Obama Dresses Down SCOTUS With Lies
Jan 29, 2010 Political
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.
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.
Pelosi Sides with Obama
Feb 15, 2008 Political
I wrote yesterday that the people who are elected to represent us should vote in accordance with the wishes of the majority of their constituents. I realize that there are many issues that come up that do not require this or that a district is about evenly split so a politician needs to use good judgment (there is a contradiction in terms) but for the most part, they should follow the wishes of those who put them in office. Some people do not agree with this and there has been at least one who resorted to childish insults because of my position. Regardless, Nancy Pelosi thinks I am right.
Today, Pelosi said that the Super Delegates should vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Now I don’t necessarily agree that this should be so with the SDs because the rules allow them to vote however they want though many would be foolish to tick off the people who will vote for them (at least for the ones who hold elected office).
Don’t veto the people’s choice.
“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.”
She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party’s voters.
“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.” SFGate
I agree that this should be done. However, I also believe that Pelosi is being a hypocrite when she says this and I believe it is because she supports Obama in the race. She has not endorsed him but she is leaning that way and it is obvious by what she has said that she wants him to win. Perhaps she will feel threatened by Hillary as president. Here is why she is hypocritical; she keeps voting against the wishes of her constituents. She voted to keep funding the war and she has not voted to stop it.
I am in favor of staying until we achieve victory so I am happy about this but it runs contrary to what she is saying here. She voted for a minimum wage increase that people wanted (everyone wants more pay) but then she excluded the tuna company in her district so they could keep wages low. She has never taken a position against a colleague who voted for or against something contrary to the voters. As a matter of fact, when Republicans vote in accordance with the wishes (not nearly enough do this) of their constituents, Pelosi criticizes them. Let a congressman from a military district vote in favor of funding the troops and she says he is being obstructive despite the fact that military families want their troops funded. Nearly all voters in their right minds (and certainly a majority) want Congress to cut spending and stop using earmarks but none of them do that and Pelosi is not telling them to.
Though it might appear that she agrees with me I guess it only appears that way because she has had to change a position in order to help the candidate she wants to win. Of course, she is also probably worried that ticking off Democrats could put her back in the minority and she won’t be banging that gavel next year.
Reading the comments at the SFGate, the source of this story (linked above), people keep saying comments from Hillary supporters who think she should get the delegates and that Florida and Michigan should be seated. I need to know something from the Democrats. If Hillary and Obama go to the convention and neither has won outright with Obama leading by more than 100 votes (just leading is probably good enough) and the SDs award their votes to Hillary making her the winner will we be able to say Hillary was selected and not elected?
Gore sued George Bush and lost. The appeals went to the SCOTUS and they determined that the recounts had to stop (I actually think they could not recount in select areas) and George Bush won. Since that time Democrats have called him illegitimate and said he was selected, not elected. They claim the SCOTUS put Bush in office against the will of the people.
If the SDs do that with Hillary then their actions would be no different than those of the SCOTUS in Gore vs Bush (except that Bush won). I would just be interested in hearing how the liberals will rationalize this because no matter how you slice it, they are both the same thing. Actually, how liberals describe Florida in 2000 is closer to my hypothetical situation because in mine, Hillary really is behind.
Bush was only behind in the minds of the liberals.
Tags: dns, gore v bush, Pelosi, scotus, selected not elected, super delegates
Loading ...
Loading... 
