President Obama criticizes the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance case, and the Justices have to sit there silently and motionless with the cameras focused in directly on them while the rest of the room applauds Obama’s criticism:
Justice Alito has the very human reaction of mouthing disagreement, but I tend to think the episode shows the wisdom of Justice Harlan’s view that the Justices shouldn’t attend the State of the Union address at all. It will be interesting to see how many Justices attend next year. (As I re-watch the clip, I image a collective bubble over the Justices at about the 25-second mark, representing their thoughts, with the text, “We are so not coming to this next year.”)
To make matters more interesting, Obama’s criticism appears to have been inaccurate on at least one important point: The New York Times Caucus blog has coverage.
Cynic says:
As Bradley Smith explains in National Review’s The Corner the President’s claim that foreign corporations will able to contribute to American political campaigns is completely false — specfically prohibted by 2 U.S.C. Section 441e. As Prof. Smith opines, “This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.” Cynic(Quote)
unioner says:
To their credit, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor seemed mortified. Just imagine if Bush had used a State of the Union address to insert an applause line about how the Court’s Gitmo rulings were going to leave America defenseless from terrorist attacks . . . he’d be accused of demagogy, with good reason.
I wish Alito had not succumbed to the human temptation. More than that, I wish the president had not caused Congress to rise up around the Justices like that and cheer his direct criticism of one of their decisions. Most of all, I hope the Justices just stop going to these things.
What a disgraceful move by the president.
p.s. Isn’t this decision now a “precedent” we’re required to respect? Let’s tune in to what the New York Times has to say . . . unioner(Quote)
loki13 says:
Cynic,
Unfortunately, the law is not so crystal clear. This is part of the problem with this legal fiction–
You have the classic foreign corporation, e.g. a company that is incorporated in another country.
Then you have the following:
a. A company incorporated in another country, but wholly owned by Americans.
b. A company incorporated in Delaware, but wholly owned by foreigners.
c. A company incorporated in Delaware, but is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation.
d. A company incorporated in Delaware, with mixed stockholders, but entirely foreign directors/officers.
e. A company incorporated in Delaware, but with almost all foreign stockholders, and a mixed board/officers.
Or, let’s get even more interesting.
How about an LLC formed with Saudi money under the laws of Wisconsin, and with an Americans “controlling” it?
But, you know, that’s nuance. To worry about foreign use of the corporate (also LLC, LP, LLP, LLLP) form in order to influence our elections would surely be mere demagoguery, even though it’s the precise concern identified by Stevens in his dissent, and one shared by many Americans. loki13(Quote)
Jacob Berlove says:
At least it wasn’t Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar giving the address. The way she emphatically begged Sotomayor to overturn Melendez-Diaz duting the latter’s confirmation hearing, I’d have bet on a strong criticism of Briscoe at her (hypothetical) state of the union:) Jacob Berlove(Quote)
Josh Blackman says:
I went through all the transcripts going back to Ford, and searched for “Court,” “Judge,” “Justice,” and any related word. I could not find a single President reacting to a Supreme Court opinion, let alone addressing the Supreme Court. Josh Blackman(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
Pres. Obama might be willing to concede, as I might, that the
judicial activismdecision of the Court was reasonable from a legal perspective, while recognizing that this recently announced change in the law inclines a legislative response to better balance the privileges and limitations of the corporate form. ArthurKirkland(Quote)Jacob Berlove says:
Orin,
I think Obama’s point is that Citizens United,in striking down corporation spending rules, automatically left the law unenforceable even as to foreign corporations. Jacob Berlove(Quote)
SecurityGeek says:
Or perhaps it’s a reasonable reaction to the practical impact of the ruling in a world where “American” corporations can be easily controlled and bankrolled by foreign interests. What’s the rule on foreign ownership or influence? SCOTUS just wiped their hands of this issue. Don’t worry, I’m sure it will come before them in 7–8 election cycles. SecurityGeek(Quote)
Jacob Berlove says:
Picking up on Josh Blackman’s observation, it would seem that criticism of SCOTUS in State of Union addresses is rare enough that it doesn’t seem to be a reason for justices not to go. Jacob Berlove(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
I would expect a strong second-year law student, or above-average third-year student, given a week to research the point, to be able to explain how a foreign financial interest could arrange, in a practical and lawful manner, funding of campaign-related speech in the United States. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
markH says:
Alito starts shaking his head in response to “open the floodgates to special interests”, not “foreign corporations”. Setting aside the fact that the floodgates were already open to special interests, I would have loved for Obama to stop and ask Alito to share his rebuttal with the rest of the class. markH(Quote)
Orin Kerr says:
Jacob,
I’ll admit that I have long been of the view that Justices should not go, for the reasons Harlan articulated. But the risk of a nationally televised moment like that, with the cameras directly on them, does make the case a lot stronger. Orin Kerr(Quote)
Houston Lawyer says:
Next year catcalls from the Justices, stay tuned.
Those of us who actually paid attention to Obama prior to his election are not surprised by his behavior. His ego knows no bounds and he is infuriated by those who do not accede to his will. He cannot accept that voters are rejecting his vision and he lashes out in anger. It is going to get worse before it will get better. He doesn’t have Dick Morris whispering in his ear.
[OK Comments: HoustonLawyer, did you get lost on the way to RedState? Maybe you and Brian G should get together for a beer.] Houston Lawyer(Quote)
loki13 says:
You know, the more I think about this, this actually makes sense!
1. There is a certain group in the electorate that continually makes the claim in certain contexts that “dem furriners ain’t got no rights!”
2. A large percentage of this same group is also incredibly supportive of Citizens United (think Venn Diagram– there is a considerable degree of overlap).
3. Of course, one of the practical consequences of CU is that dem furriners will be able to buy themselves all the rights they want from our political system.
4. Which solves problem 1, doesn’t it?
It would be funny, if it wasn’t sad. loki13(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
According to a CBS poll, seventeen percent of Americans rejected the President’s vision this evening. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
CrazyTrain says:
Talk about a weak, weak accusation of “blithering ignorance of the law” — a citation to a statute! The Supremes just invalidated a statute without hesitation. And the logic of the opinion would seem to easily lead to a holding invalidating the statute cited (not to mention that American corporations are often wholly owned by furriners, e.g. Sony America, etc.). CrazyTrain(Quote)
orca says:
I looked over several “Top 100 Appellate Judges in America” lists when William Rehnquist headed off to Republican heaven...neither Roberts nor Alito were on any of them.
A few public shots at these mediocrities for life can’t hurt. orca(Quote)
Orin Kerr says:
Orca,
Can you point us to this list? Alito and Roberts would have been on my own such list, so I am curious who assembled it.
Of course, if for some reason you can’t seem to find the list, such as if Google is down all week, I understand. Orin Kerr(Quote)
Steve says:
I agree that so long as corporations with foreign ownership have an unlimited right to political speech, it’s very much a distinction without a difference. Steve(Quote)
leo marvin says:
[OK Comments: Ah, thanks for the tip, Leo. I have deleted the comment.] leo marvin(Quote)
unioner says:
I’m not sure how people are still getting away with the claim that “omg if we allow them to spend more than their opponents they’ll win.” Studies have consistently shown that a candidate who can raise as little as 50% as the top spender, has no statistical disadvantage. And history is littered with losers who vastly outspent their winning opponents– somehow, we never seem to talk about those instances when working on “improving” campaign finance regs. unioner(Quote)
Andrew Berman says:
I have the opposite view. Alito did not yell out. He muttered under his breath, clearly not for anyone else’s hearing. This is a portrait of a man who was clearly insulted by a clearly insulting Presidential diatribe. It humanizes Alito.
Now, those of you who are in the legal profession may think it’s inappropriate for a judge to be humanized, of course. Andrew Berman(Quote)
Orin Kerr says:
Now, those of you who are in the legal profession may think it’s inappropriate for a judge to be humanized, of course.
As long as they don’t show empathy. Orin Kerr(Quote)
loki13 says:
Gee, wow, why worry then? I mean, the Yankees and Red Sox don’t win every World Series, so clearly it doesn’t help to have more money in baseball, right? And you need 50%.... so if you opponent once spent X, and can now spend 20X, you’d have to spend 10X now just to not have a statistical disadvantage.
But I agree– clearly, money is no advantage in politics. It makes you wonder why those silly politicians are out there raisin’ funds when they can just relax and not be at a statistical disadvantage! loki13(Quote)
orca says:
“How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon?” orca(Quote)
Matt says:
Most everybody in the room tonight was a big boy or girl, and I have a hard time imagining any of the Justices dwelling on it for very long. But with all due respect, the President’s remarks were cowardly. Scold Congress or your political opponents all you want, because they can come back tomorrow and give as good as they got. Or depending on your point of view, I suppose, set the record straight. Matt(Quote)
loki13 says:
(and to put on my non-sarcastic side)
The fight about money in politics was never about winning. It was about corruption. Even if one believes your point that money has no correlation to winning (*ahem*), it doesn’t matter, because politicians believe it does. Ergo, they raise funds (and exchange nebulous promises and access). Ergo, they an be pressured by groups that threaten to independently advertise for/against them. And that’s the problem. loki13(Quote)
rpt says:
Well, what is a “foreign corporation”? Fox? News Corporation, with substantial Saudi ownership, not to mention Murdoch himself? I think Alito just manifest his unhappiness at someone recognizing that the decision that he and many others sincerely believe is ideologically correct actually has some real world consequences. It was not a classy move. This year’s Joe Wilson. rpt(Quote)
Cornellian says:
Those of us who actually paid attention to Obama prior to his election are not surprised by his behavior. His ego knows no bounds and he is infuriated by those who do not accede to his will.
Of course, when your guy is the President, this is what you say about Supreme Court justices. Cornellian(Quote)
Orin Kerr says:
Orca,
I’m confused. I am asking you to show the evidence supporting your factual claim that there were several such lists that did not name these judges. You respond with a line that is generally understood to point out that some people are sheltered and have a biased perspective on public opinion.
But what does a miperception of public opinion have to do with whether the lists you mention actually existed or you might be misrembering? I would think the easiest way to prove your point would just be to link to one or more of the lists that you describe. Orin Kerr(Quote)
rpt says:
ArthurKirkland says:
Any chance that “activist judges” were mentioned in State of the Union addresses past? This President was pointing out that, despite its ostensible “balls and strikes” modesty, a court recently went out of its way to tee up a question the parties weren’t particularly interested in, then used the occasion to dismantle century-old precedent.
Anyone who genuinely faults judicial activism would be pleased. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
CDU says:
Rupert Murdoch is an American citizen. CDU(Quote)
Brian Garst says:
Right, because the sample of people watching the speech is surely representative of Americans as a whole. There’s no obvious selection bias there or anything! Brian Garst(Quote)
Gaydude says:
Obama lied about the Court’s decision and berated the justices in a setting where they had to sit and have others cheer against them (and Obama knew darn well the kind of applause that line would get from the Dems). He did this with full knowedge that, unlike politicians, the justices would not call a press conference to correct the public on his lies. Cowardly and disgusting.
I am now totally finished with this President. January 20, 2013 can’t come soon enough. Gaydude(Quote)
Laura Victoria says:
The Obamination was completely out of line. The rest of the justices present looked as if they were in shock. Alito’s minor reaction was no big deal.
I also think Obama’s rude behavior will help Kennedy become a more consistent member of the CU majority. And I think it may open the eyes of even some of the liberals who may think twice about rubber stamping any of his aggressive power grabs now that they have a sense of what a demagogue he is. Laura Victoria(Quote)
Dave N. says:
rpt,
Actually, media companies were already exempt. So if Murdoch owns a news corporation, and he was not an American citizen (he actually is), his company could still spend all the money it wanted in advocacy and not run afoul of the law pre–Citizens United. Dave N.(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
Perhaps you would prefer the segment of America that listens to AM radio at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, but 3 o’clock in the afternoon wasn’t available this evening. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Bruce Hayden says:
I don’t think it says anything positive about President Obama. And, in the end, I do not think that it will evolve to his benefit.
First, there is a possibility that at least some of the American people will take umbrage over attacking a group of people who, by their positions, cannot respond. That goes against the American preference for fair play.
Secondly, if the Supreme Court didn’t think that the President of the United States was a low life before this speech, they do now. He should at least hope that he doesn’t need a borderline vote of the Court between here and when he leaves office. I would even extend this through much of the federal judiciary.
It was politically stupid. I would assume that it was red meat to his base. But they will have forgotten this long after those who were offended by it still remember it. Bruce Hayden(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
What’s the next step? Issuing decisions without waiting for litigants or a cert petition? Eviscerating some 200-year-old precedent? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
.
Nothing in there that three or four Obama appointments to the Court couldn’t cure, or appointing half of the broader federal judiciary. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Kuzbad says:
I quite frankly wish people would boo, jeer, cheer, gesture, etc. Every year I find myself absolutely disgusted by the state of the union address. Empty talk and slogans I can deal with (it IS politics after all) but the minutes of self-praise (ie, applause) from the congress gets old, fast. A 70 minute speech with what–90?–interruptions? Bah!
I don’t really know what the fascination with decorum and codes of behavior in congress are. It’s not like it’s always been so uptight! (I draw the line at Preston Brooks) Kuzbad(Quote)
Oren says:
Wow, for what are (putatively) professionals, they sure seem touchy about being criticized by those that disagree with them.
[Aside, for those that just stopped in, I’ve been a firm supporter of their decision. That doesn’t mean it is outside the bounds of normal political dispute. Obama disagrees with the decision, that’s his right just like everyone else’s.] Oren(Quote)
neurodoc says:
POTUS should make no disapproving comments about Supreme Court decisions at any time or just when the Justices are in the audience? Should the Justices have been given a heads up so they could have stayed home, or should they stay home every year to avoid such awkwardness?
Also, are the members of the President’s party tipped off in advance so they will know when to stand up or do they all just react “spontaneously?” Where there times when everyone stood up to applaud? (I didn’t watch it except for a short snatch which sounded to my hears like a campaign speech. Should the SOTU be distinctly different from a campaign speech, or do they all come down to campaign speeches with just a veneer of non-partisanship?) neurodoc(Quote)
Aaron says:
“How about an LLC formed with Saudi money under the laws of Wisconsin, and with an Americans ‘controlling’ it?”
Reasonable minds may disagree, but I personally have no problem with Saudi funds bankrolling a $130 filing fee. Aaron(Quote)
B.D. says:
Hey orca, I can’t wait to see these lists. B.D.(Quote)
CrazyTrain says:
I don’t see anything wrong with Alito’s reaction — it was not like he was yelling at the President like Joe Wilson. Clearly, he was just muttering to himself and forgot that the cameras are on him — a rookie mistake.
At the same time, the righties who are criticizing Obama for having the temerity to criticize the Supreme Court are really ridiculous. If the Supreme Court invalidates a popular Congressional statute (rightly or wrongly), they should expect to get criticized publicly by a President who supports that statute for it. Just like if state court judges invalidate marriage laws, a different President is going to criticize those “activist judges” in the State of the Union as well. What’s the difference? Is it that the Supremes were there and Obama should not have criticized their decision when they were present? He should only criticize court decisions if the Judges who rendered the opinions aren’t at the State of the Union? I am dying to hear the justification for this new righty talking point: The Supreme Court should never be publicly criticized!!! Especially not if they are present — they are too delicate to take the criticism. Please. CrazyTrain(Quote)
Dave R. says:
Alito’s response might have been out of line to any lesser provocation, but I don’t see how you can separate it from Obama’s statement, which was itself way over the line, as well as apparently untrue. (Even if you can construe a case where it is true, it’s doubtful Alito intended or believes it to be true.) “This year’s Joe Wilson” isn’t going to stick with anybody but the far left.
It’ll be interesting to see how many justices attend next year, if any. Dave R.(Quote)
Perseus says:
If President Obama is so concerned about paying “due respect to the separation of powers,” why is he delivering a speech in Congress (king-in-parliament style) in the first place? His potshot at the Court’s decision was pure demagoguery (not that there are no reasonable grounds to disagree with the decision), and yet another reason why President Woodrow Wilson’s resurrection and popularization of the State of the Union address should be abandoned (rendering moot the question of whether justices should attend). Perseus(Quote)
good reverend says:
Go back a bit and you will find that Presidential reaction to Supreme Court opinions was fairly common in the early– to mid-1900s (which is far back as I’m willing to go this evening). Discussion of the Court was very common in State of the Union addresses when they were delivered as a letter to Congress (it wasn’t until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson began giving actual speeches for the SOTU; the last SOTU speech had been given by Washington, and Jefferson thought a speech would be monarchical). Most of the references to the Court have to do with judicial salaries and the burden of the Court’s docket, with the occasional appeal to confirm a nominee.
But there are a few reactions to Court decisions (which decisions, exactly, I haven’t had time to look up). Most of the reactions were deferential to the Court, but it’s quite clear that the Court isn’t immune to criticism (or, at least, appeals to Congress to fix with proper legislation whatever perceived problems were created by the Court’s decisions) during State of the Union addresses.
- Eisenhower, in 1953: “The invalidation of [FDA] inspections by the Supreme Court of December 8, 1952, was based solely on the fact that the present law contained inconsistent and unclear provisions. These must be promptly corrected.”
- FDR, 1937 (unclear if he’s reacting to a particular decision, or is speaking generally about multiple decisions — apologies, I’m a pitiful 1L just beginning ConLaw): “The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government.”
- Harding in 1922: “Closely related to this problem of education is the abolition of child labor. Twice Congress has attempted the correction of the evils incident to child employment. The decision of the Supreme Court has put 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.”
- Taft, 1910: “the purpose of the framers of the law [regarding 8-hour days] was ultimately defeated by a decision of the Supreme Court holding that the statute as drawn was merely a direction of the Government to its agents and did not invalidate a contract made in behalf of the Government which provided in the contract for labor for a day of longer hours than eight.”
- Taft, 1911, drones on about a number of cases.
- Theodore Roosevelt, 1905, discusses a Supreme Court decision dealing with Native Americans becoming citizens.
- Roosevelt, 1906, relayed another body’s criticism of a law and noted, “[t]his means that the law as construed by the Supreme Court is such that the business of the country can not be conducted without breaking it.” I must admit I do not fully understand the conflict he’s talking about. He further goes on to note that the Court had issued opinions regarding the constitutionality of an income tax. The next year, he explicitly refrained from commenting on a case currently before the Court, then went on to note that another case was before the Court and encouraged Congress to expand the law if it were held to be constitutional.
- Roosevelt, 1908, noting that the Court had struck down a statute concerning employers’ liability, seemingly criticized both the Court and the Congress for passing a poorly-drafted law: “It was, however, adjudged unconstitutional by a bare majority of the court–five to four. It was surely a very slovenly piece of work to frame the legislation in such shape as to leave the question open at all.” good reverend(Quote)
CDU says:
Perhaps because it’s mentioned in the constitution?
CDU(Quote)
CrazyTrain says:
Et tu Randy Barnett; repeating cheap Glenn Reynoldsian talking points? I never would hav pegged Randy Barnett as a guy who would be so offended by the President criticizing the Supreme Court. I’d like to hear his justification for the “attacks”* by President Bush on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in his state of the union.
Seriously, Randy is offended that the Congress supposedly “jeered” a court decision???? Big deal — who does he think is on the Court, a bunch of schoolgirls? CrazyTrain(Quote)
NickM says:
So they can employ their friends and relatives at jobs where they set the pay and there’s essentially no work involved?
BTW, the ACLU supported the petitioners. I guess the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is getting really, really vast.
Nick NickM(Quote)
neurodoc says:
Couldn’t he just mail it in, no requirement that he deliver it in the form of a speech, is there? neurodoc(Quote)
Ricardo says:
So now any criticism of Supreme Court Justices or their decisions is an unfair attack? Or is it only unfair when Obama does it? Is that the memo that is being circulated these days? Ricardo(Quote)
rpt says:
I am corrected. What about the Saudis? rpt(Quote)
CDU says:
As Dave N pointed out, media companies were already exempt from even before the Citizens United decision. CDU(Quote)
Today's Tom Sawyer says:
Actually, there is another exception I’m surprised no one has pointed out, which is political action committees and councils devoted towards nationality-based relations and foreign relations (something of a list here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Foreign_policy_political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States ) If the real concern on the left was foreign involvement period, then by their vary nature, these organizations should have no place in American politics since they can serve as a method of funneling money from abroad to public. However, they’re given a free pass as special interest groups, which are I guess somehow less of a foreign intrusion on American politics than corporations. Isn’t it amazing to watch the supposedly culturally sensitive party exhibit rampant xenophobia (and not just unions for once)? Today’s Tom Sawyer(Quote)
Jimo says:
Query: is Citigroup a U.S. corporation or a foreign one?
Americans might be shocked to hear that it isn’t American. The Saudis, UAEers(?), Chinese, Indonesians, British, Canadians, and people of every country on earth might be shocked to hear that their share don’t equate with ownership. Ditto ... well, every major corporation in the world.
The fact is there isn’t anything “inaccurate” about the claims despite what the NYT might say. J. Kennedy sets aside foreign corporations for another day in a footnote. J. Stephens points our directly in his dissent that the rule set out by the majority cannot possible corral off foreign corporations in either rationality or practice. Transnational corporations are just that — transnational, or perhaps more accurately, ‘ana-national.’ It’s an inevitable problem when you start pretending that things are people.
Point, Game, Match Obama. Jimo(Quote)
Alan says:
What amazes me is that Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy showed up at all. They’re not stupid. They had to have known that Obama was going to criticize the ruling in Citizens United. They simply shouldn’t have shown up.
I sense that Roberts showed up because he has this great romantic notion of the three branches of government engaging in hand-holding and Kumbaya, so that he wants the Justices to show respect for the other branches by showing up to the State of the Union. (Just like having the new POTUS and VP come to the Supreme Court as a show of respect. Nauseating.) I really hope I’m wrong about that, because it’s ludicrous naivete if it’s what he feels. Alan(Quote)
Perseus says:
Exactly, neurdoc. There’s no requirement for a speech in Congress. The British House of Commons at least slams the door in the face of the Crown’s representative (to demonstrate its independence) before attending the speech. Woodrow Wilson explicitly sought to have the president use popular rhetoric directed at both the Congress and the people (who he hoped would pressure Congress) to overcome the separation of powers, and he resurrected the practice of the president delivering the State of the Union address in person for that purpose. Perseus(Quote)
drunkdriver says:
Your post is interesting as always neurodoc, and while I speak for no one but myself I’d say that it wasn’t the fact that he criticized the decision it was the way he did it– it smacked of bullying to gin up an applause line with hostile congresscritters literally surrounding the justices. Especially since they couldn’t respond, even with the meager substitute of calling a press conference later.
Copies of the speech are distributed in advance and I’ll leave it to others to say this for sure, but yes I think the applause points are actually indicated– and if not, it’s usually obvious. drunkdriver(Quote)
Borris says:
Doesn’t Alito know that any criticism of Obama is a act of “straight up” racism?
Well, I assume Carter, Matthews, et al. will be ready tomorrow to explain it to him Borris(Quote)
LN says:
Obama gave the SOTU speech in front of Congress? The sheer arrogance and gall of the Obamination is stunning. Who does he think he is, a king? Some kind of African dictator? That a supposed Constitutional scholar would not restrict himself to e-mailing Congress the text of his speech is mind-blowing.
And then he criticized justices on the Supreme Court? The judiciary is the most venerated branch of the federal government, and all of the American people have always had the utmost faith in their ability to strictly interpret all legislation in accordance with the Constitution. And he made them the target of demagoguery! Oh how vile! LN(Quote)
llamasex says:
I think Alito’s response was human and fine. I also think Obama calling out a Supreme Court decision is fine, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think otherwise. People are free to disagree about things,including the law. Voicing those disagreements isn’t attacking or insulting it is what should happen in a democracy. Even if the other person is there in front of you. llamasex(Quote)
Manju says:
Does anyone know to what Obama was referring when he said::
My question revolves around “century.” I was under the impression that the oldest decison to reversed was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which occured in 1990. Manju(Quote)
Ricardo says:
Presumably, Congress could do away with the State of the Union address in Congress if it wanted to. I’m not sure the State of the Union address is high up on the list of actions Presidents have taken that threaten the separation of powers. Ricardo(Quote)
S.E.E. says:
It’s far past time to deroyalize the Presidency. Hopefully, the next Congress will refuse the President use of its chambers for a political speech, directing him to send them a written report on the state of the Union instead, as was submitted by Presidents such as Jefferson, Madison, Polk, Lincoln, and (Theodore) Roosevelt. S.E.E.(Quote)
Oren says:
It’s odd that CrazyTrain and I agree almost exactly on something. The end is nigh! Oren(Quote)
Perseus says:
The forum and manner of the criticism matters. Having the president engage in demagogic attacks with cheers from
jackalsCongressmen while members of the judiciary are present (and in no position to respond) apes mob rule. Perseus(Quote)Alan says:
Amazing, isn’t it? If Congress passes a law that you agree with, you treat it as a precedent. This way, if the Supreme Court invalidates the law, you can say that it was overturning a precedent (even though it wasn’t, because the Court, not Congress, is the judge of the limits on Congress’s powers). If a certain kind of law is a century old, but the Court has only spent the last 20 years smiling on that kind of law, then treating the century-old practice as if it were a precedent will enable you to pretend that the Court is being super-activist because it’s allegedly throwing away an entire century of judicial understandings.
But then, Obama isn’t an honest man anyway, is he? He excoriated the practice of holding up his nominees, when he himself voted to filibuster the Alito nomination. Alan(Quote)
rpt says:
Borris, we’ve missed you. rpt(Quote)
Brian K says:
Thanks for finding the link.
I too would like to know why criticizing judges suddenly became one of the most horrible things a person can do once obama stepped into office.
My guess would be that it has something to do with why deficits suddenly became evil, terrorists who failed at setting their clothing bombs off should be mirandized or tried in court, filibusters are suddenly good, nothing deserves an “up or down vote”, US congressmen speaking out against the US on foreign soil is now okay, and number of conservative flip flops on what is now acceptable. Brian K(Quote)
Oren says:
While they didn’t overrule Buckley v. Valeo, they didn’t exactly strengthen it either. Oren(Quote)
dcp says:
The SC is too classy to offer any public comments of rebuttal.
The one night of the year a majority of Americans even sees or hears of Supreme Court justices and he calls them out like that, with them right in front of him, and every major network zoomed in on them?
I have a feeling they will respond to that slight in the form of some subtle “f–k you too” opinions. If history has taught us anything, it’s that it really doesn’t pay to go after them in such a personal way. dcp(Quote)
Volokh Groupie says:
I came here to point out what today’s tom sawyer said, except less acerbically. I don’t see either of the two (the president or justice alito) being particularly in the wrong here but for those political scientists concerned with separation of powers and the interaction between the executive and judiciary I’m sure what seems like an unusually specific and pointed criticism in the SOTU will be interesting to speculate about. The ‘foreign corporations’ line was certainly a strange line of attack as well.
And for the previous poster who was trying to claim the statute invalidated was popular, there are conflicting polls that have suggested that isn’t the case. Volokh Groupie(Quote)
Manju says:
Alan:
I think you think I was being clever but I was just being earnest. You’re speaking above my head. So, it appears Obama was referring to century-old laws being overturned, not precedents. Now, putting ascide for a moment whether or not that’s deceitful, what were those laws?
Are you saying there were laws on the books that prevented corporations from engaging in political speech but no one ever challenged them until Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, where they were upheld?
I mean, Adler said in another post:
.
Is this inaccurate? Was an individual’s corporate identity sufficient basis to suppress their free-speech rights b/f 1990 or not? Manju(Quote)
Perseus says:
I would suggest that because you are accustomed to modern popular presidential rhetoric, you fail to see how Wilson saw having the president give the State of Union Address in person and in a popular manner as establishing a major precedent in making popular presidential routine (such that the State of the Union Address per se is no longer so important now that the president gives speeches all the time in various forums). With written messages to Congress, Wilson complained, “he [the president] argues and he urges–he cannot command. ...how different are those answers are which are given with the pen from a private office from those with the tongue when the Speaker is looking an assembly in the face.” Wilson’s overarching purpose was to use presidential rhetoric to mold public opinion directly and use it as a weapon against Congress. While some presidents are better at it than others, there’s little question that the practice has enhanced the power of the presidency at the expense of Congress. Perseus(Quote)
James N. Gibson says:
Question is, now many American’s other then the faithful were actually watching? And yes I did, up to the slap on the court. James N. Gibson(Quote)
James N. Gibson says:
And lets remember that FDR had just as much trouble with his court. How did FDR try to solve it, by, as ArthurKirkland states, making a few appointments. Only FDR didn’t wait for the judge to vacate his seat. James N. Gibson(Quote)
Constantin says:
I would have loved for Obama to stop and ask Alito to share his rebuttal with the rest of the class.
Yeah, I’d have loved to see it too. I have a feeling it would turn out a little different than you do, though. And I’ll keep thinking it until I get a look at Barack’s college transcript and LSAT. I just don’t think he’s particularly bright. And I think when he’s looking in that mirror, he knows he’s not, too. Constantin(Quote)
Mike McDougal says:
I also don’t have a problem with his reaction. Mild head shaking and inaudible mumbling of words is not something I’m going to worry about. Mike McDougal(Quote)
loki says:
Hi,
Just want to go on record and state that there is a loki13 and loki (me) posting on volokh.com. I only read one post of his (and I do not agree nor disagree with it), I just want to throw this out there.
Thanks VC.
Loki loki(Quote)
JM Hanes says:
I was stunned by the President’s assault on the Court. JM Hanes(Quote)
Ricardo says:
My point is first that Congress can put an end to this tradition anytime it wants to. Moreover, Wilson’s logic and thinking is obsolete since he was speaking right around the time when mass media was coming into existence and before FDR’s fireside chats and weekly radio addresses. And certainly long before televised press conferences and all manner of public speeches that are broadcast on live TV not only in the U.S. but to anyone anywhere in the world with cable.
Which speech will people remember most from the Bush Administration: one of his State of the Union speeches or the one he delivered from the aircraft carrier with the “Mission Accomplished” banner in the background? In the TV era, the State of the Union address is a pretty second-rate affair. Ricardo(Quote)
methodact says:
If the Court looked surprised or took umbrage at the President’s SOTU criticism of Citizens United, it should not take long for the effects to play out and prove, one way or another, who is right.
I remember when Elizabeth Warren was sounding hue and cry about the coming financial crisis. She was proved right and so she was made chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) “charged by Congress with evaluating how effectively the TARP money is used”.
I remember having debates in chat with Swedes around some 5 years ago who insisted that Sweden had a Constitution, and so because of that, file sharing would never be criminalized. I insisted back that the FBI and the US State Department were in their country, as we chatted, leaning on their government to get with the program, and that no nation could long defy the will of United States.
Sweden had among the most liberal of sex laws, but our government soon changed that. I recently posted a link on VC to a story about Sweden going nuts over “grooming”, supposedly going on on the Internet, and that because they couldn’t establish a problem, they needed a massive campaign to alert people. That was clearly influenced from outside of Sweden.
So here is the I-told-you-so link about Sweden working to take down the Internet, this time over file-sharing. Since foreign affairs are secret here by Executive Order, our government’s interference remains shielded from proper discovery and FOIA. Once secret cabals have crafted their laws into treaties, we the People are out of the loop as far as there being much that we can do. There is no informed consent of US citizens to International Treaties, made in stealth.
Of course, this warning will prove itself out, one way or another soon, too, much like Elizabeth Warren’s warning on what they were doing to the economy. These powerful forces work in stealth. methodact(Quote)
De Minimis Matt says:
This would seem to be the most reasonable comment. Obama’s representation of the implications of Citizens United was hardly a “lie” — it was a reasonable interpretation at best, potentially a slippery-slope fallacy at worst. The implications could absolutely alter the way politics is done, and it does deserve comment. It’s not like Obama claimed he would invoke presidential perogative to ignore the ruling. (Signing statements — there’s a good example of disrepsect for the separation of powers.)
Presidents have been publically critical of the Court too many times to count. If there was the first time it happened in an SOU, it will be at most a footnote. It is a total red herring to suggest that Obama gets a pass that W would not have. Simply put (a) the W administration would not have dissed the Court over this — it would have loved it; (b) if the W administration had been handed a setback by the Court that could reasonably be described as nonsense, he would have and could have said so, and quite often did. De Minimis Matt(Quote)
Perseus says:
Modern mass media technology made the use of popular rhetoric easier, but it did not cause the change. Presidents could have made popular speeches (and used newspapers) prior to Wilson, but strict presidential decorum prevented them from doing so, which is why Congress cited Andrew Johnson’s unprecedented use of popular rhetoric it deemed “peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate” as grounds for the 10th article of impeachment. Modern mass media technology could only be exploited once it became acceptable for the president to use popular rhetoric. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, and then especially with the intellectual assault and practices of Woodrow Wilson, the traditional presidential rhetorical norms were eroded. (As for President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech, it’s not the speech, but the big sign behind him with those words that people–especially those with BDS–will most remember). Perseus(Quote)
Perseus says:
I wonder what Attorney General Holder’s personal views were on the president’s remarks (he dutifully stood and applauded but didn’t appear to look over at the justices when the president made them). Luckily for him, he’s not likely to appear before the justices anytime soon. Perseus(Quote)
Jeff Walden says:
Thanks for the further research, good reverend; quite informative. At least by my interpretation solely of the fragments you quote Obama reference to the Court is more (to borrow a word from former Justice O’Connor) unseemly than the ones you enumerate. Only Roosevelt 1906 appears to potentially cross the line of propriety; the rest seemed more to acknowledge decisions than to criticize them. In particular exhorting Congress to address past legislative errors recognized by the Court seems entirely appropriate to me. (“What you’ve written isn’t clear enough for us to work with it; please write a clearer, more precise law.” “Okay, Congress, let’s get to work doing so.”)
I doubt Alito’s happy his actions made it on camera, but I don’t think his actions were wholly improper. Only close observers looking specifically for reaction would have seen it, and it won’t make ripples outside of the few people who actually make the effort to follow coverage at that level of detail. A response by lip-reading of someone speaking only to himself is wholly different from a clearly communicative response intended to be seen or heard by others.
I agree that it does feel a bit tacky for Obama to speak against the decision directly to the Court (among many others) as part of a captive audience, knowing that they can’t and won’t respond to the criticisms. (Congressmen, in contrast, have all the opportunity in the world [arguably duty] to respond.) However, it doesn’t seem particularly unacceptable or shameful as potential slights or breaches of etiquette might go. I wonder how much of any individual justice’s decision to attend is simply knowing that all the other justices would be there as well. The Court must act as one in choosing or declining to attend, else the end result might well be worse than the fallout from this exercise in disagreement-detecting lip-reading.
I join others in wishing the Court would choose not to attend. Being seen as above the fray is a precious thing, and they don’t really gain anything by being there (and might potentially lose something, as may conceivably happen in this instance). Jeff Walden(Quote)
lonetown says:
“may have been inaccurate”???
apparently federal funding is at risk or what can explain such sloppiness? lonetown(Quote)
rarango says:
lets go back to the days when the president submitted a letter to congress and we can forget this kabuki dance the stou has become.
didnt watch it and judging from the comments am glad I didnt-the pundits and commentariat will tell me everything I need to know rarango(Quote)
Robert Bloomfield says:
Yes, this was my impression. Moreover, this seems to be exactly the sort of outcome-based (as opposed to law– or constitution-based) reasoning that is supposed to be in the realm of politics, not the court. To me, Alito betrays his activism–apparently, his decision was based not on his reading of the constitution, but on his belief that the decision wouldn’t open the floodgates to special interest spending. Robert Bloomfield(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Obama has once against shown his tin ear for protocol. He set out to embarrass the Supreme Court and succeeded. But to what end? Personal gratification. In my opinion, Obama shows signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists often lack the capacity for empathy, and we have a good example of that here. Perhaps if he could have put himself in their place, he wouldn’t have acted out. But he can’t because his universe has only one inhabitant.
Of course no one can really offer a definitive diagnosis without an in depth examination, and that’s not going to happen. Nevertheless much of Obama’s behavior matches the signs of NPD. A. Zarkov(Quote)
Pete Freans says:
Legal theory aside, why shouldn’t a Justice react the way Alito did? If there was a case pending before the Court and not yet heard, then his reaction would have been inappropriate. Justice Alito made his decision and he’s standing by it, regardless which president happens to be addressing Congress. Pete Freans(Quote)
Midlantan says:
The focus on the “foreign corporations” line seems to have died down a bit in this thread, so perhaps post commenters have gone back to look at the tape, but just to be clear — Alito started his little melodrama (shaking his head with the exasperated sigh) in reaction to the claim that the decision would “open the floodgates to special interests.” His ostentatious mouthing of “simply not true” for the benefit of the TV cameras occurred immediately after the additional line “including foreign corporations,” and appears to be in reaction to that last bit especially, and perhaps also to what proceded it. But if criticism Alito for not sitting stone-faced and reactionless is warranted, it’s not as though Alito is vindicated by arguing that the CU decisions does not “open the floodgates” for “foreign corporations” to influence elections.
I guess I’m not surprised by the orgy of umbrage in which VC commenters and partisan pundits are engaging. But it doesn’t seem like that big a deal for Alito to do this. It may be impolite, but it’s certainly not without precedent. Even before Joe Wilson “opened the floodgates” for vociferous heckling last year, the kabuki ritual of one side rising for ovation while the other sits still (with the occasional groan, hiss, or harumph) has been going on for quite a while. If the SOTU were more like the question session for Britain’s PM, it would probably be better for the country, but I suspect it would lose something in the translation from to American. If we’re concerned that Supremes shouldn’t be telegraphing their preferences for all to see, Alito’s pantomime of his personal opinion for an audience of VIPs and C-SPAN cameras seems preferable to Scalia’s frequent public pontificating, at least. However, I do hope that Alito and other judges will keep his outburst (mild though it may have been) in mind the next time they seek to scold and censure someone in the galleries of their courtrooms for similar outbursts. (Rightly or wrongly, to act as Alito did would likely earn someone a stern rebuke, if not a contempt citation, in many judges’ courtooms.)
As for those criticizing Obama’s lines about the Court and CU as out of line, I can only ask: out of what line? This was certainly not the first time a president has criticized judicial decisions in the SOTU, and if we’re counting non-SOTU speeches, then last night’s line must mark something like the umpteen thousandth time presidents have criticized something a court has done (although perhaps only a few thousand of those have been of the Supreme Court specifically). You may disagree with the criticism of CU, but that doesn’t mean criticism of a Supreme Court decision is a breach of decorum. Midlantan(Quote)
LTR says:
Kenyan etiquette FTW. LTR(Quote)
martin morgan says:
So the Court upholds free speech. The president throws some free speech their way. Next issue. martin morgan(Quote)
COTUSA says:
Saying that foreign corporations are barred by statute isn’t at all interesting/noteworthy since we are dealing with a constitutional issue... COTUSA(Quote)
DaveW says:
I think it is one thing to argue the decision is wrong in a political context (as part of a campaign or in arguing for a legislative correction, assuming that’s possible) and quite another to bash members of the court sitting right before you on national TV in a SOTU.
All 6 justices looked appalled to me and I was embarrassed for them. Obama doesn’t seem to understand presidential decorum very well. DaveW(Quote)
Tonetel says:
This is ridiculous from the start.
A little stroll down Memory Lane...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html
Tonetel(Quote)
Prosecutorial Indiscretion says:
Didn’t President Obama receive a ton of shady money from overseas as a result of not putting any checks on his online fundraising apparatus? And didn’t President Obama outspend McCain by about five to one last election cycle? I do not think he’s in a strong position to gripe about campaign financing. Prosecutorial Indiscretion(Quote)
anon1234 says:
Most of you are appalled because Alito is just what you are — smart, pompous a**holes who will twist the law any way they want to get the desired result. The Citizens United decision is a mish-mash of strawmen and overreaching just to get to the place where they can rule on a constitutional issue dropped by the litigant. It’s as crappy and partisan a decision as Bush v. Gore (except most of you jerks think that was judicial brilliance). anon1234(Quote)
Ricardo says:
Zarkov, rather than armchair psychiatry, the better angle might be to compare Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court to a long string of politicized attacks on the Court stretching back, pretty much, to the beginning of the Republic. It’s a violation of protocol to criticize the Supreme Court while the justices are in the same room? Now who has regal pretensions? Obama is not exactly Andrew Jackson or FDR here. He’s doing what all politicians do by playing to the base.
Perseus, your theory is interesting but I’d say popular rhetoric began with expanded suffrage and the Populist movement. As you yourself admit, it stretches back to Teddy Roosevelt, not Wilson. Mass media along with universal suffrage makes it inevitable that the most charismatic public speaker will tend to have a big advantage and will exploit that advantage. Jefferson may not have wanted to appear regal in making a State of the Union address, but it’s also said that he was a terrible public speaker and a bit of an introvert. He would never survive in today’s politics.
You’re trying to attribute the change in norms to one particular person and one change he made when it’s more clearly due to many factors. If you don’t like demagogues as presidents, the solution is to either restrict the franchise or turn the U.S. into a parliamentary democracy where the leader is chosen by party elites. Nobody ever accused, say, Gordon Brown in the U.K. of excessively fiery rhetoric. Ricardo(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
Yes, A. Zarkov! If Obama had any empathy, he wouldn’t criticize a Supreme Court decision he disagrees with! All the people above and all the previous Presidents that criticized SCOTUS decisions are crazy as well! You may just be the only sane person around here anymore!
This thread rocks. It’s like a talking points retrospective. With little or not relevance, you’ve got “straight up racism” guy, and Constantin’s “LSATs or dumb” post, and orca not citing something.
Good times, good times. Sarcastro(Quote)
Anderson says:
I was stunned by the President’s assault on the Court.
Some people need to get out more.
There is no Constitutional requirement that the coequal branches of government respect, admire, or like one another.
... The “foreign corporations” line was there because it’s the kind of thing that plays well on Fox News, at least when it’s not coming from a black Democratic president.
Obama keeps taking some private ironic pleasure in such doomed appeals to the Right. It’s sure as hell not helping him get anything accomplished, however. Anderson(Quote)
Joe says:
Maybe, if they didn’t decide the issue like last week or something, it wouldn’t have been such a raw matter that would logically be addressed in the SOTU? On that grounds, bad timing. If they stuck with the narrow grounds (I know ... now there was no way to do this; their consistency on the subject impresses me) last June, perhaps the matter would still be pending, and we wouldn’t have this drama?
Obama was obviously going to comment on the subject and be on the side of the dissent, which Alito would have disagreed with. Did Alito make funny faces when Stevens discussed his views in conference too? Joe(Quote)
Anderson says:
Obama has once against shown his tin ear for protocol.
–A. Zarkov. Anderson(Quote)
Donald Kilmer says:
So we can expect Obama to appoint Justices who will cherry pick those rights among The Bill of Rights that they (and he) deem important to the repbublic.
I seem to recall that Senator Obama was against the Second Amendment, before Candidate Obama was for the Second Amendment during his campaign and as part of the post-Heller hoopala.
Go figure. Donald Kilmer(Quote)
John says:
Had to be the reference to reversing a century of precedent that stuck in Justice Alito’s craw. From the reargument:
JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Waxman, all of this talk
about 100 years and 50 years is perplexing. It sounds
like the sort of sound bites that you hear on TV. The
– the fact of the matter is that the only cases that
are being — that may possibly be reconsidered are
McConnell and Austin. And they don’t go back 50 years,
and they don’t go back 100 years. John(Quote)
Steve says:
The point is that if activity has been regulated for decades or centuries without any thought of a constitutional issue, that makes a difference. Scalia certainly finds it relevant in the culture-war cases, for example. Steve(Quote)
You're not so apolitical yourself says:
If the Supreme Court is going to take on a political question, such as regulation by Congress (in a relatively bipartisan fashion) and the President of who can contribute to their own elections, the Supreme Court invites a political response. By issuing the decision within a week before the State of the Union address, they — with the apparent exception of Justice Alito — had to know this would come up.
I do agree with others that it was not so cool for TV networks to use an advance copy of the speech to train the cameras right on the Justices as the line was being uttered. You’re not so apolitical yourself(Quote)
PubliusFL says:
Ah, so it’s not McConnell or Austin that has been around for 100 years, but McCain-Feingold? I didn’t think Sen. McCain was THAT old! PubliusFL(Quote)
DarkHelmet says:
I didn’t watch. I never do. The spectacle is disgusting. A written state of the union report delivered to Congress would fulfill the Constitutional requirement.
On the substance: let’s review the relevant text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing in there about foreign vs. domestic, corporate vs. natural person, or anything else. The First Amendment does not confer “rights” on anyone or anything. It PROHIBITS Congress from passing laws that restrict speech and the press. I’m not sure how much more plainly it can be stated. McCain Feingold is unconstitutional from top to bottom, and the provisions recently struck down are among the most egregious. Congress MAY NOT restrict political speech. Unless they want to repeal the First Amendment.
Now, moving from principle to practical reality, show me any evidence that any ‘campaign finance laws’ have had the effect of reducing the influence of money in politics. Did campaign spending drop in the wake of McCain Feingold or its predecessors?
There is only one way to reduce the influence of money on politics and that is to reduce the influence of politics on money. The only reason vast sums are expended to influence politics is that politicians currently have almost unlimited power to redirect wealth from an unfavored constituency to a favored constituency. Response: every interest needs to spend on politicians either affirmitively (bribes for favors) or negatively (protection money to avoid expropriation.)
Limit the reach of government and you will see the influence of money shrink. DarkHelmet(Quote)
byomtov says:
Sorry, Obama’s characterization was accurate. It’s pretty easy for foreigners to control an “American” corporation, so Brad Smith’s pedantic argument is no refutation at all, and Alito had no reason to shake his head.
As for the propriety of Presidential criticism, let’s not get the vapors here. Presidents, and presidential candidates, have been criticizing the court forever, on grounds good and bad, and getting cheered for it too. So relax. byomtov(Quote)
jccamp says:
As an aside, did anyone else enjoy the juxtaposition of camera shots alternating between standing, ebullient looking Dems, and seated, glum, frowning Republicans? I just had to laugh out loud.
Buffoons engaged in tomfoolery, one and all...I thought Pelosi looked especially demented last night.
Back to the OP, I thought the President could have phrased his criticism a little milder, considering that (some of) the Justices were present and would later be unable to respond. As stated, I don’t think what he said was completely accurate. But it was the President’s night and his stage. He gets to say what he wants. The Justices certainly could have reasonably expected some degree of verbal spanking. Maybe next year, they can catch on the tube over pizza and beer at Sonia’s.
All in all, it’s one of those “get over it” moments. jccamp(Quote)
Owen H. says:
It was inappropriate for the president to say what he did, but yoy think it likely and acceptable that the Justices would rule against him because of the words rather than the merits of the case?
Heck, four of the Justices agree with him, remember? Owen H.(Quote)
californiamom says:
Why do members of the Supreme Court attend what is at its root a political rally? They should be seen as above that sort of thing (although we know they aren’t). But the image of the court would be better if they did not attend at all. californiamom(Quote)
D.R.M. says:
Colby Cosh, on the SOTU:
D.R.M.(Quote)
1040 says:
apparently, the flow to “foreign” corporations is only one way. cf. the concern about any attempt to increase any corporate taxes would automatically lead to a flow of capital outside the country with companies nominally headquartered abroad but doing business in the u.s. but anybody who says anything about the converse — why, they must be blithering idiots or demagogues! (why not both, i ask?) 1040(Quote)
1040 says:
as for alito, i don’t know why people are criticizing what was so obviously a kind bipartisan gesture to the most junior member of the court, proving her statement that a wise latina has a better judgment than a white man. 1040(Quote)
Eric Rasmusen says:
I actually approve of Presidents vigorously condemning the Supreme Court and its opinions. That isn’t the problem here. The problem is that it shows real ignorance of the fact that Congress can’t reverse a constitutional decision by statute. See
http://rasmusen.dreamhosters.com/b/2010/01/879/ Eric Rasmusen(Quote)
The Colonel says:
I just spent some time looking at the comment section of the Linda Greenhouse opinion piece on the NYT. Majority of the comments voice a belief that the supreme court “stole” the Bush Gore election. From this viewpoint springs a Meme that the President was merely trying to put a corrupted court in check.
So much for the Gray lady...and her readership. The Colonel(Quote)
Joe - Dallas says:
Didn’t one of the candidates in the 2008 campaign collect significant amounts of money via internet donations and had intentionally turned off the safeguards in the credit card processing systems so the location of the donor could not be traced. Maybe a little hypocritical to condemn the ruling under the circumstances. Joe — Dallas(Quote)
Giannis says:
I have a somewhat unrelated question:
In Roberts’ concurrence, he cites Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (Slip Op., at 7) but instead of “Pena” writes “Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200.” I don’t think that’s the official name of the case, even though it’s technically correct (i.e., that’s how you spell his last name in Spanish).
But what about in English? And what are the limits? If the famous Taiwanese director Ang Lee were to commit a crime, would the case be styled: “United States v. 李安”? Doubtfully so.... Giannis(Quote)
Mark Field says:
That was a euphemistic way of saying they believed Johnson was drunk while delivering his speeches.
As I see the merits of this issue, I’d prefer that the Court not attend at all; it’s awkward no matter what happens.
As others have noted, Presidents have previously criticized the Court — Lincoln criticized Dred Scott in his First Inaugural. I’d prefer they not do that, but they’re certainly free to do so and have always done.
Alito’s reaction was wrong IMO. Judges are not supposed to react; a poker face is part of judicial temperament.
The real problem is that we have a hard right Court which continues to impose its activist notions of “law” on the nation. Until the Justices themselves stop letting their politics control the outcome of cases, criticism is going to be inevitable. Mark Field(Quote)
Vader says:
Well, the discussion here has convinced me of one thing:
Any restriction on speech, based on who is making or funding the speech, is a rat’s nest.
I would prefer to see restrictions limited to time, place and manner. We already disallow any restrictions on “what”; we really ought to disallow restrictions on “who” as well.
I don’t care if the “who” is foreign, at least from a regulatory perspective. The public needs no legal prohibition to feel umbrage at heavy financing from foreign sources. And requiring that the “who” be disclosed comfortably fits into regulating the manner of speech. Vader(Quote)
1040 says:
i am curious: why not? i certainly remembering scalia mouthing off more than once about how people should get over bush v gore.
i just hope obama does not need to fear a visit from alito’s consiglieri now... 1040(Quote)
Cato The Elder says:
Notice how there’s no talk about “elevating the discourse” or “gross distortions” in this thread. Imagine if it were the other way ’round — how much shrieking and hullaboo using those terms would we hear? That’s why I never pay heed to the Left’s moral appeals, their hypocrisy on the very same issues is just too overwhelming. Cato The Elder(Quote)
methodact says:
rarango & Midlantan:
Yes, kabuki theater. Even Senator Hatch’s umbrage now, as kabuki theater. And we’re all taken in by it. Hatch sits on that same Senate Intelligence committee that Jay Rockefeller does. Rockefeller has openly lamented the advent of the Internet.
DarkHelmet:
Ofc the First Amendment is written absolute. Nevermind that money might have some tangential nexus with commerce.
But the Supremes are not consistent. For instance, they simultaneously let stand a 17-year-sentence for a man possessing art mashups of images of kids’ faces morphed on pictures of adults, in the case, Christopher Allen v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
Consider what two other Echelon member-partners of the US are doing today. (BBC has reported that “the network is so secret that the British and American Governments refuse to admit that Echelon even exists”).
From todays The Register:
Cato The Elder says:
One thing I personally wanna know about foreign corporations is how much money exactly Obama is receiving from his new German venture, Hope! – Das Obama Musical. Who is controlling this New Ministry of Agitprop? Cato The Elder(Quote)
zuch says:
Prof. Kerr:
... as Obama’s solicitor general has to stand there and take it if dressed down by a Supe in oral argument. Sometimes you just have to get over yourself and your own importance and live with it.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
LTR says:
The thing that’s truly hilarious is that Supreme Court majority voted the way ACLU asked them to in the Citizens United case and now liberals are lying on the floor, crying about “hard right court imposing their notions of the law on the nation” and what not. So I guess ACLU is a hard right organization too. Is it time for American version of Blackshirts v. Brownshirts clash on the progressive fascist left? LTR(Quote)
AlanW says:
Thanks to Good Reverend for doing the research. The precedents won’t sway partisans, but it’s an interesting slice of history.
As for those who think the court shouldn’t attend, if they skip next year’s after this kerfluffle, they’re going to look mighty petty, aren’t they? AlanW(Quote)
1040 says:
the real question is.. is the aclu a hard left org as conservatives have painted it to be? 1040(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
They don’t have to sit there silently. They can shake their heads, move their fist back and forth, or Scalia can make his Sicilian gesture. ShelbyC(Quote)
Tonetel says:
Did anyone else notice Sen. Schumer in the background?
I thought for sure he was going to spill his beer all over Alito when Obama said that.
It reminded me of that scene in “Waterboy”, when Jimmy Johnson and Bill Cohwer are in the stands. Tonetel(Quote)
CMH says:
I’ll have to take a slightly more nuanced approach than does the good professor on this one. True, 441e prohibits foreign nationals (defined to include corporations) from making contributions, IEs, and the like, and that law was explicitly not addressed in Citizens United. But compelling argument can be made that the rationale of Citizens United logically extends to foreign nationals. This is a debatable point, so on the balance, Obama’s statement is incorrect. But to call it “blithering ignorance” is to overstate the status of prohibitions on spending by foreign nationals in a post-CU world.
If you’re right, then it really is something approaching “blithering ignorance” of the law. CU didn’t and doesn’t render “automatically” the law unenforceable to foreign corporations. The ban on political intervention by foreign nationals is from a entirely separate portion of the FECA. Again, there’s good arguments that the rationale leads to this result, but it’s not “automatically the case.
Fox is probably not a foreign corporation. By definition, a foreign corporation is one which is either incorporated under the laws of a foreign country or maintains its principal place of business in a foreign country. 2 USC 441e(b)(1), incorporating 22 USC 611(b)(3). Fox’s PPOB is certainly in the US, and I presume that it is incorporated in either Delaware or New York. Ownership (i.e., shareholders) and their citizenship or “foreignness” are irrelevant to the statutory test.
I hope you’re wrong. Call it naive, but I would like to think that the decisions of my Supreme Court justices aren’t swayed by a thirty second soundbite in a speech. Wasn’t insulating the Court from popular opinion or sentiment the justification for life tenure?
The oldest decision specifically reversed was Austin, correct. What he is referring to is a much older statue (1907 I believe) that prohibits direct corporate contributions to campaigns. Again, it’s not specifically overruled in CU, but by drastically changing the landscape for what is an acceptable justification for campaign finance restrictions, the prohibition is definitely called into question. For what it’s worth, Obama certainly isn’t the only person out there to use the “century old” characterization.
Sums it up pretty well I think. Good place to end an entirely too long comment. CMH(Quote)
Joe says:
In the screen capture, who are the two women behind Ginsburg and Kennedy? Joe(Quote)
Lex Rex says:
Gratuitous. Disrespectful. Demagoguery. So the speech was a of apiece. Lex Rex(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
I. Hate. Obama. So my comment is of apiece. Sarcastro(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Obama went way beyond criticism in the same room. This was a State of the Union address with the justices right in front of him. They had to endure the applause and suffer the scrutiny of cameras broadcasting their faces in real time over the globe. Obama went beyond a political attack on the court to a personal affront. It takes a person lacking empathy to do what he did. A. Zarkov(Quote)
memomachine says:
Hmmmm.
Frankly I’m vastly amused by Obama in this regard.
Especially considering that during the 2008 campaign for President his campaign website had it’s security subsystem deliberately turned off so that people from outside the USA could donate money. Plus there were phone banks and such even in Gaza. GAZA!
So for Obama to rail against foreign interference in domestic elections is the epitome of hypocrisy. memomachine(Quote)
geokstr says:
Yes. geokstr(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
A person with empathy would not have expressed his criticism in a way to maximally embarrass the justices. If SOU had been delivered in written form you woul be right. A. Zarkov(Quote)
Sonicfrog says:
Headlines We’d Like To See – Obama Apologizes To Supreme Court, Asks For Beer Summit! Sonicfrog(Quote)
LTR says:
I. Love. Obama. So. I. Troll. Non-stop. On. Volokh. Conspiracy. LTR(Quote)
Abdul Abulbul Amir says:
Well thats one opinion. Another possibility is that “corruption” is the sales pitch, as it was really about shutting down those that speak in opposition.
Frankly corporations like the Sierra Club, the NRA, or your local garden club should be able to promote or attack political candidates as they see fit, just as the New York Times corporation had every right to do.
BTW, now that Carlos Slim owns a hunk of the NY Times should its editorial pages be prevented from endorsing candidates? Abdul Abulbul Amir(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
To some the State of the Union may be political kabuki, but to those in the know, it is serious business.
Such a serious speech is not the place to discuss political disagreements with people! For goodness sakes, it might be caught on camera!
I’m shocked, shocked that there was any politics in either the Supreme Court OR the State of the Union! Sarcastro(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
Perhaps we should bring back dueling. A. Zarkov(Quote)
MartyA says:
Could Obama be cleverly setting up a defense for his impeachment hearings, allowing him to claim that any member of the USSC voting against him is merely retaliating for his SOTU speech? MartyA(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Well, when they’re busy deciding Palin v. Obama I’ll bet he wishes he hadn’t done that. ShelbyC(Quote)
mike says:
“Blithely ignorant of the law” because there is a different section of the statute that was not at issue but that’s probably a dead duck that addresses foreign corporations? If the First Amendment means “no law”, why would this not apply to foreigners? And how hard would it be to set up a DE company with a board made up of US citizen lobbyists?
I do not know if the ruling expressly struck down state laws either, but it’s assumed that similar state laws are now ineffective.
Actually, the conservatives on this court seem highly attuned to public reaction, so I suspect there will be some rationale for excluding foreigners.
(The other case I’m thinking of with public opinion was the Heller case where the majority seemed to go out of its way, and totally unnecessarily, to say that higher power weapons do not count and that felons and mentally ill people could have their 2nd amendment right restricted, even though they still have 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc rights intact.) mike(Quote)
Federal Farmer says:
Question: do foreign individuals travelling inside the US have Free Speech protection? I think so. I hope so.
Question: does a foreign owned business operating inside the US (and employee US citizens I presume) such as CITGO have Free Speech protection? I think so. Federal Farmer(Quote)
melk says:
There is criticism and there is public humiliation. And it should be obvious to all what the difference is. The President has every right to criticize the Court and I would assume that the Supremes themselves would agree with this. But last night was very uncomfortable to watch from a basic human dignity point of view. As Alex Karras might have said. A Lot of Class. All of it Third. melk(Quote)
Thorley Winston says:
Well since it’s Congress and not the SCOTUS that actually have the power to impeach the POTUS, I’m note sure that approach would work. Thorley Winston(Quote)
wooga says:
Arthur, meet Joe:
Dang. I guess since Joe’s reference (about the way foreign corporations and individuals were deliberately solicited to contribute to a presidential campaign) references an event which occurred before Citizens United... it doesn’t count, right? wooga(Quote)
RPT says:
Wooga:
Which foreign corporations made online or credit card contributions to the 2008 Obama campaign, and in what amounts? Where can we find this information? RPT(Quote)
Joe says:
a basic human dignity point of view
Individual justices ridicule advocates, including solicitor generals, during oral argument when they are a few feet in front of them. They must be repeat offenders, huh?
Let’s get a grip, k? Joe(Quote)
Abdul Abulbul Amir says:
Thats too easy. Just buy newspaper corporation. Abdul Abulbul Amir(Quote)
zuch says:
The Supreme Court is not the jury there. The Senate is.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Matt says:
After reading Kennedy’s tortured rationale as to why the facial constitutional question was “pass[ed] upon” by the district court and the clearer (to me) Stevens dissent, Obama had good reason to be upset.
The public rebuke probably was irresistible for a former ConLaw prof and Alito’s response was that of a pissed off 2L. I like Obama, but all in all it reminded me too much of law school. Matt(Quote)
wooga says:
FEC Complaint
There are plenty of other links out there, just googling “Obama ‘credit card’ foreign verification disabled” was how I tracked this page down in a couple seconds. Put simply, Obama’s team disabled the security system for the online credit card donations, for no purpose other than to enable campaign fraud. There was no legitimate purpose behind Obama’s team disabling the credit card verification process (and yes, it was a deliberate move — the software comes with the verification scheme enabled by default). When Obama complains about the influence of foreign money in domestic campaigns, he protests too much!
The rub is that anyone in the world could give unlimited donations to Obama’s campaign, so long as they did it in under $200 increments, and used different false names each time. But Obama’s team were willfully blind as to the source of the donations. There is proof (cited in the link) that foreign individual’s made donations to Obama, including some who put on the form “I am not an American citizen!” There are numerous other entities, not found anywhere in the US, that made contributions to Obama via this system.
And there will be no audit. The perfect crime. wooga(Quote)
Brian G. says:
Speaking of deleting comments, I did not know that comments against the radical right wing Supreme Court are no longer welcome here. Oh well, guess I’ll just have to visit Chinese blogs to get a higher level of freedom to comment. Brian G.(Quote)
wooga says:
Source. Obviously partisan, but facts are facts. wooga(Quote)
Brian K says:
looks like the right wing talking point people have arrived...i’m surprised it took them so long.
that’s my cue to exit as it only goes downhill from there. Brian K(Quote)
Federal Farmer says:
Can a foreign corporation contribute if it has a ‘birth certificate’ from RI? Federal Farmer(Quote)
bpbatista says:
They should have gotten up and walked out. bpbatista(Quote)
John says:
Attacking the Supremes is a cheap shot since they can’t really defend themselves.
What would they say if they could:
“How long is a law that violates the Constitution supposed to remain valid (even if reviewed before)?”
“Did you actually attend classes at Harvard? Never mind it wouldn’t have helped.” John(Quote)
leo marvin says:
If that’s a Strangers With Candy reference, you truly are the proverbial reasonable man. leo marvin(Quote)
zuch says:
Let me get this straight. The Obama campaign was able to actually get money from credit card donations from people who just made names up?!?!? Hmmm, I’m thinking of a new line of business....
And the RNC is complaining that they didn’t screen out names made up of randomly typed in letters? I guess no ex-Welshmen need donate....
And they say that donations from people who type in the comment box: “I am not a citizen” ought to be screened out (even if they checked the box saying they were able to donate)?
The RNC is a bunch of idiotic whiners, if you ask me.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Zuch, IIRC they disabled the verification, so they didn’t check that the name on the card matched the card number, or the zip, etc. It’s been awhile since I’ve been involved with stuff like that, but I believe you have to pay a little extra for that type of verification. ShelbyC(Quote)
zuch says:
Even if we assume arguendo that this is true, how are they then going to get the money?!?!?
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
MFH says:
Off the beaten path, but would an international NGO (nongovernmental organization) or sovereign wealth fund enjoy protection under Citizens United to make independent expeditures in American election campaigns? Or put more broadly: As regards “associational [political] speech,” must the speaker have a pre-existing nexus to America (for example, doing business in America) or is it sufficient merely to attempt to engage in political speech in America to warrant protection? MFH(Quote)
Federal Farmer says:
Verification is only to provide the person accepting the credit card that it is not being used fraudulently. It only becomes an issue if the charge is disputed. Federal Farmer(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Er, they run the card, the credit card company pays them (or however all that stuff works, there are 3 or 4 parties involved), and eventually the credit card company bills the cardholder. Now if the cardholder disputes the charge they are probably SOL, but who cares. Assuming arguendo, as you say, that this is true. ShelbyC(Quote)
Makewi says:
I find it somewhat curious that both the Teamsters and the SEIU are somehow exempted from this new worry over foreign influence in political speech. Or rather I would if I didn’t think that the worry was not about who was making the speech but more about what speech was being made. Makewi(Quote)
zuch says:
If the name doesn’t match the cardnumber:
they won’t get very far. Not to mention, even if you have verification of all the details (address, first pet, mother’s maiden name, etc.), this hardly prevents fraud, and once again, the resolution then comes in a billing dispute. This is true of all on-line “purchases” ... except it’s relatively easy to rectify this kind of thing here, as opposed to someone who’s actually sent merchandise off but who ends up not getting paid for it.
As I said, the RNC complaint here is very feeble. I’m glad to see the RNC wasting its legal budget on this kind of thing, but not at all surprised to see it got the attention it deserved.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Peter says:
Probably not! Thanks for pointing out how incredibly political and ethically bankrupt the Supreme Court’s majority is... Peter(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Correct, my understanding is that it doesn’t prevent fraud in the sense of someone using a fake card, it allows unqualified donors to donate, and it allows people to donate without disclosing their identities. I personally have no opinion on the strenght of the complaint. ShelbyC(Quote)
PamK says:
President Obama played to his crowd of syncophants and attacked a decision of the Supreme Court justices that were sitting right in front of him, unable to defend against his pontificating. It took the term “bully pulpit” to new heights. PamK(Quote)
Federal Farmer says:
Agreed ShelbyC. I also have no opinion on the strength of the complaint but I have implemented a few online shopping systems over the years and I agree with you that the transactions can be processed just fine if verification is turned off.
In that scenario, no result is returned for name and address (including zipcode) verification check. It is likely that the merchant account servicer might stipulate a higher transaction fee or deny the business completely due to this fraud exposure. Federal Farmer(Quote)
Perseus says:
It was more than euphemism for Johnson’s drinking. It was his back and forth with audiences and singling out legislators by name for personal attack, things which are now commonplace, but which were viewed as beneath the dignity of the president and precisely the sort of populist demagoguery that worried the Framers.
As for Lincoln, that was his Inaugural Address, not a State of the Union Address (where representatives of the three branches of government are all present in an institutional manner on the floor of the House) in which he addressed “fellow-citizens,” not the members of the Court. Moreover, his criticism was of those who held a particular view of the role of the Court (which undoubtedly included members of the Court but was a broader group), which he explicitly denied was “any assault upon the court or the judges.”
Finally, I agree that presidents and members of Congress ought to criticize activist justices and judges–in the proper forum and manner. Perseus(Quote)
zuch says:
How would it prevent that? Is your birth certificate tattoed on the credit card somewhere?
One of the interesting complaints is that some donations were apparently for fractional dollars. The RNC was screaming “foreign currency conversion! Illegal donations!!!” But AFAIK, U.S. citizens in foreign countries are allowed to vote, not just contribute (I am allowed to contribute but not vote).
You mean credit card companies don’t verify the existence and identity of the people applying for usable credit cards? Alors!
All in all, a bunch of politically motivated whining and insinuation.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Perseus says:
I take no credit for the theory. The theory and evidence painstakingly gathered to support it was made by fellow political scientist, Jeffery Tulis, in The Rhetorical Presidency. Perseus(Quote)
wooga says:
Nobody is disputing that a determined fraudster could get money to an innocent political campaign. What I’m talking about is where you have collusion between the campaign and a foreign national, where they are dealing with the foreigner’s own funds. In that event, neither the foreigner nor the campaign are going to report the fraud, and there is no “stolen identity victim” to report it either.
My point is that Obama’s campaign actively encouraged and facilitated this fraud by modifying the credit card verification software. There was no purpose for Obama’s campaign to take that step, except to facilitate fraud. In other words, Obama wanted to get donations from some German guy, but knew that US campaign laws prohibited it. So Obama arranged it so the German could give money — with a wink and a nod.
What else should the RNC do here except complain? Would it be better if they did the same thing as Obama? wooga(Quote)
wooga says:
Can you clarify this? Who is allowed to donate, but not allowed to vote? I can think of US felons, and US corporations (per the new case), but not another example. You do understand that it is illegal for foreigners to donate, right?. wooga(Quote)
zuch says:
And the complaint is short on evidence of such “collusion” and long on hand waving and hysterics.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
Huh? How would the credit card verification software prevent illegal foreign donations?
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
No. Actually, I don’t. Because it isn’t true. I thought it was too for a long time, but discovered recently that it is not. U.S. permanent residents who are not U.S. citizens may legally contribute to campaigns.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Prosecutorial Indiscretion says:
The existence and identity of the cardholders aren’t necessarily the issue — it’s whether or not a campaign can legally accept their donations. A legitimate German cardholder could use his Visa to give to the Obama campaign without any hassle, and with no verification on the online credit card contributions, enforcing the laws to prevent foreign influence on campaigns (which is apparently, at least according to the President, an urgent threat against the United States political system) was effectively impossible. Prosecutorial Indiscretion(Quote)
Samiam says:
I voted for Obama and really believed that he was classy, smart, and wise. He has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the polar opposite. His speech and behavior last night was embarrassing, particularly his attack of the Supreme Court. I may not have the legal training most of the posters here claim to have, but I do recognize class, or the lack thereof, when I see it. The Justices were Obama’s and congress’ guests. Our President deliberately insulted these guess and invited Congress to jeer them. 2012 cannot come soon enough. Samiam(Quote)
Federal Farmer says:
US Corporations are not given the right to donate to campaigns by Citizens United. It is simply a free speech case. Corporations can do things like air documentaries such as ‘Hillary’, which is what was at issue. Federal Farmer(Quote)
wooga says:
Ah, I see. That is news to me. Makes sense. wooga(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Well, that’s how it works. When the other side does it, it’s politically motivated whining and insinuation. When your (or my) side does it, its legitimately calling the other side out. ShelbyC(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
I’ve never been sure how that worked. Don’t you have to be a resident of a state? For example, residents of DC and Peurto Rico can’t vote. ShelbyC(Quote)
Jeff Walden says:
It’s a state decision. I believe there was a VC post about that topic several months back, about the definition of citizen and all.
Aha: http://volokh.com/posts/1250278992.shtml Jeff Walden(Quote)
wooga says:
Right now, one German can pretend to be a 1,000 people, and make 1,000 donations of $100 each. Without verification, each of those donations is, according to the Obama campaign, a different individual and thus outside of public disclosure rules (i.e., each ‘person’ gave under $200). With verification, however, the guy would be seen as just one donor, and all of his $100 donations would be pooled, and the Obama campaign would have to disclose that the donor gave $100,000. Whether or not the Obama campaign identified him as German is not as important as making sure his name is publicly reported, since somebody (e.g., a McCain campaign volunteer) would be watching and could figure it out. Right now, the secret is safe inside the Obama campaign. wooga(Quote)
zuch says:
How does any verification scheme actually determine if the person is, not a valid credit cardholder, but actually eligible to contribute? Keep in mind that some in the United States are not eligible to contribute even if they hold valid credit cards here, and some overseas are eligible to contribute even using credit cards held overseas.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
We got rid of our kings over here over two hundred years ago.
If you’re worried about a little [perceived] incivility, you might be best advised to avoid turning to the Tea Party folks and the Republicans ... and don’t attend Supreme Court oral arguments; you might get upset. Hell, they interrupt and talk over people all the time there.
<*concern troll alert!!!*>
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
In complaints to the FEC?!?!?
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
This might come as a surprise to the soldiers overseas....
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Soldiers, either on military bases in the US or overseas, have a home of record that is their legal residence. Keep in mind that when you vote, you are voting for your states electors, so voting when you’re not a resident of a state doesn’t make sense. ShelbyC(Quote)
zuch says:
With a thousand credit cards? Hell of a FICO score... If you’re talking about 1000 phony cards with fictitious donor names, how would they ever actually get any money from the credit card company?
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
And so do people temporarily abroad. And foreign service workers, and such. Do you really think they can’t or don’t have credit cards issued over there?
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Huh? I already spewed out all I know about credit cards a while ago. I’m just wondering how voting works for US citizens who reside overseas and not in a state. Jeff Walden cleared most of it up, but he still says it depends on the state. ShelbyC(Quote)
wooga says:
zuch:
Without the verification system, there is no comparison of names or numbers. That’s the problem. If you had the verification process, it would require our hypothetically sneaky German to create a 1,000 fake identities. Without verification, he can reuse the same numbers, make up names on the spot, and so on. Or, he could have a 1,000 cards in his own name (very easy to do without a credit check — just create a thousand charge cards), and just put random names on the Obama web form.
The point remains: why did Obama’s campaign affirmatively disable the verification? There is only one answer I’ve seen, and that’s to facilitate fraud. wooga(Quote)
zuch says:
And the campaign would never get a dime off them from MasterCard.... I guess I fail to see the problem.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Ricardo says:
I live abroad so I can comment on this. In most states, you are eligible to vote by absentee ballot in the last state in which you had residence as long as you maintain some tie (e.g. a physical address) to that state. If you want to register or vote in a different state, you would have to meet whatever that state’s residency requirements are. Many states tend to consider a former resident who lives abroad as a resident for the purposes of voting.
As far as credit cards are concerned, it’s actually fairly difficult in practice in many countries for a foreigner to get a credit card issued by a local bank. You are a blank slate when you leave the country as far as banks are concerned with respect to your credit rating and many have a somewhat legitimate fear that a foreign resident could run up a large amount of debt and then skip out on it. Unless you have permanent resident status or something similar, your chances of getting approved can be slim in many places.
Many Americans who live abroad, in my experience, keep their American credit cards. Again, all you need is a physical address in the U.S. and a social security number to get one. American credit card companies, as we all know, aren’t very picky about who they issue cards to. Ricardo(Quote)
Sammy Finkelman says:
The problem is:
1) He said that the Court had done that, when in reality this is only a possible — *possible* — corollary of that ruling. And even if you were to think there’s no way to avoid it, it still is something arguable. More important, maybe, that’s not the current state of the law immediately aftr the Supreme Court decision. Obama wasn’t interesting in clarifying for people the way the law actually works. He wants to make the law sound simpler and more obvious and less open to interpretation than it really is. (That way it is easier to portray decisions they don’t want as obviously wrong)
Obama also didn’t bother to explain how Congress could correct this if this really was a Constitutional ruling. Obama of course didn’t bother to inform the public that the court had ruled on Constutional grounds or First Amendemnt grounds. That mght cause people to support it, or at least want to know more. And he wanted people to be against it as much as possible,
(The idea for passing a law is that if corporate expenditures on political ads, couldn’t be prohibited as part of campaign finance law, they could be as part of securities regulation or regulation of public companes.)
On top of that he was deliberately confusing people about the distinction between independent spending and contributing to a campaign — or rather pretending that the distinction did not exist.
Now actually if independent expenditures weren’t so independent. If a candidate could attempt to intercede with some people NOT to run an ad or attempt to alter the wording. People at large probably in general assume the candidate had something to do with it, unless he really tries to dissuade them, which by law he cannot do.
And one thing almost no politician in Washington wants to talk about is something that some people had an Op-ed about in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. It’s actually being done in certain states and STILL is not talked about: Dollar for dollar tax rebates for political contributions. Sammy Finkelman(Quote)
Sarcastro says:
Really, Obama should have whipped out the whiteboard, read the entire opinion (not including Stevens’ lying dissent) and then explored why it was wrong in detail.
Anything else and I get to scream YOU LIE! Sarcastro(Quote)
jukeboxgrad says:
zuch:
Exactly. The people who are beating this drum don’t understand how credit cards work, and they don’t understand how campaign-contribution accounting works. This was all discussed in detail at VC over a year ago. See here and here.
Obama did not get to collect any money from anyone unless the name that was entered matched up properly with the account records at the bank. The fact that the initial data-entry form allowed phony names does not indicate that Obama was ever able to actually get money from anyone who entered a phony name in the data-entry form.
wooga:
Because it makes the system faster. This is explained in more detail in the threads I cited. jukeboxgrad(Quote)
Sammy Finkelman says:
Yes to the first question, no to the second.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDcxNjNjNTlhNmQxZDYwYjNkOGJjZjkxZTZiMjI0NTg=
Mark Levin on is radio show mentioned this. He said presidents had criticized supreme Court decisions before in state of the Union messages (I am not sure what examples he may have had in mind) but never so dishonestly. He claimed what Obama said was totally false or words to that effect, but actually, the New York Times Caucus blog that is linked to here indicates there’s actually an argument. Except that Obama kind of misresented the argument. He left something out.
A dissent in the case, and some bloggers since, have claimed that the decision allows, or the principle behind the decision would allow, foreign corporations to contribute to political campaigns. The majority evaded the issue of how far this might carry (which is actually kind of traditional in Supreme Court decisions) but it definitely didn’t rule that way now.
I think no one in the Supreme Court minority wanted to rule that Citizens United or similar non-profit corporations should be free to run political ads but for profit corporations could be prohibited, but Justice Stevens said the majority should have ruled that way.
The response from the majority, if I have it right, was there was no principled way to make a distinction. The majority also said that you were very strongly burdening speech if you would require people to get a campaign lawyer (this might have been in response to the argument: “well, they could always set up a PAC”) Sammy Finkelman(Quote)
Mark Field says:
I don’t really see the distinction. The justices were all there; at least Taney was — he had just sworn Lincoln in.
Lincoln was more delicate, but Obama did begin by saying “With due deference...” And his criticism was indirect. He made a prediction of a potential future consequence and he asked Congress for legislation to prevent that consequence. That’s what SOTUs are for. Mark Field(Quote)
Sammy Finkelman says:
Yes to the first question, no to the second.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDcxNjNjNTlhNmQxZDYwYjNkOGJjZjkxZTZiMjI0NTg=
Mark Levin on is radio show mentioned this. He said presidents had criticized supreme Court decisions before in state of the Union messages (I am not sure what examples he may have had in mind) but never so dishonestly. He claimed what Obama said was totally false or words to that effect, but actually, the New York Times Caucus blog that is linked to here indicates there’is actually an argument. Except that Obama kind of misrepresented the argument. He left something out.
A dissent in the case, and some bloggers since, have claimed that the decision allows, or the principle behind the decision would allow, foreign corporations to contribute to political campaigns. The majority evaded the issue of how far this might carry (which is actually kind of traditional in Supreme Court decisions) but it definitely didn’t rule that way now.
I think no one in the Supreme Court minority wanted to rule that Citizens United or similar non-profit corporations should be free to run political ads but for profit corporations could be prohibited, but Justice Stevens said the majority should have ruled that way.
The response from the majority, if I have it right, was there was no principled way to make a distinction. The majority also said that you were very strongly burdening speech if you would require people to get a campaign lawyer (this might have been in response to the argument: “well, they could always set up a PAC”)
Oh, Obama knew that. They do have an idea as to how this can reversed (securities law may allow prohibitions that in general might not be allowed)
What Obama was doing however, was attempting to disguise from the public that the Supreme Court had overturned the law on Constitutional grounds. He was leaving out inconvenient details but it is not all that wrongheaded Sammy Finkelman(Quote)
Sammy Finkelman says:
Wooga: While you weren’t looking, the Tamil Tigers were completely defeated. Sammy Finkelman(Quote)
rpt says:
I guess James O’Keefe was otherwise unavailable to comment today. Something about having been grounded. “Facts” through the Geller/Breitbart lens are hardly reliable. rpt(Quote)
Michael says:
Maybe the title of the speech should have been ‘Oxen Gored. The Maestro just having returned from a Massachusetts trip and having had his ox gored will now gore others to popular delight. The avenue of foreign contributions previously seemingly obscurely used by Democratic presidential candidates will now be jingoistically gored catching in the cape those popularly hated promoters of abortion the Supreme Court. Also enjoyable goring of deficit spending will take place.’ Enjoy the counterpoint with us, not against us. Michael(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Awkward Moment At the State of the Union Address -- Topsy.com says:
zuch says:
Oh, they do [at least I hope so; they’re the freakin’ RNC]. They’re just playing to the rubes. It’s politics.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
“Mark Levin” and “law” in the same paragraph is an oxymoron.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Weblog » Obama’s Campaign Donation Corruption: Foreign Donors says:
moneygram locations says:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. moneygram locations(Quote)