Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Other than the fact that the case dealt with a 20 y.o, not 100 y.o precedent, and that it had nothing to do with contributions to candidates and nothing to do with foreign corporations - and the court's opinion specifically said it wasn't dealing with that - other than all that it was fine and fair summary. Geeez. Face it, Obama just flat out lied about that opinion because it suited his political convenience to do it and he knew that his cheering section would back him up no matter what he did.
|
No, he didn't lie. You are mistaken. He said a century of law, not a century of precedent. Even then, 20 years of precedent isn't something you'd expect a "balls and strikes" type of judge to just toss out. The Supreme Court decision opens up the possibility for a foreign owned corporation to spend unlimited political advertising funds via a domestic subsidiary, so that's the basis for Obama's "open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections" remark. He isn't the only person who believe this. Did you read the dissenting opinion, where this concern is layed out by other members of the Supreme Court?
Quote:
|
Sup Ct justices aren't politicians. They're not there to be political punching bags. You don't insult judges to their faces on national television. And if you think it's ok just because you like the president and you disagree with the decision he was criticizing, I can't help you. Partisan politics makes smart people do and say stupid things.
|
There's not point clinging to some outdated sense of decorum, which hasn't really existed for decades. The Supreme Court is political. There is a rich bipartisan tradition of treating Supreme Court justices like punching bags. If you don't like the president, just say so.