Thank God that the Democratic Party does not control all three houses of our Federal Government. While we can all disagree with court decisions, be it Roe Vs Wade or Kelo Vs City of New London, but for president Obama to use his bully pulpit to attack members of the Supreme Court, sitting in the front row of the State of the Union address, is totally disgraceful.
President Obama. You might tell the Democratic controlled House and Senate majorities what to do and when to do it but your do not tell the courts how to vote.
Regardless of how you may feel, McCain Feingold has been trumped.
Perhaps the president needs a refresher course in the separation of powers.
“The Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office “during good behaviour”; in practice, this usually means they serve until they die, retire, or resign.”
Even if you live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N/W you do not have any superior powers to pull their strings.
“The President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, in The Corner blog on Nationalreview.com.”
“Attack” is your word. I call it rendering an opinion. He didn’t tell the Supreme Court “what to do”. And he didn’t infringe on or violate the separation of powers by commenting. Get a grip and stop buying into every shallow mainstream media criticism you come across.
Obama has to apologize to the supreme court. What he did was completely disrespectful and he will pay a price for his ignorance!
Think god he will only be a one term president.
The man is a fool.
There’s nothing in the Constitution about corporations so it’s takes some belief in fantasies to treat them as people – that should be grounds for removal.
Supremes got it right. Obama’s petulant little tirade last night just shows him for the immature little man-child he is. His comments were petty and unpresidential, like the rest of his administration.
#3
Well, there’s nothing in the Constitution about a lot of things that the Supreme Court has ruled on over our history, but you’re right if you’re inferring that this ruling exposes strict constructionism as a joke. The truth is, the conservatives on the Court are completely willing to veer away from strict constructionism if it suits there political beliefs.
Many states have rules of professional responsibility that prevent attorneys from publicly criticizing judges. One federal circuit even sanctioned an attorney for doing so. BHO happens to be a lawyer; maybe someone should complain to the Illinois Bar.
Regardless, the Prez’s comments are irrelevant. Only the Court gets to decide what is or is not constitutional. If I were Alito I would hav mouthed “Your opinion is irrelevant.”
Buncha the usual faux-outrage. The President (who is President) carefully prefaced his remark with “all due respect to the separation of powers,” and was completely correct that if this decision isn’t stanched quickly by legislation it will allow foreigners and foreign companies to influence American elections. Hey, is that what you right-wingers want? Why do you hate America so much?
#s 3 and 5:
Should corporations be subject to criminal liability for their intentional acts? Penal statutes generally only refer to “persons”.
Should newspapers have first amendment rights? They are corporations but the First Amendment references thye “press.”
By the way, maybe both of you should READ the First Amendment, it doesn’t use the word “people” with reference to free speech. It says “Conress shall make no law . . .” What part of “no law” do you misunderstand? The only place in that entire amendment referencing “people” is with respect to the right to assembly.
Vern, I don’t think you read the opinion. That’s understandable as it is nearly 185 pages long. However, the Court expressly stated it wasn’t invalidating the ban on foreign corporations making political contributions or engaging in election communication.
For the record, and with all brevity, and let me speak directly to the American people, and without addressign all the points you have raised, I find the President’s flippant use of introductory phrases be pretty patronizing and to be nothin more than filler. So I wouldn’t give that disclaimer too much credit.
I wonder why someone would tell others that they “Hate America” when all the Court did was treat corporations, unions and individuals the same. That sounds like equality to me.
I think OK er OC clearly contributes far more than its fair share to global warming. These comments resonate w/the John Birch, KKKlanaheim heritage that says “OC” to the rest of the thinking world. Blow harder against the winds of change- remember, day care was a Commie plot!
Brother Vern.
“With all due respect,”
I have used that expression many times when I had other words in my vocabulary that I kept in my lock box as painful as it might have been when addressing elected officials.
#9,
If you think that you, Mr Joe/Jane Individual, are treated the same in this America as a corporation, then I would suggest an emergency response call to get your head out from the rock it’s under.
#8
My constitution starts off with “We the people…” not people, corporations, partnerships,pets, etc. Corporations are an artificial entity for doing business while limiting the liabilty of people who are shareowners. If they start paying the same taxes as the rest of the people they can start enjoying some of the same rights
#12, equality is equality. Sorry that you don’t believe in equality. Some of us do.
#13, its “law school 101” that the preamble to the US Constitution isn’t something that confers any rights. Your argument is not only over-used but demonstrates the misunderstanding most people have about the preamble’s importance. Given your logic, corporations shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes because penal statutes reference “persons” and newspapers don’t have a First Amendment right because they aren’t “persons”. READ the amendment. That’s where you go wrong – You’re reading a part of the document that is declaratory and not mandatory. D’Oops
For the flip-side, here’s Glenn Greenwald’s (Salon) take on Justice Alito’s behavior;
There’s a reason that Supreme Court Justices — along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff — never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It’s vital — both as a matter of perception and reality — that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court’s pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court’s credibility in this regard has — justifiably — declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more “liberal” Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example). Beyond that, the endless, deceitful sloganeering by right-wing lawyers about “judicial restraint” and “activism” — all while the judges they most revere cavalierly violate those “principles” over and over — exacerbates that problem further (the unnecessarily broad scope of Citizens United is the latest example of that, too, and John “balls and strikes” Roberts may be the greatest hypocrite ever to sit on the Supreme Court). All of that is destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived — and to act — as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.
Justice Alito’s flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court’s role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow — a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President — with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.
And on the question of whether or not the President was right about foreign money, despite NLFTP’s contentions (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/reformers_court_decision_creates_huge_opening_for.php?ref=fpblg)
Last week’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the ban on direct corporate spending in elections could allow overseas corporations — even those controlled by foreign governments — to pour money into U.S. elections, supporters of campaign-finance regulation warn.
“Clearly there’s a huge opening now,” Stephen Spaulding of Common Cause told TPMmuckraker.
The ruling affirms that corporations, like individuals, have a free-speech right to spend unlimited amounts from their general treasuries on ad campaigns that support or oppose political candidates. It’s true that foreign nationals are currently prohibited by law from making independent expenditures in U.S. elections. But that prohibition has little teeth. According to experts, it doesn’t apply to foreign-owned corporations that incorporate in the U.S., or have U.S. subsidiaries — meaning most foreign multinationals likely aren’t covered. So there’s “essentially no difference” between domestic and foreign corporations in terms of their ability to pump money into U.S. elections, says Lisa Gilbert of U.S. PIRG — a view backed by several other advocates of increased regulation.
And even if the definition of a foreign corporation were interpreted more broadly, the logic of the ruling suggests the ban may now be unconstitutional anyway. In ruling for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that the court’s decision did not address the issue of foreign actors — implying that the ban would remain in place. But as Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the vision of free speech that the court has embraced — and the notion that corporations should be treated as individuals — could make it very difficult to support singling out foreign corporations for special restrictions. “The sweeping freedom of speech rhetoric would have applicability to foreigners,” says Edward Foley, an election-law expert at Ohio State University, who thinks the court has sent “mixed signals” on the question.
Not that we’re necessarily going to see the Chinese government rushing into the 2010 midterms. First, free speech law always involves a balance, cautions Foley, and the courts are less inclined to see overseas entities as entitled to the same protections as domestic ones. So in practice, foreign corporations may end up enjoying less freedom to act than some reform advocates fear.
In addition, Congress is already talking about legislative fixes for some aspects of the problem — there should be a formal legislative proposal as early as next week, we’re told. Broadening the definition of a foreign corporation, to close the loophole that currently exists, is one issue under discussion.
Late Update: Sure enough, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) says he’s working on legislation to fix the problem, declaring: “There’s a big danger that the decision opens the door to foreign owned corporations indirectly spending millions of dollars to influence the outcome of U.S. elections through their American subsidiaries.”
And it is neither unprecedented nor improper for a President to criticize, or even just warn of the possible negative impacts of, a Supreme Court decision. All the faux-outrage-du-jour here is just the usual disrespect of a President these rightwingers don’t like. An uppity one.
After the Supreme Court decision, the ground around Teddy Roosevelt’s grave was said to noticeably roll.
Should corporations be subject to criminal liability for their intentional acts? Penal statutes generally only refer to “persons”.
IF the court decision is as I understand it say a coperation is and individual, then I think it should be tested by legal and criminal charges being filed against those corperations that violate civil and criminal laws, and the penalities applied to all board members as they would to an individual person.
If Fact since a board involves several persons would not the RICO statue apply?
Re: “And it is neither unprecedented nor improper for a President to criticize, or even just warn of the possible negative impacts of, a Supreme Court decision”
Exactly. Every Republican president in my lifetime has criticized Roe v Wade.
“when all the Court did was treat corporations, unions and individuals the same. That sounds like equality to me.”
Haha. Republican Civil Rights.
I must have missed the lecture in constitutional law about the inalienable rights of corporations. Oh, sorry, that was in human rights law – poor little oppressed corporations.
Even the playing field and tax all political donations by 90 percent.
Use 10 percent of that tax to fund all campaigns, equally and the lions share to pay down the Deficit
That way those who dug the hole will fill it.
And those who raise millions of dollars to run for office, well they will still have 10 percent to spend on booze,
wo(men), and drugs.
“Given your logic, corporations shouldn’t be prosecuted for crimes because penal statutes reference “persons” and newspapers don’t have a First Amendment right because they aren’t “persons” (#14)
In terms of criminal prosecution, the US government has long recognized the “artificial” nature of corporations as “legal” entities. Yes, they have and do enjoy certain rights in terms of their being charted with fulfilling important social functions. Your “all or none’ argument, however (i.e. corporations are the same as people and have all the same rights, or not the same and have none of the same rights), suggests a woefully ignorant of the history of corporate charters and personage in American legal history, where corporations have for some time inhabited a gray area between the two polarities you suggest.
FOR EXAMPLE, the Federal government’s own guidelines for the criminal prosecution of corporations states that, “Corporations should not be treated leniently because of their artificial nature . . .” THUS, federal prosecutors recognize that there is an legal artificiality to corporations that does not exist for individuals.
These guidelines then go on to say, “Corporations are ‘legal persons,’ capable of suing and being sued, and capable of committing crimes. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a corporation may be held criminally liable for the illegal acts of its directors, officers, employees, and agents. To be held liable for these actions, the government must establish that the corporate agent’s actions (i) were within the scope of his duties and (ii) were intended, at least in part, to benefit the corporation.”
The notable thing in the second quote is that the prosecution of corporations depends (as the word “intended” suggests) on the mens rea of INDIVIDUALS acting as agents on behalf of that corporation. Corporations do not have “intent” outside of the auspices of individuals who act on their behalf. So yes, corporations can be prosecuted, but not without recognizing that a degree of artificiality exists insofar as they are legal creations that do not or cannot “act” on their own accord.
This is clear later on in the guidelines, “In doing so, prosecutors should ensure that the general purposes of the criminal law — assurance of warranted punishment, deterrence of further criminal conduct, protection of the public from dangerous and fraudulent conduct, rehabilitation of offenders, and restitution for victims and affected communities — are adequately met, taking into account the special nature of the corporate “person.”
“The special nature of the ‘corporate’ person” is the recognition of the DOJ that (in cases of crime) corporations and individuals are both “legal” persons insofar as they can be prosecuted. But they are not THE SAME insofar as corporations CANNOT act with malice outside of the mens rea of their agents. As such, they are “legal persons” in terms of being prosecuted and potentially punished for the ACTIONS of the corporation as a legal entity.
Finally, when and if they are convicted, corporations do not and cannot experience the same types of punishment as individuals. They have, as one legal scholar has put it, “No soul to damn, no body to kick.” They may be fined or put out of business, but no more than this. Individuals may be INDIVIDUALLY prosecuted, but only as individuals. So corporations are “artificial” insofar as they cannot experience the same types of deprivations as persons.
Cook, you are talking sense tonight!
In terms of criminal prosecution, the US government has long recognized the “artificial” nature of corporations as “legal” entities.
I agree and this ruling makes an exception to this in regards to political contributions.
Finally, when and if they are convicted, corporations do not and cannot experience the same types of punishment as individuals. They have, as one legal scholar has put it, “No soul to damn, no body to kick.” They may be fined or put out of business, but no more than this. Individuals may be INDIVIDUALLY prosecuted, but only as individuals. So corporations are “artificial” insofar as they cannot experience the same types of deprivations as persons.
I understand completely, so it is ok for an individual for political contributions to have “No soul to damn, no body to kick.” but it is different for criminal actions, give me a break. It is either one or the other a double standard cannot apply.
Following up on anonster’s Greenwald excerpts, here’s one particularly insightful comment by one of Greenwald’s readers;
Article II, Section 3
“He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
First, it’s not only allowed that the president would give his views on the 3rd branch’s ruling, it is a constitutional requirement, if he feels it needs consideration by Congress.
Second, Obama is absolutely correct that, regardless of how you stand on the court’s ruling, it is an important ruling and unarguably merits consideration by congress.
Third, the SCOTUS is a guest at the SOTU. They are there by courtesy. The constitution clearly states that the business of the communication is between second and first branches.
Fourth–Alito’s behavior is exactly what one would expect from an activist judge. One so unrestrained that he cannot control himself even at an event where he plays no role and has no function.
I noticed this too, when I heard him say that to the judges, I was like, WTF he did not just say that. and they were right there in front. pretty messed up.
I take offense to the president chastising our Supreme Court for a recent vote when he has the bully pulpit and they do not have an opportunity to immediately respond. They may be guests at the State of the Union address but the president’s grandstanding and Sen. Chuck Schumer being a cheerleader was unconscionable.
I repeat, “All the faux-outrage-du-jour here is just the usual disrespect of a President these rightwingers don’t like. An uppity one.”
If it were a President McCain throwing out red meat about Roe v. Wade being wrongly decided as Reagan and Bush used to do, you can imagine all the props for straightforwardness and courage he would get from Larry, Irvine Reporter, and Crowley.
They don’t see this guy, this community organizer and black guy, as a legitimate President, and to them he is just self-evidently not an equal to the Supreme Court, and it’s horribly presumptuous of him to act like he is.
# 23 (I play a lawyer on TV): You entirely missed my point, which was a response to several posts asserting that the Constitution only provides “rights” to individuals as opposed to “artificial persons.”
The obvious reason for my comments was to dumb down those who stupidly rely on the Constitution’s preamble as a basis to assert that only individuals can benefit from the document’s contents. Of course, the preamble confers no substantive rights (I defy you to find a Supreme Court decision holding that there is a right to “domestic tranquility” or a “more perfect union”) and has never been used to interpret substantive provisions of the Constitution. Those who quote the preamble expose themselves as idiots on issues of constitiional interpretation and commentary.
The second reason I posted the way I did was to actually see how many of you have actually read the opinion. I am now conviced that none have other than me. The Court, in reaching its decision, specifically addressed the fact that federal law DOES create a criminal penalty for corporations, while not affording them a First Amendment right. That was part of the problem in the Court’s mind. Corporations ARE held liable, but not permitted to speak. In effect, this was found to be prior restrain of speach.
You know what the best part of this is? That none of our opinions matter. CNN had a great quote from Justice Jackson, someone along these lines: “The Court is not final because it is infallible; rather it is infalllible because it is final.” The Court tells us what the Constituion means (as much as I may not like the results sometime). All our bloviating is worthless, other than I get to say that I am right because the Court says so! 🙂
“I take offense to the president chastising our Supreme Court for a recent vote when he has the bully pulpit and they do not have an opportunity to immediately respond.”
They’re not SUPPOSED to respond to a political address and observation (as Alito did). They’re supposed to sit there, as expressionless as possible, and keep their mouth shut. Alito is now forever tainted by his actions.
Anon. Thank you for confirming my point. The president knows that they are to sit quietly with their hands in the laps and their lips sealed.
So he uses the bully pulpit and a worldwide audience to take a shot at the high court knowing they cannot respond.
Yet you take offense when anyone in the media questions president Obama’s motives and actions.
The good news is that they have lifetime appointments, while the worst case scenario for all Americans is that we will only have president Obama around for A MAXIMUM of seven more years.
Larry, you keep using terms like “attack” and “taking a shot”. How is bringing the subject up, and suggesting new legislation (presumably public financing) to come out of Congress, WHILE HE’S MAKING A CONSTITUTIONALLY-PRESCRIBED ADDRESS TO CONGRESS amount to an attack? That is just patently ridiculous and it’s nothing more than a MSM talking point, which you are more than eager to repeat here.
Anon.
The comments posted by me reflect my own impressions not what others say on MSM or cable programs.
I think it was a cheap shot by el presidente
You are welcome to disagree.
In the business world we are taught to praise in public and reprimand in private.
The State of the Union is surely not a private setting. It was a time set aside to discuss our domestic and foreign policy agenda and his performance.
The time to debate the pro’s and con’s of their decision in Citizens United Vs Federal election Commission (08-205) was during the trial not afterward. Their rulings are final.
His 71 minute speech should have addressed the current economic crisis, the need for jobs, the war, (closing Gitmo,our involvement in the Israeli/ Palestinian two nation effort which he didn’t address or trying a terrorist in Manhattan that he also carefully avoided.)
Yet after a 71 minute speech he ignored some of those foreign and domestic issues which impact us today. He surely did not have any time restrictions especially when president Bill Clinton once spoke for 89 minutes during a previous State of the Union presentation.
“Their rulings are final.”
THAT ruling is final, yes. But that doesn’t mean the issue is dead. That doesn’t mean that debate on the issue of campaign finance is dead. Knowing that, the President brought up the subject, expressed his disagreement with the ruling, and urged Congress, during an address to Congress, to tackle the subject of public financing of election campaigns. That’s not an attack, it’s not a cheap shot. Good lord, it’s incredible how overblown the whole thing became.
Anon.
Once again we can agree. That ruling is final.
Should campaign finance come back it will be of interest to see how much of an impact this ruling will have on future Appelate decisions.
#30
You’ve missed the whole point about the constitution being about people and how they are to be organized to govern. When Federal Marshals & Troops were sent to the south that was all about ensuring “domestic tranquility”.
The ruling is hardly final – I’m sure when decisions such as the tax status of contributions are made it will be back to the courts.
Didn’t three of the justices skip the speech? Were they home watching the Simpsons on Fox or were they sick? Certainly disrespectful to “no show” without a good excuse.
Alito certainly didn’t show any class.
Larry. I believe that at least one Justice must stay away in the event of a national disaster. In fact that is why the pres and VP should not be on the same flight when travelling abroad. My memory is good but I recall hearing that explanation over 50 years ago.
This is the same Supreme Court that decided for ” us, the people” that we should have former President Bush.
Let’s see Bush gave us historic national debt, two wars half way around the globe and the worst recession in recent history. This latest decision will have an equally disastrous affect on us, the people.
Larry,
You really should check Media Matters before getting on your high-horse;
“but for president Obama to use his bully pulpit to attack members of the Supreme Court, sitting in the front row of the State of the Union address, is totally disgraceful.
Fom Media Matters;
In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court
Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting “this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment.”
Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court’s recent ruling on school prayer:
And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation’s health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.
Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:
And while I’m on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?
[…]
During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn’t? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.
Bush condemned “activist judges” who are “redefining marriage by court order.” In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized “activist judges” who, according to him, were “redefining marriage by court order”:
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.
Anonster. Media Matters may be your Bible but it is not mine.
Based on your research I will respectfully concede your point about president Reagan
This disgusting excuse for a “president” needs to be impeached or resign. This little socialist loser is nothing but a “community organizer” and a failure at that. Notice that he sat in the front pew of that goddam wright’s “GODDAM church” for 20 years listening and nodding his head at that America-hating racist negro’s every word and only left when it was convenient for him and his loser family. To hell with Obozo and his America-hating bootlicking ultra left wing socialists.