Obama Dresses Down SCOTUS With Lies

Last night during the State of the Union Address Barack Obama did something one would be hard pressed to find an incident of in the history of such addresses. Obama dressed down the Supreme Court for its recent, and correct, decision on corporate money going to political campaigns or issues.

Barack Obama mischaracterized the ruling when he said:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems. White House.gov

The ruling by the court specifically rules out foreign donations as does federal law. That was not overturned. The issue at hand dealt with an organization that was not allowed to air a movie prior to an election. The court ruled it was a free speech issue which it is. Obama was absolutely incorrect and his lie resulted in Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words “not true” (it looked to me like he said “simply not true”).

Today the focus was on Alito, who did nothing wrong, and not on the huge error Obama made. The funny thing is that the focus on this took some of the attention off Obama’s SOTU and agenda.

Obama was wrong to use that forum to lash out at a coequal branch of government. He picked on people who show up and sit still the entire time. They do not stand or applaud for issues to maintain impartiality.

It is a bully tactic and was used to score points. Obama wants Congress to do something to correct this decision. It was Congressional action that led to the decision in the first place. This will come back to bite him in a number of ways. I think it is safe to say that any issue of his that hits the SCOTUS had better be in top order.

Linda Greenhouse of the NYT reports this about the decision:

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.

The decision did not change that century old law and it dealt specifically with money from corporate treasuries and airing ads (or movies) in the period just before an election.

Obama got a few other facts wrong last night but one would expect a so called Constitutional law professor to know the facts of a case if he is going to address it.

Saul Alinksy would be proud of him. The only problem is that Alinsky never figured the population would rise in large numbers.

And neither did Obama. Perhaps that is because he is deaf to the increasing roar of the people.

I think in November he might actually begin to hear and understand.

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

18 Responses to “Obama Dresses Down SCOTUS With Lies”

  1. Adam says:

    As politifact put it, Obama was indeed mostly wrong.

    How you figure Alinksy is back in this is anybody’s guess. Alinsky is the favorite boogieman of the right wing as if his rules aren’t typical of politics in general and instead are some super secret code that Radical Obama uses to get what he wants in life. Silly…

    • Big Dog says:

      Alinsky, pick the target, isolate the target and attack the target. Obama is making the SCOTUS the scape goat, that target. He can then put the public against them and make it look as if they make bad decisions. It is useful for people who want to be dicatators to attack their court system and cast dispersions on their effectiveness and ability.

      See Hugo Chavez.

      • Adam says:

        Yes, Obama is using rules for radicals to attack the court and become a dictator like Chavez. Right. How quickly arguments with you devolve into the absurd…

        • Big Dog says:

          I never claimed this, you drew that conclusion. Obama wants to be the dictator (and so do those who want him to be president for life). His main goal is to get his radical agenda in place before it is too late.

          Attacking the court is a way to elevate one’s status above a coequal branch.

          It is also helpful for when he wants to avert the Constitution. He can claim that the SCOTUS has it wrong so he needs to change it. He did that in the SOTU in at least 2 places.

          One was that the SCOTUS decision will lead to all these things (which he was WRONG about) so he is telling Congress to fix that through legislation (good luck getting it past the SCOTUS on challenge). He put the false impression in people’s minds so when he acts to counter it they will think it was OK to subvert the Constitution.

          He also said that Congress voted against whatever commission he wants in place so he will empower the panel by Executive Order. Nice ploy but it will have no power (Congress has it) and it subverts the Constitutional authority Congress has.

          And you along with him talked about Bush ruling by EO…

        • Adam says:

          Obama as a dictator? Who wants Obama to be president for life? You’re so divorced from reality in this case that it’s almost impressive. Your comments here embody ultra-partisan nonsense at it’s worst.

        • Blake says:

          Barry wants power for life, as do those who lick his shoes, like Emanuel, Holder, lloyd, van jones, and all the other radicals-
          They want the American people held in thrall, peons that they can control- if you cannot see that, then for sure, do NOT have children, because you would be doing them a disservice as parents.
          You are supposed to be bright enough to see what is coming, whether it be a train, a hurricane, or Marxism, with all it’s collective failure and slavery.
          Failing to recognize this is a failure on your part that could very well doom your genetic line.
          The future is up to you- you can live in dreams, or you can recognize the real world- that is up to you.

        • Adam says:

          More right wing nut conspiracy. Get real, Blake.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Attacking the court is a way to elevate one’s status above a coequal branch.”>>

          Good point. The people on the supreme court are really some kind of demi-gods and it is quite improper to ever disagree with them.

          Fortunately, here comes Senator Franken to the rescue:

          Sen. Al Franken Announces Bill to Keep Foreign Interests Out of Elections

          “Since 1974, federal law has banned foreign companies from giving or spending in American elections. Nothing in our current laws, however, explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies and using them to flood the airwaves in support of their preferred candidates. Citizens United gives companies unlimited power to do that – and does not distinguish between American companies and companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests.

          “I was pleased to hear the President recognize the need for this bill in his address last night,” said Sen. Franken. “I think we can all agree that foreign interests have no place in American elections.”

          The “American Elections Act of 2010” was developed in coordination with Professor David Schultz of Hamline University School of Business in Minnesota.

          “The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was an attack on democracy and fair elections,” said Professor Schultz. “It undid laws seeking to regulate corporations across the country and in Minnesota that go back over 60 years. As a result of it corporate money will flood into Minnesota, threatening the basic integrity of our elections and the power of citizens to control their own government. Senator Franken’s bill is an important first step in addressing Citizens United and preventing money from further destroying our elections in Minnesota.”

  2. Darrel says:

    What a complete load of fresh steamy doggy crap.

    Notice how you follow the same pattern of falsehood, in your title. You have no lie. Now, let’s see that first sentence:

    “Last night during the State of the Union Address Barack Obama did something one would be hard pressed to find an incident of in the history of such addresses.”

    Yeah, hard pressed! Like way back in 2004 when Bush said of the Massachusetts high court:

    “Activist judges,” “have begun redefining marriage by court order.”

    Bigd: “The ruling by the court specifically rules out foreign donations as does federal law.”>>

    Spare me.

    “There aren’t any restrictions on US subsidiaries of foreign corporations or on foreign-controlled US corporations. And thanks to the Supreme Court, these companies can spend billions on electing or picking off American politicians at all levels of government. This isn’t just some little loophole, it’s a gaping breech in our democracy.

    As Justice Stevens argued in his eloquent dissent, the court’s ruling “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.” Amazingly, the same conservatives who go apoplectic over the slightest whiff of foreign influence – such as when Obama bows ceremoniously to a foreign leader – have embraced that view.

    They don’t seem to mind that Lukoil (Kremlin Inc.), Citgo (Hugo Chavez LLC), Aramco (King Fahd and Sons Co.), and countless other multinational corporations – including those run as business arms of foreign governments – now have a free hand to influence the government from top to bottom.

    In fact, the conservative justices raised and then summarily dismissed the issue in their opinion:

    “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.”

    Corporations can now transfer money to trade associations (American Petroleum Institute), so-called advocacy groups (FreedomWorks), PR firms (Creative Response Concepts, the creators of swift-boating), or any variety of shell corporation/front group and spend unlimited amounts on attack ads, robocalls, direct mail, canvassing, etc. – all without any disclosure whatsoever.

    But Republican leaders in Washington don’t seem to mind. In fact, they’re calling this a leveling of the playing field and a boon to the American middle class. It’s obvious that they expect the bulk of foreign cash will be spent on their behalf.”


    Obama’s right (the politifact article refers to a much stronger worded radio address), it was a horrible decision, and he wasn’t blasting all of the judges, just the wrong ones.

    Bigd: “[Obama] is deaf to the increasing roar of the people.”>>

    Here’s some deafness for ya:

    Most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, PDF file:

    7b. Do you generally approve or disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue of health care reform?

    Approve …………………………. 26
    Disapprove ………………………. 64
    Not sure………………………….. 10


    • Big Dog says:

      Nice try. The majority does not want what the Dems are selling for health care.

      • Darrel says:

        Already covered. The majority wants “what the Dems are selling for health care” OR something to the LEFT of it. Someday we’ll get it because nothing else will work. I was going to add that we could learn that the hard way but wait, we already have.

        Isn’t it good when the professor teaches the students? Precious:

        Cameras Roll As Obama Schools GOP During Hour-Long Session.

        “Put another way: “Obama Goes To GOP Lions’ Den — And Mauls The Lions”

        GOP aides confide, …allowing the “cameras to roll like that” was a “mistake.”

        “So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended.”

        “RUSSERT: By allowing these cameras to roll, it allowed Obama to sit there for an hour and a half refuting every single Republican talking point,… He was able to directly refute Republicans to their face for an hour and a half on T.V.”

  3. Big Dog says:

    Moammar Khadafy on Wednesday suggested the United States take a cue from his governing style and make Barack Obama president for life, delivering surprisingly lavish praise for the American during the Libyan leader’s first-ever speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

    Yeah Darrel, you have nothing to say about Soros’ foreign money from his overseas ventures funding Democrats.

    Bush nor any other president did not publicly call out the SCOTUS. He said activist courts (and I think he meant federal courts) but he did not specifically call out the SCOTUS.

    The ruling was a good one. I don’t like all that corporate money in campaigns but I like the First Amendment better. Read the court ruling and read the law. Alito was right, Obama said something that is not true.

    • Adam says:

      “Bush nor any other president did not publicly call out the SCOTUS.”

      Well, good thing this is a thread about lies. You keep telling them. Your pals at Media Matters has the scoop.

      • Blake says:

        You just have to love the baby steps that the dictator in training Owe-bama takes- the Senate denies him a bill, he just rolls out an “executive order” that overrides Congress- if I was Congress, either house, I would be pissed- what he in essence is saying is that Congress is irrelevent, and soon he will say this of The Supreme Court- he is already laying the groundwork with his SOTU jab at the Court.

  4. bleecherama7 says:

    I think Bush1,Bush2and Reagan all have done the same thing.Its documented in history.I dont think you guys can handle the truth or facts but it was Row vs. Wade that all three republican presidents critiicized in thier own State of union addresses. Google the speeches. You guys are nothing but Un-American [redacted vulgarity].This site should be shut down.

  5. bleecherama7 says:

    Hey Dog,Dont forget who was palling around with Kadafy.it was none other than your war criminal buddy George W.He was a personal guest of the Bush admin.Was he not?

  6. victoria says:

    On 23 September 2009, Colonel Gaddafi addressed the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, his first visit to the United States, in part because a Libyan diplomat, Ali Treki, has just become president of the General Assembly for 2009-10.[55] Gaddafi spoke for one hour and 36 minutes.[56]
    So how could he have been any guest of Bush during his administration?