Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Wes Mantooth · 01-23-2010, 01:51 PM

Personally I don't like the practice of unions or any group for that matter making large contributions to political campaigns. But Will is right about this, corporations are going to be putting up significantly more money then the unions ever will and in turn are going to get the brunt of most peoples anger about this. Thats just the way it is.

Willravel · 01-23-2010, 02:16 PM

I'm probably more pro-Union (or at least some sort of worker organization) than most, but even I understand the danger of organizations making political donations. I don't want corporations or unions funding elections, directly or indirectly.

I like the way Baraka presented Canadian rules:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

As a citizen of a country whose political contributions/donations cannot be financed by corporations, trade unions, associations and groups, and whose individual citizens are greatly limited in how much they can contribute, all I have to say is this: holy shit.

It would seem our friendly neighbors to the north have the right idea.

Switching gears for a moment:

I'm curious who else here has heard about a recent push for a new Constitutional amendment stating clearly that money is not speech and corporate entities are not individuals. I would certainly support such an amendment and it could be something even the most partisan members of the left and right could get together on. Other than corporate shills, of course.

Infinite_Loser · 01-23-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If you insist on making it ideological, I found it odd, but predictable and certainly not funny, that it was the conservative members of the bench, the more "strict" constitutionalists, who believe the laws of the land should treat corporations as "people".

The courts decided to treat corporations as persons way back in 1886, so what are you talking about?

Wes Mantooth · 01-24-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Switching gears for a moment:

I'm curious who else here has heard about a recent push for a new Constitutional amendment stating clearly that money is not speech and corporate entities are not individuals. I would certainly support such an amendment and it could be something even the most partisan members of the left and right could get together on. Other than corporate shills, of course.

I haven't heard about such a push but I've been so busy lately I've been out of the loop on a lot of this stuff. However I'm not sure how I feel about it, I absolutely agree that corporate entities (or any group for that matter) aren't individuals and shouldn't be treated as such. They should have protection under the law, but constitutional protection as though they were a person is just wrong and in my opinion quite unfair.

On the other hand I do believe money to some extent is free speech. We should have to right to spend our money on anything we want (within the law) and that includes using it to fund whatever group or movement we agree with. I think if you took away that right you'd run the risk of the govt dictating what is a legitimate cause and what isn't (among other things). For example could the govt cut off individual funding to some vile group like KKK? Or could a party in power cut off funding for the other party? Should they have the right to?

I don't know maybe the stance is a little hypocritcal and some major point is going right over my head but I'd need a little convincing on the money as free speech issue. In the end I probably would support it with some provisions on protecting individual spending.

dippin · 01-24-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

The courts decided to treat corporations as persons way back in 1886, so what are you talking about?

Courts have before and since made (or accepted) several exceptions to that, some which benefit corporations (limited liability), and some which don't (corporations face regulations, corporations don't have "freedom of religion").

In fact, what people are talking about is a court decision that reversed earlier precedent. If the issue had been settled since 1886, that wouldn't have been the case, and the current decision wouldn't be notable.

Derwood · 01-25-2010, 07:02 AM

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812

Redlemon · 01-27-2010, 07:40 AM

This fantastic editorial was reprinted in my local paper this morning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloomberg.com

Google for President, Since It’s a Person Too: David Boghossian
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
Commentary by David Boghossian

Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court decision that enables corporations to become full-throated participants in our political process by protecting their right to free speech raises a vexing philosophical question: if corporations are to get the same rights as people, why can’t they vote?

For that matter, why not just nominate corporations for political office? Some might say that Goldman Sachs already runs the Treasury Department, and our prior administration might have been characterized as government of Halliburton, by Halliburton, for Halliburton.

The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has uncovered one of the great civil-rights issues of our time. Our interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has been excessively people-ist, denying corporations their full rights as citizens. Far from an example of judicial activism, the court’s ruling was the long-overdue righting of historical wrongs, undoing the long oppression of the downtrodden corporation. Then again, perhaps it was just a recognition of current reality.

In any case, it seems clear that those who think that only people are granted civil rights are guilty of a profound misreading of the Constitution. In fact, one should read the words “people” or “persons” in the Constitution to mean “people and/or any legally constituted corporate entity.” As a result, since passage of the 14th Amendment, black-owned enterprises are no longer counted as three-fifths of a full corporation, and the 19th Amendment allows women-owned companies to vote.

Amended Amendments

Now that corporations have their First Amendment rights to free speech restored, let’s review whether new interpretations are needed for the remaining articles of the Bill of Rights:

Second and Third Amendments: We are probably OK here, since many corporations are well-armed relative to the rest of the population. (See: Blackwater.) Quartering of troops is probably fine too, as long as it is accompanied by a lucrative government contract.

Fourth and Fifth Amendments: Could be a problem, since regulatory and securities law often requires disclosures by firms that may be considered an “unreasonable search.” Still, our nation’s leading bankers, while not exactly “pleading the Fifth”, were careful to avoid any semblance of responsibility in their recent testimony on the financial meltdown. So maybe it’s a wash.

Sixth Amendment: Right to a speedy trial? We probably should look into that for people before worrying about applying it to companies.

Seventh and Eighth Amendments: Trial by jury seems to be the norm already. As for cruel and unusual punishment, we might want to consider it for some companies, such as the inventors of the so-called liar’s loan. Or the Snuggie.

Granted and Delegated

Ninth and 10th Amendments: Here’s the rub. All rights not specifically granted to the feds under the Constitution are delegated to the states or the people. Now that corporations are full-fledged people, should we expect a “Million-Suit March” to descend on Washington agitating for expanded rights? Of course, Capitol Hill awash in blue suits is already a daily occurrence. It’s called lobbying.

With or without the Supreme Court’s intervention, we live in a world in which corporations exercise an incredible level of influence on our daily life and our fate as a nation. No institution on the planet has as much power to do good or ill as the business community.

This is a problem, but it’s also an opportunity, because the vast majority of people who run businesses are good folks. (Full disclosure: I am one.) Like the rest of humanity, with rare exceptions, they mean well and aim to do the best they can for their customers, the community and the planet.

At the same time, because of their power, we often let businesses, especially big businesses, off the hook too easily. While doctors take a vow to do no harm and lawyers vow to serve the law, we require no similar larger pledge from corporations. Many corporations do great and good work. Still, public opinion is influenced by the few who don’t.

Here’s Your Button

Unless and until corporations are held responsible for more than simply making a profit, their role as citizens must be seen as risky at best. How many votes do they get? How do we determine their citizenship? Where do we stick the “I Voted” button?

Back to my proposal to let corporations run for office. In that spirit, it is my high honor to nominate one of our newly enfranchised corporate citizens. A citizen that has shown, in this hour of need, that it is able to create jobs. That understands how to invest and grow and meet a payroll. That has the character to stand up for freedom and justice at home, in China, and around the world. And that has pledged, above all, “don’t be evil.”

It is with great pleasure that I nominate this fine citizen, Google Inc., for the presidency of the United States.

(David Boghossian is a software entrepreneur and former Harvard University Kennedy School of Government fellow. The opinions expressed are his own.)

One big error - Google is only 14 years old, it's too young to be elected President.

Rekna · 01-27-2010, 07:48 AM

I heard an interesting perspective from Ginsberg on the news. One of the biggest area's that is going to be affected by this is state judges where 80% of them are elected. This means corporations will be able to easily buy judges or force their hands by spending for or against them.

Corruption could become even more widespread than it is...

ASU2003 · 01-27-2010, 10:39 PM

I wonder when the last time the President criticized a Supreme Court decision to their faces in front of the nation was?

It doesn't sound like it should be allowed, and they now have to come up with "Election Reform" to make sure nothing underhanded happens. I wonder if the donors names are still public? I would think taking contributions from foreign businesses would be a problem for that person.

Willravel · 01-27-2010, 10:44 PM

Alito can die in a fire for all I care. He mouthed "Not true" as President Obama correctly accused the SCOTUS of opening the floodgates for special interests.

Justice Alito mouths 'not true' - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com

I can't believe there are still some people so naive that they think there's no partisanship on the bench.

Derwood · 01-28-2010, 06:56 AM

Alito and company can point to this being a "Freedom of Speech" issue all they want, but we all know that every Constitutional freedom has limits on it, and that not all of the amendments apply to corporations and unions.

Here's hoping for a new amendment that defines corporations (and their rights) more clearly

Wes Mantooth · 01-28-2010, 01:11 PM

That's unbelievable. Is Alito just stupid or naive? Does he honestly believe that nobody will take advantage and flood ungodly amounts of money into the election process? Or is he just trying to cover the collective sorry asses of himself and his cronies on the bench?

I as well hope somebody gets an amendment in the works quickly to fix this.

Baraka_Guru · 01-29-2010, 07:19 AM

I'd like to post a succinct little tidbit that outlines the difference caused by the outcome of this ruling.

[Again, I will state that I live in a country where only individuals can contribute funds to political parties, and a maximum of $1,100 annually at that. Also the governing body of communications (CRTC) restricts the purchasing of political advertisements to registered political parties, and they are limited to 6.5 hours each.]

Today I read that before this ruling, "corporations and unions could run election-period ads only by setting up a political action committee, which can raise money only from employees or union members, each of whom face a $5,000 cap on annual contributions."*

But now, both corporations and unions can spend directly from their own coffers...and at their discretion.

I think this is an astounding difference, and it didn't really hit me until I read it this morning.

*Obama, court at public odds on campaign spending - The Globe and Mail

dksuddeth · 01-29-2010, 11:59 AM

this is almost surreal. alot of people feel that this will permanently alter the foundation of our election system. Why is that?

are we at last brought to such mundane and ignorant status as to not be in control of our elections? If corporate corruption and influence determines who is elected, we the people are to blame for being too stupid to do anything different than listen to infomercials on who is the most popular candidate.

Quote:

"but we all know that every Constitutional freedom has limits on it"

we have indeed become a mental midget slave state if we must have government babysit us like this instead of maintaining our rights and liberties.

rahl · 01-29-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

this is almost surreal. alot of people feel that this will permanently alter the foundation of our election system. Why is that?

are we at last brought to such mundane and ignorant status as to not be in control of our elections? If corporate corruption and influence determines who is elected, we the people are to blame for being too stupid to do anything different than listen to infomercials on who is the most popular candidate.

.

What exactly would you like "we the people" to do about it?
I know I don't have millions of dollars to offset any gains that a corporation can contribute to a particular canidate.

Do you honestly beleive that elected officials are going to propose legislation that thins their pockets?

Baraka_Guru · 01-29-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

this is almost surreal. alot of people feel that this will permanently alter the foundation of our election system. Why is that?

are we at last brought to such mundane and ignorant status as to not be in control of our elections? If corporate corruption and influence determines who is elected, we the people are to blame for being too stupid to do anything different than listen to infomercials on who is the most popular candidate.

I wouldn't underestimate the power and influence of advertising. Contrary to what people might think, we are affected by advertising on a deep psychological level. It is such that despite your sense of control or freedom or critical-thinking capacity, your choices are ultimately influenced by certain ads you consume. This is based on an ad's effectiveness in terms of its psychological penetration (ads feed on our fears and desires), in addition to reach, breadth, and frequency.

What this means is that those with the most money to pay for advertising tend to be most influential in terms of getting their messages embedded in our minds whether we want it there or not, whether you agree with it or not.

As an example, I would wager a guess that McDonald's and the Coca-Cola Company have had a far bigger impact on you than the corner mom-n-pop pizza place and the independent ice-cream shop next door. Much of that has to do with the weight of their messages, in addition to the reach, breadth, and frequency of their messages. This example is rather mundane because it involves food and drink, rather than political messages, but you get the idea.

Our choices, no matter how free and empowered we may think they are, are greatly influenced by advertising, which has become highly sophisticated over the years to the point where it's become rather frightening, really.

An adequately funded and planned advertising strategy can send ripples throughout the world, but its real impact operates under the radar.

The_Dunedan · 01-29-2010, 03:04 PM

Your argument posits that advertisement, if done sufficiently well, removes or abridges free will and freedom of agency.

This is, politely, bullshit.

I have a choice between McDonalds or my local diner; McDs advertises constantly on TV, radio, etc; Jerg's Patio has an ad in my local paper. Guess where I eat? Jerg's. The food's better, and everyone with half a brain in this town knows it. If the rest are so farmyard-turkey stupid that they let themselves be "suggested" into buying McDonalds, that's their own fault. They have a choice to be informed, to shop around and compare...they simply -choose- not to do so, for whatever their individual reasons might be. Maybe, for some inexplicable reason, they -prefer- McDonalds.

Advertising is suggestions, not bloody hypnotism, and if somebody's too dumb to understand that and process the adverts they receive accordingly, they deserve whatever they get. They're also to stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place.

filtherton · 01-29-2010, 03:29 PM

The problem is that these people don't know that they're too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place.

Baraka_Guru · 01-29-2010, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Your argument posits that advertisement, if done sufficiently well, removes or abridges free will and freedom of agency.

This is, politely, bullshit.

That's not my argument.

Quote:

[...]

Advertising is suggestions, not bloody hypnotism, and if somebody's too dumb to understand that and process the adverts they receive accordingly, they deserve whatever they get. They're also to stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place.

Of course it's not hypnotism (nor are there "subliminal messages"). You're misreading what I wrote, or, at the very least, you're taking implications and their possibilities to their logical extreme, which is misleading. Much of what ads do are related to influence and the power of suggestion. In many cases, what people think they've concluded on their own is actually influenced by advertising, family/peer pressure (both direct and indirect), and social expectations/taboos. The ultimate power of advertising resides in how it affects our subconscious, and the pathway it takes to get there is through, as I said, our desires and fears. Ads make associations that are both familiar and based on our past experiences, and so as much as we'd like to think we can consume ads and "decide to accept or reject them." In most cases, you have no choice...you've already consumed them whether you agree with the message or not.

The only alternative is to find a way to block ads out completely. But even then, you still have family/peer pressure and social expectations/taboos.

It's hard (impossible?) to escape it; you're more susceptible than you think. We all are.

EDIT: I should add that I find it interesting that you guys think that intelligence (media intelligence or otherwise) is a factor as to whether one deserves to exercise their right to vote.

Cynthetiq · 01-29-2010, 03:45 PM

Initially I thought this was a bunch of horseshit and just shouldn't be allowed.

But after a bit of time letting it sink in, I've come to the conclusion that it is still a bunch of horseshit.... BUT it should be allowed.

With today's information at our fingertips it's easier to figure out who is the asshole in the equation. There's so much tracking and parsing going on that no company in their right mind will take advantage of it on it's face, but maybe try to do it via shell companies and other subterfuge. What the past decade has taught me is that there is no safety any longer in that method. If someone believes you are being a douche and hiding behind something, that someone will go through great pains to out you for being a douche. If that is a shell lobbying company, it will lead to someone. There is now ALWAYS a trail to follow.

Wes Mantooth · 01-29-2010, 04:47 PM

I think whats getting lost in the conversation here is how this will ultimately effect the overall quality of candidates running for office. Face time and getting your name out there are huge factors when you begin building a campaign and candidates will look to any means they can to achieve that.

What worries me about this ruling is it will cause candidates to begin wooing wealthy groups (more then they do now) to support them in the up coming race, which means building a platform around issues that appeal to the wealthy party in question and not the average American. Whats a candidates real aim going to be now? Whose interests are they going to take to heart? What issues are they going to spend the most time talking about?

I don't think this will be the end of democracy as we know it but lets face it the average American is left out of the equation enough as it is, do we need to make it worse?

Derwood · 01-29-2010, 05:05 PM

Yes, it probably should (legally) be allowed. But a) SCOTUS made a broader ruling than was being presented in the case in question, and b) celebrating this as some sort of victory for freedom undermines the fact that corporate influence already trumped citizen influence, and now this influence will grow even stronger

dksuddeth · 01-31-2010, 10:30 AM

here's the thing. congress shall make no law......

this restricts congress from making a law restricting the freedom of speech. it doesn't say 'except foreigners or foreign corporations.

This means that, yes, Chavez could throw billion dollar ads out there advocating a socialist or communist candidate....if he so chose. Why?

Because 'we the people' wrote the constitution, we the people formed the federal government, and we the people put restrictions on the federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon 'we the people' to be knowledgable about any and all candidates who are running for office to be our representatives. If we are going to be lazy enough to sit back and elect our representatives based on ads we see on television (which may be based on total and complete lies), then 'we the people' deserve exactly the totalitarian government we elect.

Derwood · 01-31-2010, 10:48 AM

So all rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are absolute? Congress shall make no law about any of them? Do tell

ratbastid · 01-31-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

So all rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are absolute? Congress shall make no law about any of them? Do tell

He's quoting the 1st Amendment itself. The wording is explicit about that. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Derwood · 01-31-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

He's quoting the 1st Amendment itself. The wording is explicit about that. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Do those rights extend to foreign countries, though? Or is his angle that the Freedom of Speech is that of the networks for airing the ads? I don't get what he's arguing

loquitur · 01-31-2010, 11:25 AM

Oy. The first amendment is written so that it presupposes the existence of freedom of speech - it does not grant that freedom. It says congress can't pass laws to abridge it. So you don't know whether the law Congress passed abridges the freedom until you've defined the scope of the freedom. This really isn't so hard, guys.

The decision held, basically, that people who set up entities to act for themselves don't thereby have constricted speech rights just because they use a corporate form. That applies to the Sierra Club, ACLU, UAW, etc etc etc. It doesn't apply to campaign contributions but only to political speech. Campaign contributions are a different story entirely.

It seems to me that this decision should be more pro-NGO than pro-business (both of which tend to be organized in corporate form). Businesses have a lot of competing claims on their resources, and they'd have to choose between (for example) investing in new plants, new employee benefits, training, R&D or political speech. Which is likely to have a better long-term payoff? Hard to say, though it will vary from case to case. NGOs (and unions, too, though to a lesser extent) are by their nature single-purpose entities, created for the purpose of achieving certain policy objectives. They have far fewer competing claims on their attention. This decision really does free them up.

That may or may not be a good thing for the republic, but it's far from necessarily being a pro-right-wing approach. I think people here are "into" politics and they assume that lots of other people are into it the same way they are. Not so. Business people tend to be more interested in their businesses than in politics, and usually want to be left alone. The business people I don't care for are the opportunists, who line up for government goodies as if they were on welfare. Bah.

Willravel · 01-31-2010, 01:38 PM

Loq, what's your take on Justice Alito's behavior at the State of the Union?

loquitur · 01-31-2010, 05:16 PM

I think he's not used to having cameras on him. So it prob didn't occur to him that muttering under his breath about a misstatement of the decision in a case would be picked up on a camera and make national news. From what I know about Alito from people who know him, he is a total wonk, perfect gentleman and not devious in the least. This was not some political stunt because he just doesn't think that way.

My guess is that he either will be very sure not to move a muscle at future SOTUs or won't show because he doesn't want to have the camera on him.

Tell me, you think Obama's behavior was appropriate - attacking them to their faces when he knows they can't respond - especially given his rather blatant misstatement of what that case was about? Or for that matter, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, sitting right behind the Justices and in effect razzing them, when they know damn well the Justices have no way to respond? From what I know of Ruth Ginsburg, she probably recoiled in distaste from that display by the President and his Senatorial sycophants, and my guess is that Breyer and Kennedy did, too. Obama did himself no favors with the Justices by behaving that way toward them in public.

Derwood · 01-31-2010, 06:38 PM

and yet they are supposed to be a neutral bench, uninfluenced by their political stances. In other words, Obama's behavior SHOULDN'T change a thing about how they rule on cases. Time will tell if this is true....

filtherton · 01-31-2010, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Tell me, you think Obama's behavior was appropriate - attacking them to their faces when he knows they can't respond - especially given his rather blatant misstatement of what that case was about? Or for that matter, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, sitting right behind the Justices and in effect razzing them, when they know damn well the Justices have no way to respond? From what I know of Ruth Ginsburg, she probably recoiled in distaste from that display by the President and his Senatorial sycophants, and my guess is that Breyer and Kennedy did, too. Obama did himself no favors with the Justices by behaving that way toward them in public.

I didn't see Obama say anything about what the case was about. He did allude to the legal history of the issue and about some of the likely ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision.

I thought Obama's behavior was appropriate. I would like it if he called more folks out to their faces on national television. I would expect that anyone who could make it onto the Supreme Court could handle a bit of public criticism.

loquitur · 01-31-2010, 07:02 PM

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.

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.

filtherton · 01-31-2010, 07:38 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-31-2010, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I think he's not used to having cameras on him. So it prob didn't occur to him that muttering under his breath about a misstatement of the decision in a case would be picked up on a camera and make national news. From what I know about Alito from people who know him, he is a total wonk, perfect gentleman and not devious in the least. This was not some political stunt because he just doesn't think that way.

My guess is that he either will be very sure not to move a muscle at future SOTUs or won't show because he doesn't want to have the camera on him.

I'm sure you watched his confirmation hearings just as I did. He struck me as a very deliberate, controlled individual, more so than Justice Scalia. I'm not comparing this to Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" outburst, but you know how the Supreme Court is supposed to work: there's an expectation that SCOTUS opinions are free of partisanship and politics. (Yale Educated) Justice Alito wasn't invited to the State of the Union to enter into a debate with (Harvard law educated, former constitutional law professor) President Obama, regardless of how entertaining that might be.

I'm sure after Justice Alito was sworn in, Justice Thomas sat him down and talked his ear off about this and that. I disagree with Justice Alito a lot, but I don't think him a fool.

I think he either had a moment of ego or anger.

By the way, there are a lot of very, very qualified people that don't seem to think President Obama made any misstatement about the ruling. We all know corporate personhood's been around for a century, but this ruling does change the way laws are interpreted, specifically when it comes to campaigning. You know that four Justices voted against the ruling, right? Did you read Justice John Paul Stevens 90-page dissent? If not, I highly recommend it (thought admittedly there was some of it I couldn't quite follow and I felt like the story arc didn't have a satisfactory conclusion).

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Tell me, you think Obama's behavior was appropriate - attacking them to their faces when he knows they can't respond - especially given his rather blatant misstatement of what that case was about?

President Obama brought up a serious hypothetical consequence to the recent ruling. He's not lying us into an endless war or covering for torture, he's suggesting that this recent decision means we should start looking at introducing legislation to deal with campaign finance. What the heck is inappropriate about that? Should President Obama not mention a legislative agenda at the State of the Union?

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Or for that matter, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, sitting right behind the Justices and in effect razzing them, when they know damn well the Justices have no way to respond? From what I know of Ruth Ginsburg, she probably recoiled in distaste from that display by the President and his Senatorial sycophants, and my guess is that Breyer and Kennedy did, too. Obama did himself no favors with the Justices by behaving that way toward them in public.

I'm glad the Supreme Court has you to protect them from Harry Reed.

loquitur · 01-31-2010, 08:03 PM

If you think politicizing judges is a good idea, I hope you never have a legal case in which you need a fair shake from a judge where the adversary is more poltiically attractive than you are.

Please, Filtherton, you're spouting politically partisan nonsense. Go read the flippin' case. And learn a little bit about stare decisis, when and how it applies and what the Sup Ct does. Even Linda Greenhouse of that famously rightwing newspaper the NY Times says Obama got it wrong. Sheesh.

---------- Post added at 04:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 AM ----------

Guys, as I said, partisan politics makes people say stupid things. Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity will say that, at best, Obama "overstated" the holding. Please, I spent too many years in law school and practicing law to have to listen to this crap about how to read a case. Obama does know how to read a case, and he knew exactly what he was doing - he was tossing raw meat to his base at the expense of the Supreme Court, and he wasn't too particular about accuracy when he did it.

Will, Alito at his hearings had cameras on him and knew it. He had no reason at the SOTU to think he'd be focused on when the Pres was speaking - he isn't a politician and is rarely in front of a camera. Just take that for what it was - Obama got it wrong, did it indecorously, and Alito muttered about it without realizing he'd be caught on camera. Why is this so hard to understand? Because it doesn't fit your preferred good guy/bad guy narrative? And Alito didn't even write that opinion, Kennedy did. It wasn't his work being shot at. You also might want to look at Ginsburg - her face was tightening during that applause, too. Believe me, Obama made no friends on the court that day, on either side of the 5-4 split. The justices are very solicitous of each other.

dippin · 01-31-2010, 08:25 PM

Linda Greenhouse's opinion was much more nuanced than that.

Regarding politicization of the supreme court, it has been going on for years, and the fact that the 5 justices nominated by republicans are going out of their way to overturn precedent is just the most recent example. There is a reason each president has nominated justices that are younger and more partisan. That is an easier way to affect policy than constitutional amendments.

Willravel · 01-31-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Guys, as I said, partisan politics makes people say stupid things.

You're suggesting partisanship has some connection to Justice Alito's ruling? I thought we agreed the bench was non-partisan? Or are you referring to the President of the United States of America?

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity will say that, at best, Obama "overstated" the holding. Please, I spent too many years in law school and practicing law to have to listen to this crap about how to read a case. Obama does know how to read a case, and he knew exactly what he was doing - he was tossing raw meat to his base at the expense of the Supreme Court, and he wasn't too particular about accuracy when he did it.

Right, but, as I said, there were four dissenting opinions that took the form of an incredible dissenting paper. Please read it if you've not, because much of what's written falls in line with what President Obama said in his State of the Union. You're probably a pretty good lawyer, I'd hire you, but if you're telling me that Justice Stevens doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty, I'm coming down on his side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supreme Court Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

That's ten times as harsh as what President Obama said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Will, Alito at his hearings had cameras on him and knew it. He had no reason at the SOTU to think he'd be focused on when the Pres was speaking - he isn't a politician and is rarely in front of a camera. Just take that for what it was - Obama got it wrong, did it indecorously, and Alito muttered about it without realizing he'd be caught on camera. Why is this so hard to understand? Because it doesn't fit your preferred good guy/bad guy narrative? And Alito didn't even write that opinion, Kennedy did. It wasn't his work being shot at. You also might want to look at Ginsburg - her face was tightening during that applause, too. Believe me, Obama made no friends on the court that day, on either side of the 5-4 split. The justices are very solicitous of each other.

President Obama did not "get it wrong", he communicated a legitimate take on the decision. I don't think you're qualified to correct Justices Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsberg or Breyer. Certainly you're welcome to your opinion, and certainly your opinion carries more weight than mine, but stating as fact that President Obama was wrong is confusing fact for opinion. Once you accept that President Obama was presenting a perfectly legitimate opinion, Justice Alito's reaction takes on a different form.

loquitur · 01-31-2010, 09:18 PM

no, Will. The partisans are the people here, and they say stupid things because of partisanship.

You want me to spell this out? here it is. Stevens' position is "a corporation is a corporation is a corporation" - out for one purpose, out for all. So if one kind of corporate speech can be banned because of appearance of corruption that means every kind can be banned for the same reason. That is a very simplistic view, and the one you are advocating.

The majority opinion is that, whether or not there are forms of corporate speech can be limited because of concerns about corruption - a question that was not at issue in the Citizens United case - it does not necessarily follow that simply by virtue of the fact that people are using the corporate form, that means every form of their speech can be regulated. One of the speech limitations Stevens is referring to go back to (IIRC) the Hatch Act cases, which forbade individuals who work for the govt from being active in politics on govt time. That's a free speech restriction on individuals, justified by the need to have a nonpolitical govt employee body. The corporate and union limitations (again, I'm going on memory) that he's talking about refer to restrictions on direct contributions to candidates, not on other kinds of expenditures such as "issue ads." So there was no 100 year settled law being upended - it just wasn't at stake in that case.

In order to get to Obama's conclusion, you need to say that protecting one kind of corproate speech necessarily means removing all forms of regulation of all other kinds of corporate speech. That's nonsense. it just doesn't follow that everything has to always be treated alike even if there are differences. It's like arguing that every spousal notification law destroys Roe v Wade. Well, maybe it makes a good fundraising mailer for Planned Parenthood to say so, but it just ain't true.

I'm not correcting Stevens, or Breyer or Ginsburg or Sotomayor. If you asked Stevens what the holding of Citizens United was, he woudl not tell you it looked anything like what Obama said. What he would say (and this is what his opinion says) is that it could be the first step toward what Obama said, and that's why it shouldn't be permitted. Big difference.

filtherton · 01-31-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

If you think politicizing judges is a good idea, I hope you never have a legal case in which you need a fair shake from a judge where the adversary is more poltiically attractive than you are.

Of course I don't think it's a good idea, but the cat is out of the bag: they're already politicized at the supreme court level. We're not talking about traffic court here.

Quote:

Please, Filtherton, you're spouting politically partisan nonsense.

I sure ain't. Please, tell me which of the things I said were partisan. Did I mention any party or political persuasion by name? Are you claiming to be able to read my mind? And even if I was being politically partisan, that wouldn't invalidate any of the claims I've made (though it does seem to provide a convenient means for you to ignore them). Aren't you a lawyer? Don't you already know this?

Willravel · 01-31-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

You want me to spell this out? here it is. Stevens' position is "a corporation is a corporation is a corporation" - out for one purpose, out for all. So if one kind of corporate speech can be banned because of appearance of corruption that means every kind can be banned for the same reason. That is a very simplistic view, and the one you are advocating.

You're oversimplifying. Justice Stevens spells out his case relatively plainly right out of the pen (emphasis mine):

Quote:

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante , at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

Let's look at the comments side-by-side:
Reversed law? Present in both SotU and Dissent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by President Obama

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dissent

The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past.

Foreign special interests? Present in both SotU and Dissent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by President Obama

-- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dissent

Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

So, with evidence this time, what President Obama said is reflected plainly in the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stevens, and as such is not so easily dismissed as "wrong". Let's stop pretending that Stevens and Obama stand apart on this because very clearly they do not. Justice Stevens of course has much, much more to say on the issue, but President Obama's comments are mirrored in the dissenting opinion.

01-23-2010, 01:51 PM	#41 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	Personally I don't like the practice of unions or any group for that matter making large contributions to political campaigns. But Will is right about this, corporations are going to be putting up significantly more money then the unions ever will and in turn are going to get the brunt of most peoples anger about this. Thats just the way it is. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

01-25-2010, 07:02 AM	#46 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812 __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-28-2010, 06:56 AM	#51 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Alito and company can point to this being a "Freedom of Speech" issue all they want, but we all know that every Constitutional freedom has limits on it, and that not all of the amendments apply to corporations and unions. Here's hoping for a new amendment that defines corporations (and their rights) more clearly __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-28-2010, 01:11 PM	#52 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	That's unbelievable. Is Alito just stupid or naive? Does he honestly believe that nobody will take advantage and flood ungodly amounts of money into the election process? Or is he just trying to cover the collective sorry asses of himself and his cronies on the bench? I as well hope somebody gets an amendment in the works quickly to fix this. __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

01-29-2010, 07:19 AM	#53 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I'd like to post a succinct little tidbit that outlines the difference caused by the outcome of this ruling. [Again, I will state that I live in a country where only individuals can contribute funds to political parties, and a maximum of $1,100 annually at that. Also the governing body of communications (CRTC) restricts the purchasing of political advertisements to registered political parties, and they are limited to 6.5 hours each.] Today I read that before this ruling, "corporations and unions could run election-period ads only by setting up a political action committee, which can raise money only from employees or union members, each of whom face a $5,000 cap on annual contributions."* But now, both corporations and unions can spend directly from their own coffers...and at their discretion. I think this is an astounding difference, and it didn't really hit me until I read it this morning. Obama, court at public odds on campaign spending - The Globe and Mail __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?* —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

01-27-2010, 07:48 AM	#48 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I heard an interesting perspective from Ginsberg on the news. One of the biggest area's that is going to be affected by this is state judges where 80% of them are elected. This means corporations will be able to easily buy judges or force their hands by spending for or against them. Corruption could become even more widespread than it is...

01-27-2010, 10:39 PM	#49 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I wonder when the last time the President criticized a Supreme Court decision to their faces in front of the nation was? It doesn't sound like it should be allowed, and they now have to come up with "Election Reform" to make sure nothing underhanded happens. I wonder if the donors names are still public? I would think taking contributions from foreign businesses would be a problem for that person.

01-27-2010, 10:44 PM	#50 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Alito can die in a fire for all I care. He mouthed "Not true" as President Obama correctly accused the SCOTUS of opening the floodgates for special interests. Justice Alito mouths 'not true' - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com I can't believe there are still some people so naive that they think there's no partisanship on the bench.

01-29-2010, 03:04 PM	#57 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Your argument posits that advertisement, if done sufficiently well, removes or abridges free will and freedom of agency. This is, politely, bullshit. I have a choice between McDonalds or my local diner; McDs advertises constantly on TV, radio, etc; Jerg's Patio has an ad in my local paper. Guess where I eat? Jerg's. The food's better, and everyone with half a brain in this town knows it. If the rest are so farmyard-turkey stupid that they let themselves be "suggested" into buying McDonalds, that's their own fault. They have a choice to be informed, to shop around and compare...they simply -choose- not to do so, for whatever their individual reasons might be. Maybe, for some inexplicable reason, they -prefer- McDonalds. Advertising is suggestions, not bloody hypnotism, and if somebody's too dumb to understand that and process the adverts they receive accordingly, they deserve whatever they get. They're also to stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place.

01-29-2010, 03:29 PM	#58 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The problem is that these people don't know that they're too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place.

01-29-2010, 03:45 PM	#60 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Initially I thought this was a bunch of horseshit and just shouldn't be allowed. But after a bit of time letting it sink in, I've come to the conclusion that it is still a bunch of horseshit.... BUT it should be allowed. With today's information at our fingertips it's easier to figure out who is the asshole in the equation. There's so much tracking and parsing going on that no company in their right mind will take advantage of it on it's face, but maybe try to do it via shell companies and other subterfuge. What the past decade has taught me is that there is no safety any longer in that method. If someone believes you are being a douche and hiding behind something, that someone will go through great pains to out you for being a douche. If that is a shell lobbying company, it will lead to someone. There is now ALWAYS a trail to follow. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-29-2010, 04:47 PM	#61 (permalink)
Wes Mantooth Junkie Location: Tennessee	I think whats getting lost in the conversation here is how this will ultimately effect the overall quality of candidates running for office. Face time and getting your name out there are huge factors when you begin building a campaign and candidates will look to any means they can to achieve that. What worries me about this ruling is it will cause candidates to begin wooing wealthy groups (more then they do now) to support them in the up coming race, which means building a platform around issues that appeal to the wealthy party in question and not the average American. Whats a candidates real aim going to be now? Whose interests are they going to take to heart? What issues are they going to spend the most time talking about? I don't think this will be the end of democracy as we know it but lets face it the average American is left out of the equation enough as it is, do we need to make it worse? __________________ “My god I must have missed it...its hell down here!”

01-29-2010, 05:05 PM	#62 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Yes, it probably should (legally) be allowed. But a) SCOTUS made a broader ruling than was being presented in the case in question, and b) celebrating this as some sort of victory for freedom undermines the fact that corporate influence already trumped citizen influence, and now this influence will grow even stronger __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-31-2010, 10:30 AM	#63 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	here's the thing. congress shall make no law...... this restricts congress from making a law restricting the freedom of speech. it doesn't say 'except foreigners or foreign corporations. This means that, yes, Chavez could throw billion dollar ads out there advocating a socialist or communist candidate....if he so chose. Why? Because 'we the people' wrote the constitution, we the people formed the federal government, and we the people put restrictions on the federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon 'we the people' to be knowledgable about any and all candidates who are running for office to be our representatives. If we are going to be lazy enough to sit back and elect our representatives based on ads we see on television (which may be based on total and complete lies), then 'we the people' deserve exactly the totalitarian government we elect. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-31-2010, 10:48 AM	#64 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	So all rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are absolute? Congress shall make no law about any of them? Do tell __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-31-2010, 11:25 AM	#67 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Oy. The first amendment is written so that it presupposes the existence of freedom of speech - it does not grant that freedom. It says congress can't pass laws to abridge it. So you don't know whether the law Congress passed abridges the freedom until you've defined the scope of the freedom. This really isn't so hard, guys. The decision held, basically, that people who set up entities to act for themselves don't thereby have constricted speech rights just because they use a corporate form. That applies to the Sierra Club, ACLU, UAW, etc etc etc. It doesn't apply to campaign contributions but only to political speech. Campaign contributions are a different story entirely. It seems to me that this decision should be more pro-NGO than pro-business (both of which tend to be organized in corporate form). Businesses have a lot of competing claims on their resources, and they'd have to choose between (for example) investing in new plants, new employee benefits, training, R&D or political speech. Which is likely to have a better long-term payoff? Hard to say, though it will vary from case to case. NGOs (and unions, too, though to a lesser extent) are by their nature single-purpose entities, created for the purpose of achieving certain policy objectives. They have far fewer competing claims on their attention. This decision really does free them up. That may or may not be a good thing for the republic, but it's far from necessarily being a pro-right-wing approach. I think people here are "into" politics and they assume that lots of other people are into it the same way they are. Not so. Business people tend to be more interested in their businesses than in politics, and usually want to be left alone. The business people I don't care for are the opportunists, who line up for government goodies as if they were on welfare. Bah.

01-31-2010, 01:38 PM	#68 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Loq, what's your take on Justice Alito's behavior at the State of the Union?

01-31-2010, 05:16 PM	#69 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I think he's not used to having cameras on him. So it prob didn't occur to him that muttering under his breath about a misstatement of the decision in a case would be picked up on a camera and make national news. From what I know about Alito from people who know him, he is a total wonk, perfect gentleman and not devious in the least. This was not some political stunt because he just doesn't think that way. My guess is that he either will be very sure not to move a muscle at future SOTUs or won't show because he doesn't want to have the camera on him. Tell me, you think Obama's behavior was appropriate - attacking them to their faces when he knows they can't respond - especially given his rather blatant misstatement of what that case was about? Or for that matter, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, sitting right behind the Justices and in effect razzing them, when they know damn well the Justices have no way to respond? From what I know of Ruth Ginsburg, she probably recoiled in distaste from that display by the President and his Senatorial sycophants, and my guess is that Breyer and Kennedy did, too. Obama did himself no favors with the Justices by behaving that way toward them in public.

01-31-2010, 06:38 PM	#70 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	and yet they are supposed to be a neutral bench, uninfluenced by their political stances. In other words, Obama's behavior SHOULDN'T change a thing about how they rule on cases. Time will tell if this is true.... __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-31-2010, 07:02 PM	#72 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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. 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.

01-31-2010, 08:03 PM	#75 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	If you think politicizing judges is a good idea, I hope you never have a legal case in which you need a fair shake from a judge where the adversary is more poltiically attractive than you are. Please, Filtherton, you're spouting politically partisan nonsense. Go read the flippin' case. And learn a little bit about stare decisis, when and how it applies and what the Sup Ct does. Even Linda Greenhouse of that famously rightwing newspaper the NY Times says Obama got it wrong. Sheesh. ---------- Post added at 04:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 AM ---------- Guys, as I said, partisan politics makes people say stupid things. Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity will say that, at best, Obama "overstated" the holding. Please, I spent too many years in law school and practicing law to have to listen to this crap about how to read a case. Obama does know how to read a case, and he knew exactly what he was doing - he was tossing raw meat to his base at the expense of the Supreme Court, and he wasn't too particular about accuracy when he did it. Will, Alito at his hearings had cameras on him and knew it. He had no reason at the SOTU to think he'd be focused on when the Pres was speaking - he isn't a politician and is rarely in front of a camera. Just take that for what it was - Obama got it wrong, did it indecorously, and Alito muttered about it without realizing he'd be caught on camera. Why is this so hard to understand? Because it doesn't fit your preferred good guy/bad guy narrative? And Alito didn't even write that opinion, Kennedy did. It wasn't his work being shot at. You also might want to look at Ginsburg - her face was tightening during that applause, too. Believe me, Obama made no friends on the court that day, on either side of the 5-4 split. The justices are very solicitous of each other.

01-31-2010, 08:25 PM	#76 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Linda Greenhouse's opinion was much more nuanced than that. Regarding politicization of the supreme court, it has been going on for years, and the fact that the 5 justices nominated by republicans are going out of their way to overturn precedent is just the most recent example. There is a reason each president has nominated justices that are younger and more partisan. That is an easier way to affect policy than constitutional amendments.

01-31-2010, 09:18 PM	#78 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	no, Will. The partisans are the people here, and they say stupid things because of partisanship. You want me to spell this out? here it is. Stevens' position is "a corporation is a corporation is a corporation" - out for one purpose, out for all. So if one kind of corporate speech can be banned because of appearance of corruption that means every kind can be banned for the same reason. That is a very simplistic view, and the one you are advocating. The majority opinion is that, whether or not there are forms of corporate speech can be limited because of concerns about corruption - a question that was not at issue in the Citizens United case - it does not necessarily follow that simply by virtue of the fact that people are using the corporate form, that means every form of their speech can be regulated. One of the speech limitations Stevens is referring to go back to (IIRC) the Hatch Act cases, which forbade individuals who work for the govt from being active in politics on govt time. That's a free speech restriction on individuals, justified by the need to have a nonpolitical govt employee body. The corporate and union limitations (again, I'm going on memory) that he's talking about refer to restrictions on direct contributions to candidates, not on other kinds of expenditures such as "issue ads." So there was no 100 year settled law being upended - it just wasn't at stake in that case. In order to get to Obama's conclusion, you need to say that protecting one kind of corproate speech necessarily means removing all forms of regulation of all other kinds of corporate speech. That's nonsense. it just doesn't follow that everything has to always be treated alike even if there are differences. It's like arguing that every spousal notification law destroys Roe v Wade. Well, maybe it makes a good fundraising mailer for Planned Parenthood to say so, but it just ain't true. I'm not correcting Stevens, or Breyer or Ginsburg or Sotomayor. If you asked Stevens what the holding of Citizens United was, he woudl not tell you it looked anything like what Obama said. What he would say (and this is what his opinion says) is that it could be the first step toward what Obama said, and that's why it shouldn't be permitted. Big difference.