … [and] the courts have the final say as to the constitutionality of statutes,” he said. “The courts are also fairly deferential when it comes to overturning statutes that the newly elected representatives of the people, Congress, pass. We think that the Affordable Care Act is a statute that has constitutional muster. … We are confident that upon examination [...] that the court will find the Affordable Care Act constitutional."

The biggest question of all is whether or not a member of SCOTUS leaked the vote to the President from SCOTUS.  From Obama's original remarks, it wouldn't surprise many of us if Justice Kagen decided to go against the protocol of the SCOTUS.  She was a bad choice from the beginning and should have recused herself from the ObamaCare case.  Was Kagen put on the SCOTUS to leak to Obama or his people what was happening with the discussions behind the scenes of SCOTUS  and to make sure the Administration had someone on the side?  Obamacare barely passed the House by 8 measly votes yet Obama and his people are treating it like it passed in huge numbers.  Obama is just another politician in a long line of politicians that have trouble with the truth.

From Red State:  The storm that erupted yesterday when Barack Obama woke up and discovered the Supreme Court of the United States was not only not elected but it could overturn “duly passed” laws, even those passed in the dead of the night by the barest of purchased majorities, has been more than adequately covered on these pages and others by actual lawyers and those who think they are. 

(snip)

According to Supreme Court protocol 

When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices’ Conference. Two Conferences are held per week when Court is in session, on Wednesday and Friday afternoons. The Justices vote on cases heard on Mondays and Tuesdays of a given week at their Wednesday afternoon Conference. The Justices vote on cases heard on Wednesday at their Friday afternoon Conference. When Court is not in session, usually only a Friday Conference is held.
…
According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week’s petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject. 

After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years. 

When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion. 

If a Justice agrees with the outcome of the case, but not the majority’s rationale for it, that Justice may write a concurring opinion. Any Justice may write a separate dissenting opinion. When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).

Will the decision on Obamacare wait until June from the SCOTUS since the President is in a full court press against a possible SCOTUS ruling that Obamacare is Unconstitutional?  It is obvious that Obama did not read the Constitution before making his remarks.  Three branches of Government with equal powers are granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial by the Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article. II.
Section. 1.The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section. 2.The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

The Constitution is not a hard document to understand but Obama and this Administration seem to have difficulty with comprehending what the document is saying.  Is it on purpose or do they fully believe they are above the law?  The jury is out on that one.

CNN Breaking News: SCOTUS Upholds Arizona Law Punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants!

Finally Arizona one of our border states is getting a break with this ruling by SCOTUS. Now other states can pass the same law as it has been ruled Constitutional. The question becomes whether the Obama Administration will stop their harassment of the states when they want to make sure that employers hire legal immigrants and citizens:

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The 5-3 ruling is a victory for supporters of a crackdown on illegal immigration. Opponents of the law, including the Obama administration, say it steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

What America Deserves in a Supreme Court Justics

In reading this paper on the Judiciary written by the Republican Policy Committee, we can see little that anyone should ever disagree. Doesn't make a difference if you are a conservative, independent, liberal or something in between, this is what all Americans should be looking for in a Supreme Court Justice no matter who is nominating them.

When you have a President like the current one who wants to move this Country toward socialism by his actions and words, these ideas of what someone nominated to the Supreme Court should be are way over his head as all he cares about is getting a very liberal justice on the Supreme Court for years to come. The more activist judge the better he will like them. Obama is all about is judicial activism and doesn't care if it is based on the law. We have no idea of judicial activism by his current nominee, Kagan, as she has never been a judge at any level.

Some of the University of Chicago Law School Faculty objected to Obama being a visiting lecturer on Constitutional Law because he was never a Constitional Law expert. Tom Ayers wanted him to get a paid position, and the powers at be at University of Chicago agreed to have him be a visiting lecturer. Students learned basketball not Constitutional Law under Obama. During the campaign, University of Chicago, put out Obama was a professor but they eventually retracted and said he was a visiting lecturer. Why did a Law School call him a professor when he was not?

Now he is President picking a new Supreme Court Justice. Shocked she is not a former basketball player.

For the record we did not support the appointment of Harriet Miers, the former White House Counsel to President Bush because of lack of judicial experience on her part.

What America Deserves in a Supreme Court Justice

Any Supreme Court nominee must have a demonstrated commitment to impartially applying the law, not legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court plays a tremendously powerful, but limited, role in our constitutional system. It is vital that any nominee understands that the proper role of a Justice is to apply the law as written, not to misuse the powers granted to the Court to impose his or her own values. Lip service to the principles of judicial restraint is not enough; all nominees must be able to demonstrate, on the basis of their record, that they understand and have lived by these principles.

A Justice must make decisions based on the law – not emotions, personal experience, or opinion. President Obama famously said that he wants judges who would rely on empathy to resolve cases. He said that for the cases that “really count … what you’ve got to look at is: What is in the justice’s heart. What’s their broader vision of what America should be.”1 More recently, after this view had been widely rejected, he repeated that he sought a nominee who had “a keen understanding about how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”2 Statements like these suggest the President misunderstands the role of a judge, which is not to rely on empathy or pick winners and losers; it is to apply the law as written. Giving unelected judges, who have lifetime tenure, the power to look into their own hearts in order to divine laws that will best affect the American people would dramatically undermine our democracy.

A Justice must never be a rubber stamp. A judge at any level must use the bench neither to impose his or her will nor to rubber stamp the decisions of his or her preferred political party.
This Administration, enabled by the Democratic Congress, has pushed to aggressively expand the scope and reach of government. Some of its legislation has raised serious constitutional concerns, and observers have suggested the President may seek a nominee who would uphold these laws.3

The President has said recently that he favors “judicial restraint,” which he characterized as the
view “that generally speaking we should presume that the democratic processes and the laws that are produced by the House and the Senate … and the administrative process that goes with it, is afforded some deference as long as core constitutional values are observed.”4 But the President only seems to favor “restraint” now that he is President, and he only seems to favor it when talking about particular laws and policies that he personally supports (as will be discussed later).

Anyone appointed to the Supreme Court must be willing to evaluate laws as they are written under the plain meaning of the Constitution; appointing someone simply because he or she agrees with the “constitutional values” of a particular politician is not sufficient. Legislation is either constitutional, or not, regardless of whether a politician—even the President—agrees personally with it, or how many votes the laws received in Congress. It is judicial abdication, not judicial restraint, to excuse lawless behavior by the political branches.

A Justice must not be selected in order to achieve preconceived results in cases. The President has made statements suggesting a troubling focus on his desired results in particular cases, a politicization of the Court that must be resisted. In a reference to restrictive campaign speech laws supported by the President but held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, President Obama stated that his nominee “will be someone who … knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.”5 In addition, while claiming not to have a “litmus test” on abortion, the President said, “I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights and that includes women’s rights, and that is going to be very important to me.” 6 These statements strongly suggest that he would only nominate someone who will support restricting political speech with which he disagrees and who will read abortion rights into the Constitution.

The Senate owes the American people a thorough consideration of any nominee’s suitability to serve on the Supreme Court, not distracting side arguments. Democrats cannot defend their radical view of the role of the courts and the type of Justice they would like to see on the Court. Instead, they have tried to change the conversation by attacking the rulings of sitting justices in a handful of recent decisions with which they disagree.7 Many criticisms of these cases have misrepresented what the Court actually ruled.8 Senator Leahy has argued that the decisions he does not like fail to “reflect the American people.”9 It is the job of the President and the Congress to reflect the American people. It is the job of the Court to follow the Constitution and apply the law.

America deserves a Supreme Court Justice who understands this distinction. Senate Republicans will not let Democrats change the subject from the matter at hand—the fitness
of the next nominee for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court—to individual cases where
Democrats did not like the outcomes.
_____________________
1 “Obama Makes Empathy a Requirement for the Court,” Washington Post, May 13, 2009.
2 “Remarks by the President on the Retirement of Justice Stevens,” The White House, April 9, 2010.
3 “Obama Says Liberal Courts May have Overreached, New York Times, April 29, 2010 (comments of Clinton
Administration Official Walter Dellinger: “He may be more concerned about avoiding a Court that would strike down
progressive legislation…”).
4 “President Obama Speaks to the Press on Air Force One,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn591USAs-Q.
5 “Remarks by the President on the Retirement of Justice Stevens,” The White House, April 9, 2010.
6 “Obama Promises No ‘Litmus Test’ for Supreme Court Nominee,” The Caucus: The Politics and Government Blog of
the (New York) Times, New York Times,April 21.
7 See, e.g., “Dems Take Aim at Court Conservatives,” Politico, April 13, 2010 (“Democrats hope to turn the upcoming
Supreme Court confirmation hearings into a referendum on controversial recent decisions by the Roberts court.”)
8 For instance, in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 550 U.S. 618 (2007), Senator Leahy has said that the Court “said
that women could be paid less than men.” Meet the Press, NBC, April 11, 2010,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36362669/ns/meet_the_press/). The Court ruled no such thing.
9 “Obama Begins Court Vetting,” Roll Call, April 22, 2010.

Source: http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/TheNextJusticeFINAL050710.pdf

Breaking News: Obama nominates Elena Kagan to Supreme Court

We are sure we are going to learn a lot more about Ms. Kagen over the next month but right now our we are withholding judgement until further information comes to light.

We found an article at CNN that showed she has made both liberals and conservatives mad at times. We found these two paragraphs to be extremely interesting:

Named Harvard's dean in 2003, Kagan earned a reputation for soothing longstanding tensions over a perceived liberal tilt to the faculty and curriculum.

She began pushing for the appointment of conservative professors, including Jack Goldsmith, who had been a lawyer in President George W. Bush's Justice Department. Such hires eased ideological unrest on the Harvard campus.

There are all kinds of rumors floating around but until we have confirmation, we won't print them. Stay tuned as we are sure we will be hearing a lot more in the days ahead both pro and con.

We hope that the malcontents in 2006 and 2008 who decided to stay home to teach Republicans a lesson have learned their own lesson that elections do have consequences. We are seeing it play out across the board including with this nomination.

One thing we do ask -- does this President know any qualified Christians for the position or men? Is this part of his new plan to show that he really does like Jewish people after all his attacks on Israel? Wouldn't be surprised if this is whole reason for her nomination. We don't think he makes one move unless there is a political consideration that he hopes will bring votes into the Democrat Party in 2010.

Obama nominates Elena Kagan to Supreme Court
President Obama today said he would nominate Elena Kagan, the U.S. solicitor general, as the 112th justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

Kagan would replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement a month ago after almost 35 years on the high court. A confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary

Committee could take place in late June or early July.

Kagan's confirmation would make history in one sense: It would mark the first time three women served on the Supreme Court.

More soon at LA Times

Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling'

President Obama and the Democrats had so little class at the State of the Union when it came to the Supreme Court, we agree with Chief Justics Roberts wondering why they were there. It was disgusting that Obama said what he did, but then to have the Democrats who surrounded the Justices act like they were at a high school pep rally made it even more evident that neither the President nor the Democrats in Congress understand decorum or Separation of Powers.

What did we hear from the 'illustrious' lapdog media -- how Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed "not true." It would be nice if we had some honest media reporting instead of the Obama media lapdogs.

We have a few reporters like Jake Tapper (ABC) and Major Garrett (Fox), who report the truth but by and large the media who helped elect Obama are still covering/spinning for him and the democrats no matter what they say or do.

Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling'
Associated Press
March 9, 2010
Jay Reeves

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said in January.
Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.
"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Excerpt: Read more at news.yahoo.com

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.