[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: Obama Misrepresents the Citizens United Decision Obama Misrepresents the Citizens United Decision [Shannen Coffin] The Supreme Court is not — and certainly should not — be above criticism. President Bush made it a point not to criticize the Court’s detainee decisions in Hamdan and Rasul — and probably missed a political opportunity. But he apparently considered it unpresidential to attack Court rulings. By contrast, President Obama displayed an utter lack of tact in his criticism of the Court’s decision in Citizens United. Obama preened for political applause while members of the Court had to sit stoically on their hands. That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable — and not simply because he’s from New Jersey, as my South Jersey wife said. In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling. Citizens United is a 57-page opinion that most Americans wouldn’t have a good reason to read – and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t blame them for not reading it. Obama understands that most Americans are susceptible to misleading comments about the decision. In claiming that the Court had opened the floodgates to foreign corporations’ spending without limit in our elections, he sought to take political advantage of that susceptibility. Brad Smith, who has forgotten more about campaign-finance law than I’ll ever know, explained the applicable statutes in his post last night. But you needn’t take Brad’s word for it. The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy expressly stated: “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.” In support of that carve-out, the Court acknowledged the statute Brad discussed, 2 U.S.C. section 441e, which bans contributions and expenditures from foreign nationals. So Obama’s attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation. While I’m on the subject of the speech, Mark Steyn hilariously suggested that its empty rhetorical flourishes were a bit like the lyrics to Sinatra’s swaggering “That’s Life.” The difference, though, is you could buy the swagger from Sinatra. With this president, it comes across as stale and ultimately empty dramatic license. 01/28 10:06 AM Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less. ~~~ Nothing he said was untrue.
#2. To: All (#0) (Edited) “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.” It's opposite day in Bikini bottom? So the court didn't rule on a question it wasn't asked...big whoop...by mentioning it, the court left the question OPEN as to whether or not THAT law is constitutional. Expect a challenge to it...
#3. To: war (#2) Internet forum lawyer...or real world lawyers, judges, and Constitutional Scholars from the LEFT and the RIGHT....gee, I wonder who 'all' will take seriously... If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #4. To: war (#2) The president's statement is false. have a lawyer explain the above to you. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #5. To: All (#0) (Edited) ABBEY NATL N AMERICA LLC - US incorporated WHOLLY OWNED subsidiary of Abbey National Bank PLC UK Panasonic Finance America - US incorporated WHOLLY OWNED subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation, Japan Nestle Capital Corp - US incorporated WHOLLY OWNED subsidiary Nestle VX, Switzerland Cadbury Schwepps Finance - US incorporated WHOLLY OWNED subisidary of Cadbury Schwepps PLC England Lukoil US Funding - US incorporated WHOLLY OWNED subisidary of Lukoil Russis.... ~~~~~ Each of the above is a 100% US corporation.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|