|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Thank You, Justice AlitoPosted on Jan 31, 2010The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Barack Obama’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s recent legislation—excuse me, decision—opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money. Alito’s inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government. Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed “Not true.” His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us. The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology. The movement’s legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades. Advertisement “Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution,” Reagan wrote. “No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. ... Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a ‘right’ so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born.” Reagan cited Justice Byron White’s description of Roe as an act of “raw judicial power,” which is actually an excellent description of the court’s ruling on corporate money in the Citizens United case. Reagan had every right to say what he did. But why do conservatives deny the same right to Obama? Alternatively, why do they think it’s persuasive to argue, as Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett did in The Wall Street Journal, that it’s fine for a president to take issue with the court, except in a State of the Union speech? Isn’t it more honorable to criticize the justices to their faces? Are these jurists so sensitive that they can’t take it? Do they expect everyone to submit quietly to whatever they do? In fact, conservatives have made the Supreme Court a punching bag since the 1960s, when “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers aimed at the liberal chief justice proliferated in right-wing precincts. Richard Nixon made the Warren court’s rulings on criminal justice a major issue in his 1968 presidential campaign. “Let us always respect, as I do, our courts and those who serve on them,” he said in his acceptance speech that year. “But let us also recognize that some of our courts, in their decisions, have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country, and we must act to restore that balance.” Many conservatives cheered this. As for the specifics of Obama’s indictment, Alito’s defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court’s decision on corporate political spending had reversed “a century of law” and also opened “the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations.” But Obama was referring not simply to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court’s recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don’t acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures. Alito did not like the president making an issue of the court’s truly radical intervention in politics. I disagree with Alito on the law and the policy, but I have no problem with his personal expression of displeasure. On the contrary, I salute him because his candid response brought home to the country how high the stakes are in the battle over the conservative activism of Chief Justice John Roberts’ court. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group  Previous item: Not So Fast, Chris Matthews Next item: The Creed of Objectivity Killed the News New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
More Exposés, Less Action
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By drbhelthi, March 3, 2010 at 4:19 am Link to this comment
Isnt it interesting how some propagandists scapegoat
others with their own personal feelings that they
themselves have engendered ? It is easy for this
type of person to blame others for all events that
they have not manipulated or supported. This after
misconstruing the information before their noses,
which they do not comprehend. But, then again,
propagandists are propagandists as a function of
their dishonest, basic values, i.e. their mental
pathology. While many such types are paid to
propagandize the internet, some perform the service
to their masters gratuitously, as a sort of suck-up
maneuver. Brown-nosing is natural for them.
More recently, CIA types have recommended hiring
Report this10,000 such pimps to dominate the internet. What
will be left of the internet, if this freedom-
suppressive action is taken? Especially, if the CIA
cooperative, William Gates, continues to conduct
euthanasia activities on the domains of internet freedom-lovers?
Why is it that some persons, after having gotten
rich “off the public,” turn around and want to
exterminate the same public?
By Inherit The Wind, February 6, 2010 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment
drbhelthi, February 6 at 10:47 am #
„Junior“ Bush might not have been eligible for the
US „presidency“ had his senior not stopped the
investigation of the Brownsville multiple-murder
case. “- - 1984 Brownsville, TX, mass murder, in
which 17 people were ritualistically murdered and
skinned.” Since both Junior and senior were/are
involved in satanic covens, one need speculate only
briefly why senior stopped the investigation.
“Junior “ very successfully assisted his NAZI
forefathers to convert the U.S.A. into a quasi-NAZI
stalag, with more predicted to come. One German
scientist told me over a year ago, “- - certain
families have always know the true identity of the
41st US president. “
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
*********************************************
Lunatics like you make me SICK! And I voted AGAINST George H.W. Bush BOTH TIMES!
That photo is bullshit. “Circa 1938” and claiming the kid on the left in the sailor suit is Martin Bormann, who, in 1938, was 38 years old, not a teen.
The SUPPOSED pic of Bush doesn’t even look like him and looks MUCH older than 14, which Bush was in 1938. His supposed “father” looks NOTHING like Prescott Bush. The guy who is supposed to be Mengele, looks 10 years older than “Bormann”, but Mengele was 11 years younger (and didn’t look much like THAT picture either).
I hate this paranoid conspiracy bullshit, especially when it’s blatantly, obviously false and EASILY discounted.
“Bush” is the wrong age and doesn’t look like Bush. His “father” doesn’t look like Prescott Bush.
“Bormann” doesn’t look anything close to 38 years old.
“Mengele”, looks far older than “Bormann” but was actually 11 years younger.
“Mengele” doesn’t look ANYTHING like the Mengele.
I just hate this crap.
Report thisBy drbhelthi, February 6, 2010 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
„Junior“ Bush might not have been eligible for the
US „presidency“ had his senior not stopped the
investigation of the Brownsville multiple-murder
case. “- - 1984 Brownsville, TX, mass murder, in
which 17 people were ritualistically murdered and
skinned.” Since both Junior and senior were/are
involved in satanic covens, one need speculate only
briefly why senior stopped the investigation.
“Junior “ very successfully assisted his NAZI
Report thisforefathers to convert the U.S.A. into a quasi-NAZI
stalag, with more predicted to come. One German
scientist told me over a year ago, “- - certain
families have always know the true identity of the
41st US president. “
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
By Inherit The Wind, February 6, 2010 at 5:58 am Link to this comment
Let me guess, Mundt:
You think, because you have a white skin, that AUTOMATICALLY makes you more intelligent, more capable, and more qualified for ANYTHING than President Obama?
Yes, without Liberals fighting for equal rights, voting rights, and making racial discrimination both a crime AND a moral outrage, Barack Obama might be forced to be, at most, a porter or laborer, solely because his skin isn’t white, rather than the Harvard law professor he was, and President that he is.
I, for one, am not afraid to compete for my job with people who aren’t meeting your racist acid test of being white, male, and native-English-speaking (and probably Protestant, too).
Just look at a line-by-line comparison of Barack Obama’s abilities, capabilities and achievements next to the man he replaced, George W. Bush. You have a talented, self-controlled thoughtful man, compared to an inarticulate, emotion-driven, incompetent boob, who failed at nearly every enterprise he ever engaged in and had to be bailed out every time.
Report thisBy Rob N. Hudd, February 4, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
for Rick L. - Very well said sir!
for “Mundt”- what kind of rock did you crawl out from?
re: the SC and our political “process” as it is… Methinks we are royally screwed.
Report thisBy drbhelthi, February 4, 2010 at 2:12 am Link to this comment
That is, if we/they are not first killed off or debilitated in significant numbers by:
Report this- the eugenics operation of the J.D.Rockefeller empire/NAZI-CIA/MOSSAD machine,
- - aluminium particles and germs in contrails since 1998,
- - aspartame in +6,000 foods and beverages,
- - various Vioxxes & Gardasils of the Merck (NAZI IG Farben empire) & other pharma empires,
- - Homeland Security, Patriot Act machinery of the NAZI/MOSSAD,
- - “bird-flu,” “swine flu” type vaccines w/mercury & other toxins, e.g. “Rumsfeld frauds,”
- - various-sized repeats of 9-11, in progress per NAZI-CIA/MOSSAD plans.
-
- Insiders report a big surprise for a few thousand attendees (at least) of the Canadian Olympics. Which MOSSAD front company has the “security” contract for the Canadian Olympics? The same one as has the contract for rail-bus travel in the UK? Whose “high-security” cameras just happened to go dead prior to the UK bombings, and which came back on-line 20 minutes afterwards. My, my, what a coincidence - - . .
-
- And some people think that the world is NOT flat.
- Brooklyn Bridge for Sale ?
- Again ?
By dihey, February 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm Link to this comment
Hopefully the unintended consequence of this coup by the “commercial aristocracy of the US” will result in a re-start of the American revolution but, again hopefully, this time not led by the (salary-)slave owners but by “us, the people”. Once and if the “Tea Party” people discover who their real tormentors are there will be no stopping the revolution.
Report thisBy Kevin Schmidt, February 3, 2010 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
“...it is unfair to contend that the founders wrote the Constitution in hopes that later Courts would find ways to twist the ideas out of context to gain political advantage without having to build an amendment.”
Richard R. Tryon, February 3 at 11:20 am
——————
Richard, that is exactly why the Supreme Court erred in their decision. You are woefully ignorant of the Constitution. It was written for “people” and “citizens”, not for nonhuman entities. Nowhere within the Constitution is it written that corporations, organization or any other nonhuman entity have the same rights, or in this case, greater rights than humans.
That is why the laws limiting corporations right to free speech have been on the books for so long, they are indeed constitutional.
The five justices who wrongly made there horrendous decision can now all be impeached and removed from office for “behaving badly.”
Report thisBy drbhelthi, February 3, 2010 at 7:25 am Link to this comment
“WHAT YOU DO SPEAKS SO LOUD, I CAN NOT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.” The wisdom of the original inhabitants of the alleged “american” continents continues to display geniune wisdom.
The punch line of the psychiatrist joke: a patient who was envious of a friend who said he had sex seven times a week, was told, “you can also say you have sex seven times a week.”
Certainly, a “judge” on the US Supreme Court can also say anything he wishes. Similar to an imposter occupying the US “presidency.” However, ones actions reveal ones real, inner self.
Report thisBy Richard R. Tryon, February 3, 2010 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J. Dionne may not even go to church, but if he has and has heard a minister, priest,rabbi or whatever speak from the perspective of how his/her religion speaks to some political issue; he may have objected to the fact that no countervailing opportunity exists in most church audiences for objection or challenge to be voiced.
If he wants presidents to be able to report to the state of the union from the perspective, as the chief executive officer working for the legislative branch in need to have execution of its laws happen, then it is probably ok for him to report his opinion that he thinks that legislation to achieve fair and balanced presentation of political views has been fiscally skewed, because unions and other corporations are assumed always to fall on opposite sides of every issue. Yes,he should be free to say so. But, when he paints the critical picture that allows no immediate rebuttal, he is on weak grounds and out of place.
Meanwhile, it is unfair to contend that the founders wrote the Constitution in hopes that later Courts would find ways to twist the ideas out of context to gain political advantage without having to build an amendment. While this approach has short-term advantages to making change happen, it carries greater risk as well. Conservatives are more prone to recognizing this fact than are progressives who are certain that they alone know what the people should want, even if they do not seem to say so!
If Obama wants to undue the Court, all he needs to do is pass an amendment and hope states will ratify his party’s lead in Congress supported by it majority president. Just treat unions as collections of people and corporations as collections of non-people.
Report thisBy gerard, February 2, 2010 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment
Hulk: Sorry you didn’t “get” my sarcasm. I thought it was thick enough to cut with a knife!
As to gerard and the francophile stuff: I’m crazy about the French since I studied four years of their language and when I went there once they called out to me on the street: “Hello, California!” So we’re friends in spite of the “freedom fries” nonsense.
Sadly, I’m mostly German—those damned Huns, you know. Hitler, and all that. There’s some English in there, too—my great great grandfather apparently carved headstones for a living. Other than that, the Japanese (please, not “Japs”! The bomb was more than enough!) are my favorites.
Next time, take a second look and read between the lines. Regards.
Report thisBy Johnny d, February 2, 2010 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I find it amusing that all the left wing cry babys hare are quick to point out that in the coming elections our politicians will be owned by and wearing corporate logos of the companys they are are owned by and bound to when indeed our beloved president OBAMA has the UNIONS in his back pocket. Corporate sponsorship and funds breaks down between both parties as follows.
Report thisDemocrats receive about 47% from corporations
Republicans about 52% funds from corporations.
While the Democrats receive 82% of their funds from Unions
Republicans ZERO….
Once again the playing field is evened out on a S.Court ruling and the Left wing Dems are crying foul. Boo Hoo…........
By Hulk2008, February 2, 2010 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
To gerard:
I can only hope that your comment about the Court being filled with foreigners was some odd tongue-in-cheek sarcasm…. some ironic wordplay. The name “gerard” by the way is of French derivation and we all know what the right-wingers think of anything remotely frankophile. gerard, enjoy some “freedom fries” while you contemplate this comment:
I am always amazed at comments in American politics that deride “foreigners” or “immigrants”. Unless you literally sprouted from the soil of North America, you cannot honestly be ANYthing but an IMMIGRANT aka FOREIGNER. Even the so-called “native Americans” walked, swam, and rowed over to this continent from elsewhere.
I hereby challenge somebody to name one member of the Court or Congress who came from anything but immigrant forebears.
Report thisBy mg, February 2, 2010 at 7:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I appreciated Obama shining a light on the dark machinations of those who have taken over the Supreme Court during the State of the Union speech, as appropriate a moment as any to let as many people as possible know what’s continuing to go on in their government, while they’re busy working enough for two jobs. The ones who aren’t working now must really be wondering if things will recover, what with the ‘end times’-seeming confluence of so many man-made and natural disasters. He speaks as though he wants to do the right thing, but also his actions say something else. Here he got it right.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, February 2, 2010 at 4:36 am Link to this comment
Scalis said, LITERALLY, it’s OK for a police officer to “smack a suspect around”.
Unfortunately, the only thing I’m aware Scalia has done that’s impeachable is accept an invitation to go shooting with Cheney while refusing to recuse himself from Cheney’s defense of secrecy in front of the Court. His son was an attorney for the GOP but I’m not sure THAT is a conflict of interest.
Thomas, of course, was deciding the Bush/Gore case while his wife was vetting appointments for Bush—a clear conflict of interest.
OTOH, if the Senate had the stones to find a way to get 8 votes from the GOP, and would discipline, rather than bribe the blue-dog Dims, there could be 67 votes to convict….
Scalia, of all the justices, does not deserve to be on the Court, and Thomas is a close second. Both have committed acts that clearly fall OUTSIDE simply their judicial opinions (which are untouchable, no matter how bad).
As despicable and detestable as I find Roberts and Alito, I think we are stuck with them unless we want to tear down our national institutions after 219 years.
Then again, if there was an interventionist God, He could just step in. He could remove them or, even better, change their hearts and minds.
Since He doesn’t remove or change them one must conclude:
A) He LIKES them the way they are.
B) He doesn’t like them the way they are but is trying to tell us something about fixing things ourselves.
C) He truly is a NON-interventionist Deity who doesn’t work miracles, and never has since He called for The Big Bang. This means prayer is meaningless, because He won’t act in response to it. This is virtually and effectively the same as….
D) God doesn’t exist.
Being Agnostic, I don’t claim to know whether C) or D) is correct, but simple logic tells me A) and B) are not.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, February 1, 2010 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment
I DO blame the Dims! They could have blocked Alito and Roberts and the host of reich-wing idiot-logs who NEVER had any intention of following the Constitution or Constitutional Law. Alito knows damn well NOBODY can stop him from gutting the Constitution as long as he doesn’t take a bribe. He’s invulnerable. Only one Supreme Court Justice has EVER been impeached and HE was acquitted.
Report thisBy Jerry, February 1, 2010 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Wait and see, in time there will be a Wall Mart greeter standing at the door of the Senate chambers. Then when you see all of the Senators proudly displaying the corporate logos they represent,you will know we are screwed.
Report thisBy gerard, February 1, 2010 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment
Oh my beady-eyed bobcat! Foreigners on the Supreme Court! Foreign influence in their judgments. Alito. Sotomajor. Kennedy. Scalia, for Pete’s sake, and Ginsberg, O’Connor (another Irishman!) And Thomas, from Africa! Foreigners, all of them! Not a red-blooded American in the bunch! To quote an antique saw a lot older and rustier than most of you maniacs on this site: “Quick, Henry! The Flit!
Report thisBy Ajaz Haque, February 1, 2010 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The Democrats have only themselves to blame for having Justice Alito on the Supreme Court bench. His pre Supreme Court rulings were more right wing than neutral.
To be fair to Justice Alito, his intentions were fairly obvious during Senate confirmation hearings. But the Democrats did not pick up signals and confirmed him under pressure. Justice Alito may prove to be the most right wing judge ever and he is not very old either, so he will around for a very long time.
Report thisBy felicity, February 1, 2010 at 11:38 am Link to this comment
If nothing else, Alito’s reaction and the subsequent (surprised) reaction of his supporters/critics to his reaction shows how painfully naive we are to actually believe that a human being is capable of making any decision apart from his personal biases/beliefs.
As to the latest SC decision - a few years ago we Californians passed a bill which would require car manufacturers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by the year 2016. Nine global auto makers sued us to block what we had voted for. A majority of the shareholders of at least 7 of those automakers weren’t American citizens.
To suppose that foreign interests have not gotten another giant foot into our politics etc by way of the SC decision is REALLY naive.
Report thisBy ThomasG, February 1, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment
Mundt, February 1 at 10:45 am,
You are apparently uneducated or you would never have made such a statement.
Report thisBy Mark Berger, February 1, 2010 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The new “you lie” guy.
Report thisBy Mark Berger, February 1, 2010 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Justice Alito - the new “you lie” guy.
Report thisBy samosamo, February 1, 2010 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
For one thing this asshole alito doesn’t determine the truth since
now he and his fellow traitors have granted full ‘citizenship’ to
the corporations with a liability exemption from most laws.
And yes, this ‘legislating legislation’ the supreme court has
entered into is impeachable treason or would be if our
legislative foghorn leghorn fools had the balls to do their part
and impeach those 5 criminals.
And this really besmirches our government when there appears to be a single legislative AND judicial branch of government all rolled into one with very little accountability, kinda of a type of monarchy and/or aristocracy beholding to corporate whims and demands.
Report thisBy bozh, February 1, 2010 at 8:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
?All non-descriptive utterances and not just das kapital, mein kampf, constitutions, bible, qoran, etc., are interpretative writs.
US constitution is a set of laws which cannot ever be understood- only interpreted.
Scribblers of US constitution may have known this or had some hunch ab what i said.
Thus, they needed a set of judges to interpret meaning of any utterance in dispute.
US constitution ensured that US governance remains forever in private hands.
Without rewritng constitution and establishing people’s right to also appoint own interpreters of the constitution, we can expect no change for better!
had court broken the law,BHO wld have to appeal to the same court for a ruling.But the court has not broken the law.
But neither can congrees or WH ever brake a law no matter what they do towards ‘aliens’ or in denying US citizens right to health care or the right to be informed-educated.
Or is BHO not aware of these facts? Or is he just politicking? tnx
Report thisBy gerard, February 1, 2010 at 8:11 am Link to this comment
Never underestimate the viciousness of the right wing!
Report thisBy Mundt, February 1, 2010 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
If it weren’t for a highly politicized, liberal majority, intent on working it’s will, even if that meant ignoring precedents and the wishes of elected branches of government (see Warren Court),what would Obama be doing today? Railway porter? Butler? Yardman?
Report thisBy Purple Girl, February 1, 2010 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
The First and Only Incorporation these people took an oath to protect, defend and serve is that of the UNITED States of America. Period.
Report thisTo grant any other entity, represented by only other emblems, Icons, crests or Logos precedence over those of US is an act of Treason, most esp in the Realm of Democratic elections to determine a governance To,For and By the People.
This Ruling is High Treason, nothing less.
By letssee, February 1, 2010 at 6:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Let’s see, Alito and Roberts are only in the Supreme Court due to GWBush’s theft of the previous two elections. The first one with the unconstitutional aid of the Supremes as accessories of electoral fraud. So what if we impeach Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy for that crime? That would then undermine Alito and Roberts and they could be impeached for having been placed there by criminal fraud.
Report thisBy ardee, February 1, 2010 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
Samson, February 1 at 3:38 am #
Just as long as we don’t forget that Alito is on the court with the full blessings, love and kisses of the Senate Democrats.
Beat me to it,Samson…......Further, how does Obama rationalize his own acceptance of many hundreds of millions from the same corporations Alito now unleashes on the election process?
Report thisBy Samson, January 31, 2010 at 11:38 pm Link to this comment
Just as long as we don’t forget that Alito is on the court with the full blessings, love and kisses of the Senate Democrats.
We now know from watching the Republicans of the power of the filibuster. So, when watching people like Roberts and Alito enforce their right-wing activist agenda from the court, remember that Bush never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. So, these guys are only on the court because Senate Dems approved them and voted to put them onto the court.
Report thisBy ThomasG, January 31, 2010 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment
I listened to President Obama’s speech and appreciated his reprimand of the Supreme Court that has chosen to be led by Conservative Corporations.
Report thisBy Rick Ladd, January 31, 2010 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment
Yes, it is best when your enemies at least show their
Report thisfaces. It’s amazing that Alito lacked the (judicial?)
restraint to just sit there stoically and take his
minor lumps. Most Americans are too befuddled and
blinded by the headlights of the oncoming train to even
remember it took place anyway. Why draw attention to
it? Still, I’m glad he did. Demonstrative hypocrisy is
far better than the clandestine sort so famously
practiced by the right(eous).