Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Alito's State of the Union moment

By Robert Barnes
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama's criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words "not true."

Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates.

It proved to be a striking State of the Union moment: With six justices seated in their black robes directly in front of him in the House chamber, Obama said: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

As Democrats applauded, cameras showed the justices sitting expressionless. Except for Alito.

"Not true, not true," he appeared to say, as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued. "They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

The court's 5 to 4 decision, in which Alito was in the majority, said it did not have to address the question of electoral spending by foreign corporations, because the law being considered did not differentiate between domestic and foreign corporations. But Democrats have seized on the issue as a way to highlight legislation in response to the court's ruling. There are restrictions on foreign participation in U.S. elections that were not part of the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Reaction to the unusual interplay between the president and the court -- especially from Alito, President George W. Bush's second nominee to the court -- was swift. The liberal People for the American Way sent out a YouTube clip of Alito and praised the president for bringing up the decision.

Conservative legal groups said it was the president who was wrong.

"The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics -- scapegoating 'special interest' bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy," said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC member and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.

The group that started the lawsuit, Citizens United, also weighed in.

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."

By Robert Barnes  |  January 27, 2010; 11:58 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Chris Matthews on Obama: "I forgot he was black for an hour"
Next: Reaction to State of the Union: Obama's pleas draw mixed reviews

Comments

Those who say President Obama was wrong to criticize a Supreme Court decision had better be equally willing to say President Reagan and both Presidents Bush were equally wrong -- because all three of them criticized Roe v Wade in State of the Union addresses!

Can anyone out there say "hypocrisy, thy name is GOP"?!

Posted by: marcywrite | January 28, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

The Truthful State of the Union Speech Obama should have given:


I am the Commander in Chief with No Military experience, I am the Chief Executive with No Executive experience, I have No business experience, NO economic experience, NO financial experience, No Foreign affair experience, No mayor, NO governor, Nothing. And I surround myself with Tax Cheats, Chicago thugs, incompetents, radical loony perverted Czars and has Democrat accomplices in congress that can't even READ the trillion dollar pork packages and Obama/Pelosi Government Crap Care they put their X on and inflict on Americans. I quadrupled the deficit in months which hasn't stimulated a flea, just added to the already bloated government that will keep Americans in financial bondage for the unforeseeable future. My future polices of Cap and Trade and other onerous AGW hoax policies will further kill businesses especially small businesses and destroy the American dream and surrender the sovereignty of the United States. And my idea of redistribution of wealth is insane and has the mind­­­set of a Chicago thug. Tingly legged Obama voters, you out did yourselves.
Unemployment is at 10% (17.5% if you include those that stopped looking and those with temporary jobs) and RISING, Taxes on EVERYBODY will be rising(just watch, I mean EVERYBODY), Businesses in financial straits...
Yes America, I failed you miserably. I am just a Neophyte socialist with no experience. The truth is, I am an empty suit....
With this confession of truth, I have to follow in the footsteps of that other Great Liberal , Lyndon Baines Johnson', "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."

Standing O.............Standing O....... for he's a jolly good failure for he's a jolly good failure.........Standing O........Standing O....... ..

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

"Breach of decorum" for Obama to say what he thinks when reporting on "the state of the union"? Hardly. The Supremes' feelings will be hurt because the President (along with million of others) disagrees with them? Too bad.

If any decorum was violated (and it is not something I worry about), it was Alito violating the tradition that the Supremes show no reaction of any kind at these events--to "maintain their impartiality." But for Alito to depart from precedent is not surprising, given his vote in the Citizens United case.

Posted by: gafCO | January 28, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh. My. God. "dpclark" may be on to something when he or she says that the right-wing Supreme Court may give corporations Second Amendment rights. The Amendment refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." If corporations are "persons" does that mean they are included in "the people?" If so, then Blackwater (now XE Services), Triple Canopy and the rest of the mercenary companies who have wreaked so much havoc in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places throughout the world may actually be found to have a "Constitutional right" to maintain armed compounds in the United States. We could end up with mercenaries running wild in our country and be powerless to prevent it. What's next, the formation of American Freikorps? I wouldn't put anything past these right-wing legal "scholars."

Posted by: ejs2 | January 28, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad the President criticized the Supreme Court to their faces. It's about time somebody made it clear that they are not to have carte blanche to impose their right-wing ideology in the guise of "constitutional law," at least not without a fight. I fear that the only way around the Court's ruling is a Constitutional Amendment stating that corporations are not "person" under the Constitution. The odds of that happening are slim indeed. We may be relegated to the impossible task of trying to outspend these multinational "persons." What a legal farce.

Posted by: ejs2 | January 28, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse


Why the health bill should be killed.

Putta peloci and friends are trying desperately to shove it down our throats for one and only one self serving reason. If the bill is not passed, Kalifornia will have to continue giving all the benefits of socialism to the illegal mexicans that pick her grapes and most other agricultural crops there. They really need to make their socialist agenda a government agenda to relieve their own financial burdons.


LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:

• A JOB
• A DRIVERS LICENSE
• SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
• WELFARE
• FOOD STAMPS
• CREDIT CARDS,
• SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE
• FREE EDUCATION
• FREE HEALTH CARE
• A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
• BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
• THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
• AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

Posted by: jcdooley | January 28, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse


How does Obama lie? Let me count just a few of the ways:

1. I will cut the deficit in half
2. I will close Guantanamo within 1 year
3. If you spend 787 billion, unemployment won't rise above 8%
4. Healthcare negotiations will be open and honest (and on CSPAN)
5. Illegal aliens won't be covered
6. No lobbyists in MY cabinet (ha-ha)
7. Won't raise taxes on the middle class (so why propose cap and trade?)
8. I wouldn't give miranda warnings (or citizen rights) to terrorists
9. I'll be bipartisan and reach across the aisle (to work with opposition, not to slap them around).
10. The stimulus will CREATE millions of jobs -- most of them in the private sector.
11. I'll veto budgets with earmarks (yet his 2009 budget had over 8,500 earmarks in it).
12. This time, I'm serious. I really WILL veto earmarks in 2010 (pending lie)
12. All U.S. troops out of Iraq by August 2010 (pending lie).
13. We're going to double exports in five years (pending lie -- when all new jobs are government jobs, what is he smoking???)
14. The Supremes are going to allow unlimited foreign contributions to skew the U.S. political process.

As I read Alito's lips, he said, "Simply Not True".

Thank goodness SOMEBODY told the truth last night, because Obama sure didn't.

Posted by: LauraInNevada | January 28, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Corporate stock can be owned by people, but often is owned by other corporations, by hedge funds, by god only knows whom else. Unless one knows the citizenship of all owners of stock in a corporation, and the owners of owners, ad infinitum, one does not know for whom the corporation speaks, or from what country they are citizens.

Posted by: paulchouinard | January 28, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Remember when dissent was "the highest form of patriotism"? What happened?
Posted by: HughJassPhD | January 28, 2010 1:08 PM
========================================
Dissent is one thing - just opposing EVERYTHING that this President does as a political strategy is NOT dissent it ridiculous.

Here is Dissent. I disagree with the large government involvement in the private sector. I think that many of Obama's proposals should be handled by the States. I will vote for the party that reflects my ideals. THAT'S DISSENT.

Here is what the GOP passes off as DISSENT"

We want to see his Birth Certificate. He is a Kenyan, a communist, a Nazi, etc. He is a Muslim and a terrorist. He is an empty suit and way over his head. He is a Community Organizer with no experience.

THAT IS NOT DISSENT - THAT IS partisan LUNACY AND DOWN RIGHT IGNORANT.

But you are correct, dissent is patriotic!

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

The Preamble to the U. S. Constitution does NOT read "We the Persons..". Lincoln did NOT write, "government of the persons, by the persons and for the persons shall not perish...", but that is what the Supreme Court has given us.

Posted by: paulchouinard | January 28, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Noting that GlojoPSU used some interesting 'facts' (along with others.)

What I note most, is they are as accurate as the president's 'facts' last night.

You must be a fully listed with all the DNC talking point and and conference pushing groups.

(BTW- none of the facts by the president were in any way accurate... like most presented by he and his party.)

Posted by: theoldrang | January 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

SCOTUS has more dignity than this Third World Dictator. I thought I was listening to Chavez or Castro. Sure , the Court disappoints conservs and libs. But, to dis them like that? If a Pub had done that, calls for impeachment would be howling through the Halls of Congres.. The decision was to make it fair not just for ACORN-SEIU union thugs but for even businesses, yeah, you know, those things that actually create jobs!
=================================
A pub did do that - Joe Wilson and you applauded him. Here is what I would like to see. We all know we double down on our party position. Have the honesty to just say that. When you try to make "excuses" for YOUR guy and then turn around and call the same act "disgraceful" when the other guy does the same thing - YOU ARE INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF ANYONE OVER 5 YEARS OLD. Please knock it off - especially since most of you who call yourselves Republicans should really be Democrats - you are not the people the GOP cares about. They care about the wealthy and corps. The keep you guys sidetracked with silly things like this so you won't notice.

BTW - OBAMA was Right and the Supreme Court Justice was wrong. To coin a phrase from the RIGHT " Doesn't he take time to read the damn opinions before he signs them". He has obviously embarrassed himself.

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Remember when dissent was "the highest form of patriotism"? What happened?

Posted by: HughJassPhD

-------------------------------------------------

It still is. It always will be. People aren't calling you traitors for disagreeing; the GOP is called traitors for supporting corporations above the citizens that pay their salaries. When their form of dissent is based on some alternate reality where bailing out banks is Marxism and insisting that the President was ineligible to be elected then the argument for dissent is torn to pieces.

Of course when we were complaining that the reasons for war with Iraq were a lie there was nothing else behind the GOP response besides shut up traitor or move to France. Turns out the protesters were right and the corporate shills were wrong.

So by all means carry on dissent, but when you do realize you have to make your cases for all the hoopla. What we're seeing now is just a lot of southern WHITE noise.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 28, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

1. The First Amendment was created to give legislators the ability to speak freely without fear of punishment on political matters...do your homework.

2. If a legislator chooses to act as a shil for a corporation as part of their duties, that right is protected in the EXACT same way as when a legislator chooses to be a shil for a union or other special interest group. That is democracy.

3. Obama, the champion of public finance campaigns rejected public funds so he could get more money...from...guess who...all kinds of corporate, special-interest, union representing groups...no different than any other politician before him.

4. Anyone that believes a politician is acting out of the best interests of the people is delusional.

5. The comparisons between Obama and Bush, Cheney, Rove, and [select liberal whipping boy du jour] are usually inaccurate and show a knee-jerk response that fails to recognize that Obama is NOT the second coming...

6. If everyone would look at other nations for a minute, you would realize that ours is the most effective, fair and free democracy in the world despite all of the carping about special interests running things. The ONLY important thing is that YOU educate yourself and take place in the free marketplace of ideas by exercising your constitutional right to vote for a candidate who you hope will not screw us too badly.

Posted by: GlojoPSU | January 28, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court had to be laughing inside while being lectured by a Community Organizer with this resume:
Obama is the Commander in Chief with No Military experience, He's the Chief Executive with No Executive experience, he has No business experience, NO economic experience, NO financial experience, No Foreign affair experience, No mayor, NO governor, Nothing.
Yes, if they weren't so respectful the laughter would have been loud and long....

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Remember when dissent was "the highest form of patriotism"? What happened?

Posted by: HughJassPhD | January 28, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I am puzzled why Alito took Obama's remarks personally?

Posted by: kishorgala | January 28, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives are full of crap....you people have the nerve to call Obama a liar after Dick and Bush lied time and time again to the citizens of America and the soldiers of the US Military, then had to nerve to claim executive privilege.

Only a conservative would applaud a law that calls a corporate entity an "individual". Nobody wants your fascist regime, but you....now your oil buddies from Saudi Arabia can flood your election coffers come next election. Welcome to the United Saudi States ladies and gentlemen!!!

Posted by: massmedia77 | January 28, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The State of the Union serves 2 functions:
(1) a report on the condition of the nation
and
(2) the president's agenda and national priorities to Congress.

Alito's judicial opinion was done, delivered in writing, now part of history. His job that night was to sit listening unobtrusively. He forgot his place.

We have a separation of powers for a reasons. Alito and his fellow fools only have to concern themselves with constitutional interpretation. The fallout is someone else's responsibility. SCOTUS did their job. Now it's time for the other branches to do theirs. Obama emphasized that.

Ever wonder why we have so much SPAM? Thank SCOTUS. It is a First Amendment right. Policing is someone else's job.

Posted by: alb2 | January 28, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

SCOTUS has more dignity than this Third World Dictator. I thought I was listening to Chavez or Castro. Sure , the Court disappoints conservs and libs. But, to dis them like that? If a Pub had done that, calls for impeachment would be howling through the Halls of Congres.. The decision was to make it fair not just for ACORN-SEIU union thugs but for even businesses, yeah, you know, those things that actually create jobs!

Posted by: phillyfanatic | January 28, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama had a Super Majority in Congress and was totally ineffective and he blames Bush and Republicans. For the first time in decades Massachusettes goes republican after he brought his power team there to defend Coakley...
Obama is one pathetic leader and an embarrassment to America...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

IQ168 seems to have slept through the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and missed the fact the corporate greed brought the world economy to its knees. His/her attitude is that clearly profit trumps all else. Yes, corporations are in business to make money for their investors, but not at the cost of all else. If corporations are to be entitled to the rights of citizens, they have a moral responsibility to both their shareholders and the country (people and environment.) I have yet to see that quality in all but a handful of corporations, and IQ168's mindset doesn't bode well for that quality to ever emerge. That said, no corporation should be given an unfettered right to pervert elections by bombarding voters with endless propoganda to mindwash them into supporting the corporation's self-serving agenda.

In this case, it appears that the IQ168 stands for "insatiable quest for $168M", damn the country.

Posted by: emm2 | January 28, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Look what McCain/Feingold did last year:

The worst president, the worst congress, the dumbest electorate has come together at the same time in history to produce the Obamination of America. The terrorists have to be happy that someone else is doing their work for them.

Yes, we need a HELLOFALOT MORE FREE SPEECH...
=========================================
Look in the mirror. The GOP is not known for intelligence. Sooner or later you guys will realize that YOU are the dumb ones. Isn't that why only 20% admit to being GOP. Scott Brown did NOT run as GOP he said he wa an Independent. He NEVER mentioned Republican in his acceptance speech. He has warm regards for Obama and can't wait to sit down with Obama. He never said I can't wait to sit down with McConnell.

There is a reason you have lost the last 3 elections. You just don't get it. America doesn't like what you guys have to office "nothing". We don't pay people to dliver "nothing". We don't elect people to do "nothing".

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Good Job Alito! Stand up for the separation of powers and the United States Constitution. The MARXIST-in-chief is attacking the United States Constitution and the separation of powers. President Obama does not authority to decide what is consititutional and what is not. END OF DISCUSSION. Anyone that that believes corporations could actually purchase elections and/or politicians, you must think that the American electorate is not comprised of individuals that are capable of making their own decisions based on the information they are presented. We the majority will defeat you Statists, so keep on your political Kamikaze mission with Cap & Trade, Healthcare, more control, more regulations, more bailouts, bigger government, and LESS FREEDOM. We the people, are going to fire everyone in the DNC and the GOP that we see as part of this administration and congress that can get our hands on at the ballot box for the next 4 years. Can't wait for November!

Posted by: 50Eagle | January 28, 2010 11:51 AM
==================================================
How uneducated are you? Here is the translation of what you just wrote:

Thank you Supreme Court for insuring that my voice, along with the voices of other average Americans will never be heard in an election. YOu have paved the way for our politicians to now legally pander to the corps for money in exchange for legislating what every the corp wants.

Explain to us why in the world would Congress every listen to the Average American again? They will use the same tactics they used during the summer with health care to get people to vote against their interest because of slick lying ads.

The GOP base is tailor-made for crooks. They don't stand for anything so they fall for everything coming from the GOP.

They formed the Tea Party as a movement against Wall St. bailouts that shut out Main Street.

Well as soon as Obama siad he would tax Wall Street to get our money back, THE GOP loonies switched up and NOW they are rooting for Wall Street and Corporate America.

Here's a hint. The Government didn't fire all these people - those "free market" corps that you guys love did. Now explain to me why you aren't begging those folks who "tickle" the wealth down to you for a job. Instead you are begging the Government - the entity you hate - for a job.

Can some GOP talking pointer explain this to me? Thought not! It's all about partisan BS and the American people will not stand for it again. 2010 won't be good for the GOP precisely for that reason!

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Look what McCain/Feingold did last year:

The worst president, the worst congress, the dumbest electorate has come together at the same time in history to produce the Obamination of America. The terrorists have to be happy that someone else is doing their work for them.

Yes, we need a HELLOFALOT MORE FREE SPEECH...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

How small your mind must be to keep going back to "the Corporation is not a 'person' nonsense. A Corporation exists because of individual shareholders - who ARE persons. Can you grasp that so far? Now, we shareholders meet once a year and VOTE on proposals 'our' Corporations make. You still with me? WE 'persons' TELL Corporations what to do. AND, that Corporation BETTER make decisions which contribute to the Corporations bottom line and pay me dividents. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it. I tried to make it simple enough so you edjekated in publik skewels can grasp it.
Posted by: IQ168"

IQ of 168, and you are the one that doesn't grasp it. Of course, posting your IQ automatically makes you a troll, and the rest of your post just proved it.

Attitudes like yours are what got us into the whole financial mess in the first place. Make sure you get your dividends and the rest be damned.

Maybe a publick skewl could have taught you some common sense
==============================
Not so fast with the insults. A Corporation, legally is an entity! It is NOT a person. Corporates incorporate so they WON"T be country as a person. When the Corp is sued, they CEO does not pay. If the Corp is now a person, then we can sue the CEO for anything the Corp does, whether or not he/she was involved. CEOs are only sued personally if they contributed to the crime, etc.

A Corporate is not a person no matter what the dimwits in the Black Robes say. Look it up. The Congress should start taxing them as a person - they will show 'em!

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how Obama's remarks brought some 535 U.S. Congress folks to stand on their feet and applaud his comments concerning a potential issue with the conservative SCOTUS opening up our borders to Corporate campaign financiers, both here and afar.

There was nothing remotely disrespectful to what Obama said about the truth. If Alito chose to mouth his feelings in front of millions of people watching, then that's his problem.

This conservative court needs to be looking out for the interest of "We the People", and not "We the Corporations, Domestic and Foreign".

I don't need to study the U.S., Constitution to figure that out.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | January 28, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Was this unpresidential outrageous attack blasting the Supreme Court in this venue total inappropriate and worthy of censure? YOU BET it was, along with the Democrats that stood up and applauded...Those Democrats should be locked out of Congress untitl they apologize
They are such HYPOCRITES for blasting Wilson then doing the same thing....

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dummypants: "obama is just obsessed with not wasting any opporutnity to score political points, even if in the least respectful way. chicago style baby"

Uh, isn't that EVERY politician's style? I haven't noticed that it is unique to any particular geographic region or party. If I recall correctly, the guy who shouted out "you lie" was neither Democrat nor from Chicago.

Posted by: gasmonkey | January 28, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

TO: carrieb1 who wrote:
“Good job Justice Alito. Don't let him bully you, even from the ultimate bully pulpit.
This system only works when the branches stay in balance. Mr. Obama was elected president, not King.”
______________________

You forgot to thank Justice Alito for taking away your vote.

Being that the psychos love it when their rights are taken away from them and that’s what you people call “freedom,” don’t you think you owe him an “I Love You” card?

Now that whoever has the most money wins the race, where do you think you’ll come in among corporations ready, willing and able to buy every election and install their corporate-friendly comrades.

I think the Republifreaks will finally be able to get all the bad air, contaminated water, sewage, and nuclear waste they’ve been hoping for.

Oh yeah, and you’ll finally be able to complete the melting of the polar ice caps, so you might want to get your survival kits updated.

Your vote no longer means squat, and neither does the rest of ours.

Posted by: lindalovejones | January 28, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I find it funny that those on the right love to bring up the Founding Fathers every chance they get. They love to go back in history to them and Reagan. However, let Obama mention Bush and the mess he left they jump up and say" hey that was long ago - don't keep mentioning it. To that I say - we still talk about Hoover and the Great Depression so we will continue to talk about Bush Hoover, Jr. Get over it!!!!

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"How small your mind must be to keep going back to "the Corporation is not a 'person' nonsense. A Corporation exists because of individual shareholders - who ARE persons. Can you grasp that so far? Now, we shareholders meet once a year and VOTE on proposals 'our' Corporations make. You still with me? WE 'persons' TELL Corporations what to do. AND, that Corporation BETTER make decisions which contribute to the Corporations bottom line and pay me dividents. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it. I tried to make it simple enough so you edjekated in publik skewels can grasp it.
Posted by: IQ168"

IQ of 168, and you are the one that doesn't grasp it. Of course, posting your IQ automatically makes you a troll, and the rest of your post just proved it.

Attitudes like yours are what got us into the whole financial mess in the first place. Make sure you get your dividends and the rest be damned.

Maybe a publick skewl could have taught you some common sense.

Posted by: BEEPEE | January 28, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

1.Corporations are not people. It is a legal fantasy to give them the same rights as a person.
2. The level of hatred for Obama on this board is disturbing. To compare him to Pol Pot, Stalin and other dictators is just plain STUPID and reveals a lack of any understanding of history. These posters should go ahead and also share the many witty racist jokes I'm sure they have enjoyed about Obama. Good day morons.

Posted by: scmtneer | January 28, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are so concerned to keep the denial of free speech to all people but they don't mind ACORN actually stealing votes and truly influencing election results...
Liberals are one screwed up bunch of losers..

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Alito is another dumb republican. As it turns out He is WRONG and Obama is right!!!! But the facts never keep the GOP from sprewing their hatred for the President that makes them look like the fools they are.

You would think that a Supreme Court Justice would READ a land mark decision BEFORE signing it!!! Only a fool would think this is good for the American people.

As usual is't the Rich Republicans that can manage to get the lower and middle class Americans to support their programs which are actually a promotion of big corp and big business. Gee that worked so well in the last 8 years!

Posted by: Julescator | January 28, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

The Corporation already own the court, or at least 5 of them which is enough. Alito and his ethically and legally challenged cohorts are just doing what they were hired to do: put corportations in charge of everything else. BTW, there is no such thing as a "foriegn" or "American" corporation. They are not people and thus are not "citizens" of any counrty. They l;ive forever, without loyalty to any nation; and now they can spend enough on media to prevent any other voice but theirs from being heard. Scary.

Posted by: mcstowy | January 28, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone that that believes corporations could actually purchase elections and/or politicians, you must think that the American electorate is not comprised of individuals that are capable of making their own decisions based on the information they are presented."

You are either a cynical liar or a tremendous carnival mark.

Posted by: garrafa10 | January 28, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama respectfully disagreed with a Supreme Court decision. Alito quietly disagreed with Obama. Life goes on.

Posted by: publius1 | January 28, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Obama, how much money did you REALLY get from online donations from overseas since you quit keeping track of it and the news media in bed with you never seemed to be interested?
Yes we need a lot more Free Speech

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The caption on the video compares this to Wilson's disrespectful "You lie" comment a year ago.

There's no comparison. It wasn't disruptive. It was inaudible over the applause. If the camera wasn't on him, no one would've known that he said anything. It wasn't disrespectful or rude at all.

I have no problem with what Obama said either. The executive shouldn't be critiquing the judicial, but this was an exceptional situation that warranted it. Whether the Court's decision was legally justifiable or not, the consequence is that the Court took an already grave problem undermining the health of the Republic, and made it much much worse. They threw gasoline on the fire. The other two bodies must now mitigate the problem given the new legal reality, so it was perfectly topical for Obama to address this in his SOTU. It's easily the single biggest change to the SOTU since Obama took office, and must be a matter of legislative activity.

Finally, if the conservative justices really held true to their philosophy, they should feel no affront when their ruling have catastrophic consequences. On their view, they bear no rsponsibility whatsoever for quality of the Law. They should say "Yes, there's an impending disaster because of this ruling. But that's not the fact of the judicial branch in the slightest." So rather than getting defensive, as citizens they should be happy that Obama recognizes that they've created a disaster that he and Congress must address.

Posted by: evilpettingzoo | January 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone that that believes corporations could actually purchase elections and/or politicians, you must think that the American electorate is not comprised of individuals that are capable of making their own decisions based on the information they are presented."

You've said it all right there. "Based on the information they are presented." If the overwhelming information is bought and paid for by corporate interests, and we base our voting decisions based on that, how is this not corporate control of elections?

Posted by: hitpoints | January 28, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

How small your mind must be to keep going back to "the Corporation is not a 'person' nonsense. A Corporation exists because of individual shareholders - who ARE persons. Can you grasp that so far? Now, we shareholders meet once a year and VOTE on proposals 'our' Corporations make. You still with me? WE 'persons' TELL Corporations what to do. AND, that Corporation BETTER make decisions which contribute to the Corporations bottom line and pay me dividents. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it. I tried to make it simple enough so you edjekated in publik skewels can grasp it.

Posted by: IQ168

-- For an IQ of 168 you appear blissfully ignorant of the scads of coporations that have no living individuals as shareholders. The majority of corporations actually don't even issue shares. Are you aware that most major corporations' controlling interests are not held by real people but by investment banks, mutual funds, other corporations or trusts? Are you aware that you don't even need any shareholders at all to form a corporation? And face it, most shareholders are extremely passive (though that is their choice) and the laws in most states strongly favor the board and officers over Joe Shareholder and his ideas.

Posted by: williamwertman | January 28, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

It's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the will of the majority. It's the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

It's the job of the U.S. Congress to uphold the will of the majority. And yes, I'm LMAO as I write that part: Congress should write laws which remove the influence of Corporate American from Capitol Hill? Hilarious! Absolutely side-splitting -- even funnier than watching a gaggle of disingenuous lawmakers stand and applaud BO's arrogant attempt to influence the Court through the use of the Bully Pulpit!

Posted by: srb2 | January 28, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Alito disagreed ... under his breath.

It was not dissent. It was not meant to call attention to himself or his disagreement.

It was only dissent to the self-appointed thought police who felt it necessary to go about reading lips. To this cabal I'm sure private disagreement with their Jesus is a crime.

Posted by: HughJassPhD | January 28, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency."

Thank you Supreme Court for the Constitutional Decision preserving Free Speech as well as TRANSPARENCY, an area where Obama has FAILED MISERABLE..

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

For those who say that foreigners won't be able to influence our elections since foreign based companies are prohibited from contributing to campaigns, read it one more time dummies. If China owns 60% of Citibank (a US based company), if Venzuela owns majority shares of Citgo, then these foreign actors can tell their US based corporations where to put their money. Right into the pockets of the corrupt senators and congressmen who will do their bidding. A few bucks on the side for Scalia's hunting trips probably won't hurt anything either. Not that hard to figure out. Then again, I guess there are still a lot of people out there still figuring they are going to win three card Monty games. Big money and foreign interests win, average Joe US citzen gets the shaft.

Posted by: Poleman | January 28, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Good job Justice Alito. Don't let him bully you, even from the ultimate bully pulpit.
This system only works when the branches stay in balance. Mr. Obama was elected president, not King.

Posted by: carrieb1 | January 28, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Congress simply strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear cases dealing with campaign finance reform? It is clearly within Congress's authority to do so, and Congress has restricted judicial review in other laws. What's the problem here?
*******

obama is just obsessed with not wasting any opporutnity to score political points, even if in the least respectful way.

chicago style baby

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

It was not an Alito moment but a moment where I was ashamed that a President would do such an act as calling out their decision in a SOTU address and then seeing everyone jump up to their feet clapping. It was a disgusting show indeed and one I cannot remember ever seeing before and one I hope never is repeated by another President again.

Posted by: justmyvoice | January 28, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Justice Alito for speaking truth to Obama's distortions. The recent SCOTUS decision left untouched 2 U.S.C. 441e which prohibits foreign politcal contributions, etc. But don't take my word for it, look for yourself. Politicians keep lying to us because we tolerate it. Personally, I'm fed up with lying politians and hope we fire all of them this fall.
**********

i voted for obama but the man lost all credibility in my book a long time ago. he realluy thinks we are idiots that we cant look up the law and see that he is telling a bold faced lie to score political points, and at the expense of judicial independence too.

this is what the amatuer community ogranizer presidency looks like america, get used to it.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Why doesn't Congress simply strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear cases dealing with campaign finance reform? It is clearly within Congress's authority to do so, and Congress has restricted judicial review in other laws. What's the problem here?

Posted by: gasmonkey | January 28, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

SOTU: Just More Communist Lies

Get the facts: http://www.commieblaster.com

Posted by: CommieBlaster | January 28, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Good Job Alito! Stand up for the separation of powers and the United States Constitution. The MARXIST-in-chief is attacking the United States Constitution and the separation of powers. President Obama does not authority to decide what is consititutional and what is not. END OF DISCUSSION. Anyone that that believes corporations could actually purchase elections and/or politicians, you must think that the American electorate is not comprised of individuals that are capable of making their own decisions based on the information they are presented. We the majority will defeat you Statists, so keep on your political Kamikaze mission with Cap & Trade, Healthcare, more control, more regulations, more bailouts, bigger government, and LESS FREEDOM. We the people, are going to fire everyone in the DNC and the GOP that we see as part of this administration and congress that can get our hands on at the ballot box for the next 4 years. Can't wait for November!

Posted by: 50Eagle | January 28, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

And another thing........there's nothing in the Constitution which requires SCOTUS to perpetuate an erroneous decision or that bars them from correcting themselves. We put too much emphasis on precedent and it's nonsense to ask a court to make a decision consistant with some earlier decision they believe was in error. Should Dred Scott have been considered "settled law"?

Posted by: hit4cycle | January 28, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama clearly over-stepped his boundaries by chastising SCOTUS on their recent ruling. Especially since what he said was untrue. Check it out. Obama uses his Office as a bully pulpit.

Our founding fathers made a distinction of the separate branches of the government. In this way they would not have one arm of the government strong-arming the decisions of another.

Obama wasn't stating the truth, because the SCOTUS did not rule on foreign corporations last week. That part of the law remains unchanged.

It appears Obama took a page out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Obama is the one out of line.

Posted by: janet8 | January 28, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

For those of you attacking the SCOTUS as it is today, don't worry.
Obama has every intention of "loading" it whenever he gets another chance. He made one; maybe one or two more to come.

I'm sure we will see a SC made up of justices who will allow the Soros related "industries" to get away with anything and everything that money can buy. Through ACORN, moveon.org and other "fronts', Soros swayed / bought lots of votes.

I am appalled, in the meantime, at some of the ad hominem attacks made on decent people, such as Alito, simply because you don't agree with the politics.

If you want to sling obscenities, at least back them up with some kind of justification for your sleaziness. Does that exist?
I don't think so.

Posted by: pjcafe | January 28, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Why do leftists hate Free Speech, hate corporattions that produce JOBS and why do they like to kill innocent babies just before they take their first breath or sometimes just after...

Hey Obama, how do expect there to be jobs if you keep raising taxes on businesses and trashing them? Your Trillion dollar pork package hasn't stimulated a flea and 85,000 net jobs were lost in December. Unemployment is at 10% (17.5% if you include those that stopped looking and those with temporary jobs) and RISING, Taxes on EVERYBODY will be rising(just watch, I mean EVERYBODY), Businesses in financial straits...

It looks like we need a whole lot more Free Speech since the liberal media is in bed with Obama is just a bunch of info commercials for the Obamination of America...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

im shocked that all the liberals on here dont seem to understand the fundamental interplay between the supreme court and congress."
----

What's shocking is that this radical right on the supreme court used its one vote majority to throw out a century of settled law.
********

HAHA, so what does that make Roe v. Wade? it only overturned 2,000 years of settled law (i think the spartans used to leave disabled babies to die in the wilderness, or did they throw them off cliffs? I cant remember precisely).

or how bout that AWFUL case where the Supreme court overturned prohibitions on interacial marriage? that was a prohibition that stood the test of time.

and unconstitutional decision is just that: unconstitutional and must be overturned.

NEVERMIND, that Obama was LYING (again!) foriegn coporations are already banned from spending on US elections by another statute. Obama was lying about the state of the law to the american people and right in front of the supreme court itself. I'm guessing Chief Justice Roberts wished he had effed up Obama's oath a little more now.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Barnes, YOU LIE. It does NO such thing. The Supreme Court ruling does NOT change the amount that businesses or anyone can give to campaigns...
Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:22 AM
___________________________________________
One should really be sure of their facts before accusing another person of lying in front of the world.

From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/:

"Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns"

From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/july-dec09/scotus_09-09.html:

"It appears that the two ‘swing Justices’ in this case — Chief Justice (John) Roberts and (Samuel) Justice Alito — are ready to consider overturning the two earlier cases — Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) — upholding limits on federal election spending from corporate treasuries,” Hansen wrote.

Overturning those precedents could allow more corporate money to directly influence federal elections."

From http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-decision-radically-overhauls-campaign-finance-laws-favor-corporations56261:

"In a sweeping 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down several longstanding prohibitions on corporate political contributions, saying legislative measures to control such spending infringed upon corporate First Amendment free speech rights.
The majority framed the decision, which will now allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited treasury funds on independent campaign expenditures, as essential to American democracy."

Posted by: Lefty_ | January 28, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Publicly traded lobbying corporations is the next big thing?

Posted by: shhhhh | January 28, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama was absolutely right. The Supreme Court has a huge pro-corporation bent to them. That being said, he was also correct in telling the representatives to come up with something else.

Guess what's going to happen? You got it....nothing. That's because he was also correct in scolding both dem's and repub's for being so damned partisan nowadays that NOTHING will get done.

The whole political systems needs a cleaning.

When will it get to the point when we as Americans start saying enough and then take back our government? Hell, take it over and re-shape it. Revolution baby....can you smell it? Hopefully it will come in my lifetime.

Posted by: stinkyliberals | January 28, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

In my opinion, this decision by the fascist majority on the supreme court is a far greater threat to democracy than any foreign terrorist.

Posted by: Jihm | January 28, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

As a peon in my mid-sized company, I'll definitely speak up if the company decides to contribute to a cause I'm against. Definitely, I will. Until they threaten to fire me ...

As for foreign entities in the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, all they need is an US front. I am absolutely positive that the US companies will say NO when approached by foreign entities, being so patriotic and all.

Posted by: shhhhh | January 28, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

This supreme court ruling was and is a disaster. It will mean that Big corporations will be able to totally OWN the US senate vs now where they own the Republicans totally and many Dems too (aka Moderate Dems).

Great job Alioto, your Millions should be deposited into your Swiss or GS bank accounts by tomorrow by your Big corporate owners.

U can read much more here:
http://anoox.com/blog/Real_News.38054

Posted by: RealNews1 | January 28, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

this is the trouble with packing the Supreme Court with ideologues...they go on to debase the court in public. Part of this justice's job is impartiality, has he forgotten that? The President is allowed opinions, this justice is not.

Posted by: realadult | January 28, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Justice Alito for speaking truth to Obama's distortions. The recent SCOTUS decision left untouched 2 U.S.C. 441e which prohibits foreign politcal contributions, etc. But don't take my word for it, look for yourself. Politicians keep lying to us because we tolerate it. Personally, I'm fed up with lying politians and hope we fire all of them this fall.

Posted by: hit4cycle | January 28, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

How small your mind must be to keep going back to "the Corporation is not a 'person' nonsense. A Corporation exists because of individual shareholders - who ARE persons. Can you grasp that so far? Now, we shareholders meet once a year and VOTE on proposals 'our' Corporations make. You still with me? WE 'persons' TELL Corporations what to do. AND, that Corporation BETTER make decisions which contribute to the Corporations bottom line and pay me dividents. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it. I tried to make it simple enough so you edjekated in publik skewels can grasp it.

Posted by: IQ168

---------------------------------------------

Shareholders are not given a voice in day to day operations and are given a list of things to vote on based on the corporations designated schedule. Political contributions are not one of the things shareholders get a voice in. In fact political contributions is not something I can ever recall as a line item applicable for shareholder review.

I guess we just disagree that greenbacks are "speech". Money counts as donations or pay-offs to me.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 28, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

It's awesome that liberals can't wait to deny others the right to freedom of speech while protecting it for themselves....hypocrites!

Posted by: WildBill1 | January 28, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

its amusing that liberals are stuck on this "corporations arent people/dont have free speech rights" talking point.

for those of you who have never studied the first amendment: it says nothing about free speech "rights". rather, it focus on the government's lack of power to abridge free speech. unless you think a television ad is speech if bought by george soros and, somehow, not speech if its bought by george soros inc., you realize that the court's ruling was 100% appropriate and, indeed, called for.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

It would be good for Justice Alito to actually read the opinion he signed.

Posted by: lowercaselarry | January 28, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

A classless thing to do.

Loks like FOX News and Joe Wilson have now corrupted the Supreme Court.

Makes me ashamed to be an Italian.

Makes me ashamed to be a lawyer.


Posted by: trenda | January 28, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"im shocked that all the liberals on here dont seem to understand the fundamental interplay between the supreme court and congress."
----

What's shocking is that this radical right on the supreme court used its one vote majority to throw out a century of settled law. If Alito really wanted to point out a liar, he should have called out Roberts for lying during his confirmation about following precedent.

This court is packed with ideologues posing as justices--the disaster of the Bush presidency will be with us for a long time.

Posted by: writinron | January 28, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

IQ168, Corporations are not people. Sure, they are run by people. And those people get a vote just like the rest of us. But this law gives the people who run them unfair added influence.

Furthermore, we are giving influence to people who are not citizens. People who can't vote and should have no say in our government. Can you understand the problem no slowpoke?

Posted by: Ecksley | January 28, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Alito knows the Republican voters are so stupid they can't wait to waive their rights to anything and everything, and to put the icing on their stupidity cake, they're blissfully happy to do it and then moronically call their waiver of rights "freedom".

Yeah, freedom from making your own choices; freedom from suing somebody who steals your healthy body parts from you while you're in the hospital for something totally different.

Any idiot knows that when the Supreme Court repealed campaign finance laws that allows the person, or corporation, with the most money to be in charge.

Whoever can outspend everybody, rules the world.

Alito must have been shaking his head at himself. Obviously, since the Republican voters are so stupid, Alito must have thought everybody else was dumb too.

It must have been a shocking revelation for Alito to learn that we know exactly what they were doing when they repealed campaign finance laws; they put this country squarely in hands of the rich.

My guess is the majority-Republican Supreme Court intends to allow the Bush Family to buy Jeb a couple of terms in the Oval Office.


Posted by: lindalovejones | January 28, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama runs the largest corporation in the world, and he thinks it's ok for them to pay for elections.

Posted by: jhr1 | January 28, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

JenAZ
Chavez
liberals
Media Pimps
Obama
Hitler
Socialists
Mao
Dionne
Stalin
Communists
Progressives
WP
Chiang Kai-shek
NY Times
Hirota Koki
Obama
Pol Pot
Democrats
WiIdi
Wilhelm II
Tingly legged Obama Voters
Tito
Obama
Saddam Hussein
Pelosi
Lenin
Nicholas II
Tojo Hideki
Obama
Benito Mussolini
Babrac Kemal
Radovan Karadzic
Ion Antonescu
Wilhelm II

What a nice group of outstanding A##holes that Obama joins...

------------------------
You forgot the RNC and their push to have all candidates sign a purity test. That is pretty says it all...

Posted by: chefra | January 28, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Glenn Greenwald on Alito:

By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function...
____________________________________
As usual, Greenwald nails it. Alito is a disgrace to the Court, as are his four corporate-owned pals.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | January 28, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama runs the largest corporation in the world, and he thinks it's ok for that them to pay for elections.

Posted by: jhr1 | January 28, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

@billnbillieskid

If by "ultra-right-wing activist" you mean strictly interperting the Constitution and not viewing it as "living and breathing" then, yes.

Posted by: horace1 | January 28, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

See what the crappy unconstitutional McCain/Feingold got us...

The worst president, the worst congress, the dumbest electorate has come together at the same time in history to produce the Obamination of America. The terrorists have to be happy that someone else is doing their work for them.

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

What do you expect from Justice Alito? This is a pro-business supreme court. The big corporations already own the government. They will own it big time now, including foreign corporations who mask their money in umbrella organizations which hide where the money came from.

Thanks, Justice Alito.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | January 28, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama was speaking out of turn. There's a division of powers in Washington for a reason, I recommend the Administration avoid trampling nearly three hundred years of constitutional law. Besides, is it always news when someone disagrees with Obama? Must be racism...

Posted by: SUMB44 | January 28, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

How small your mind must be to keep going back to "the Corporation is not a 'person' nonsense. A Corporation exists because of individual shareholders - who ARE persons. Can you grasp that so far? Now, we shareholders meet once a year and VOTE on proposals 'our' Corporations make. You still with me? WE 'persons' TELL Corporations what to do. AND, that Corporation BETTER make decisions which contribute to the Corporations bottom line and pay me dividents. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it. I tried to make it simple enough so you edjekated in publik skewels can grasp it.

Posted by: IQ168 | January 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse
=====================================

You are clueless. Most resolutions that you vote on as a "shareholder" are non-binding! Please look up what that means. So you can "vote" all you want and your person (the corporations) can and often do give you the small shareholder the big middle finger.

Posted by: ag1976 | January 28, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama proved himself last night to be a wannabee Chicago Street Thug. Obama likes to use the word unprecidented alot. His attack on the third branch of government was truely unprecidented in a SOTU speech. It shows how much he has cheepened the Office of President.

Change in tone? Right Obama, we will throw that in with the rest of your lies.

Posted by: robtr | January 28, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Alito vs. Obama: two different things at work here, folks:

(1) Did Obama "walk all over the separation of powers" as some writing here have charged? No. He would have if he had advocated packing the court (like FDR did when he was frustrated by SCOTUS). He would have if he had advocated some other kind of action to weaken the power of the court or if he had declared his intention to circumvent the ruling. He didn't. He said Congress should pass legislation to create a legal solution to the issue, with the clear implication that it should be legislation that this court could find constitutional.

2) Was is unseemly for Obama to "call out" the SCOTUS majority on this decision? Quite possibly, but that's very much a "eye of the beholder" issue and largely peripheral to the larger discussion. I would have preferred that he had been somewhat less confrontational, but this particular thing is a molehill, not a mountain. Let's maintain a sense of proportion. Full disclosure: I am very troubled by the SCOTUS decision, but understand that freedom of speech concerns are not to be dismissed lightly. That said, I think the majority justices are mistaken, NOT treasonous, as some here have written. Can't see the difference? Get a grip.

The issues regarding the SCOTUS decision are very important. THIS story is very inconsequential. The flap over Obama vs. Alito is, I think, even less consequential than the Obama vs. Joe Wilson incident--and that wasn't worth the convulsions we endured over that . . . Cant' see the difference between the SCOTUS decision and the "incident" at the SOTU speech? Get a grip.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv

--------------------------------------------------

You beat me to it. Those arguing about separation of powers apparently don't understand a call to Congress to appropriately close the loop hole through their constitutional legislative powers.

God the right wing is dumb.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 28, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

LIBERALS HATE CORPORATIONS AS MAJORTY OF THEM ARE ON WELFARE AND DON'T WORK ANYWAY. WHY SHOULD THEY CARE ABOUT CORPORATE AMERICA? OBAMA HAS NOTHING TO OFFER. HE HAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORST AMONG US AND YOU LIBERALS DARE TO DEMONIZE REPUBLICANS. WE DON'T HAVE FORMER HEAD OF KKK IN OUR PARTY. WE DON'T HAVE A SENATOR WHO LEFT A YOUNG LADY TO DIE IN 4 FOOT OF WATER. WE DON'T HAVE A HOMOSEXUAL CONGRESSMAN WHO TAKES ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HOUSING MESS. WE DON'T HAVE A SITTING CONGRESSMAN GOING BEFORE THE CAMERA STATING THAT MSNBC AND CHRIS MATTHEWS ARE THE TRUE ENEMY OF AMERICA. WE DON'T HAVE A SITTING CONGRESSMAN WHO ACCUSED OUR MARINES OF KILLING CIVILLANS BEFORE ALL THE FACTS COME OUT. WE DON'T HAVE A SITTING SENATOR WHO SAID THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS LOST WHILE OUR TROOPS ARE STILL ENGAGING THE ENEMY. WE DON'T PLAY THE IDENITY POLITICS WITH ALL THE MINORITY CAUCUS SUCH AS BLACK CONGRESSIONAL, HISPANIC....YOU LIBERALS HAVE SOME SERIOUS SOUL SEARCHING TO DO. LIBERALS SUCK!

Posted by: Cobra2 | January 28, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Here is the snail mail address for the Supreme Court: Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543.

Posted by: Poleman | January 28, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."
===================================

Corporations are not people and should not be afforded the same protections as people. With this choice, you better believe I will research what the political leanings of my shampoo company is. I don't want clean hair to mean a vote for pro-life or something. I just wanted clean hair, now I'll have to make sure to vote loud and clear with my dollars.

America blew this one big time.

Posted by: ag1976 | January 28, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Earlier writer is correct that there is not email comment line or phone line for registering your opinion with the Supreme Court generally or individual justices. HOWEVER, there is a snail mail address you can try (and add a line : ATTENTION: JUSTICE ALITO for example). Since these Five Injustices that made(up) this latest ruling are no doubt drinking their martinis with their robber baron buddies in their favorite corporate boardroom while reading the latest issue about the Forbes Top 500 Companies, they are not getting feedback from the newspapers and blogs that we mere mortal citizens use. So a snail mail letter might be worth a try. Good luck.

Posted by: Poleman | January 28, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I strongly disagree with the recent Supreme Court decision equating corporations and organizations with individuals. Bill of Rights are for individual freedom, not corporate manipulation. The root of our political divisiveness, misinformation, inaction, and political corruption is the campaign finance. Indeed, we have a government, both executive and legislative branches, which are bought by the special interest groups, not by the people, of the people and for the people!

I equally very disappointed of President Obama. Yes, I was glad that he pointed out in his State of the Union address that he disagreed with the Court's decision. Now he suggested some legislation are needed to curb such political influence. Shortly after the 2008 election, I wrote to then the President Elect the fundamental importance of reform the campaign finance law and that should be his first priority. After we get rid of money in politics, hopefully, our political discourse can be more directed toward the well being of the country. My disappointment of the President was his action before the general election. While he was able to raise large amount of money through individual campaign contribution, thus large number of voters would vote for him, but he then turned around and refuse to opt the public finance for his general election campaign, which his opponent, Senator McCain, did. While he was a candidate for the primary, he announced that he would opt the public campaign finance, and his slogan was Change. But before he even got elected, he reverted back to the Old Way. Should he opted the public finance he still would won the election. Together with Senator McCain and many reform minded senators, he would easily campaign for campaign reform and easily could get legislation passed to get ride of most of the money and special interests out of the campaign. President Obama would truly leave a legacy to reform our political system. Look at his popularity and ground swell for change, and very likely he would be able to accomplish that. After all, leadership is not just giving great speeches, but lead by examples. Exactly this lack of doing what one says disappointed me the most.

With current political environment, I doubt very much any meaningful legislation to curb the money influence can be passed at all. Golden opportunity missed.

Now the President criticizing the Court, it seems to me a bit hypocritical. Last Friday, while discussing the Court's decision and the missed opportunity for President Obama, a diehard Obama supporter said to me that President Obama would not go to jail for what he "believed in". This is in reference to comparing with Mandela. Upon reflection, this says all about President Obama.

Posted by: kklee06291 | January 28, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Dihonest reporting by the WaPo. They are now carrying a AP report that states the the Supreme Court "upended a 100 year tradition" in the decision, which is ridiculous. They upended McCain-Lieberman, a recent law. They also fail to report that President Obama was wrong on the point of law in his speech.

I'm sick of biased reporting in the established press and the denigration of any other news source that twists the reporting in a different way. Examine yourself first.

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Alito vs. Obama: two different things at work here, folks:

(1) Did Obama "walk all over the separation of powers" as some writing here have charged? No. He would have if he had advocated packing the court (like FDR did when he was frustrated by SCOTUS). He would have if he had advocated some other kind of action to weaken the power of the court or if he had declared his intention to circumvent the ruling. He didn't. He said Congress should pass legislation to create a legal solution to the issue, with the clear implication that it should be legislation that this court could find constitutional.

2) Was is unseemly for Obama to "call out" the SCOTUS majority on this decision? Quite possibly, but that's very much a "eye of the beholder" issue and largely peripheral to the larger discussion. I would have preferred that he had been somewhat less confrontational, but this particular thing is a molehill, not a mountain. Let's maintain a sense of proportion. Full disclosure: I am very troubled by the SCOTUS decision, but understand that freedom of speech concerns are not to be dismissed lightly. That said, I think the majority justices are mistaken, NOT treasonous, as some here have written. Can't see the difference? Get a grip.

The issues regarding the SCOTUS decision are very important. THIS story is very inconsequential. The flap over Obama vs. Alito is, I think, even less consequential than the Obama vs. Joe Wilson incident--and that wasn't worth the convulsions we endured over that . . . Cant' see the difference between the SCOTUS decision and the "incident" at the SOTU speech? Get a grip.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | January 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

How small your mind must be to keep going back to "the Corporation is not a 'person' nonsense. A Corporation exists because of individual shareholders - who ARE persons. Can you grasp that so far? Now, we shareholders meet once a year and VOTE on proposals 'our' Corporations make. You still with me? WE 'persons' TELL Corporations what to do. AND, that Corporation BETTER make decisions which contribute to the Corporations bottom line and pay me dividents. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it. I tried to make it simple enough so you edjekated in publik skewels can grasp it.

Posted by: IQ168 | January 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama was correct to scold the Court. After all we have a system of checks and balances that applies to the Court as well. The Supreme Court screwed up royally and it is up to the Executive and Legislative Branches to remedy their failure. Anyone who thinks the Supreme Court is above criticism needs to go back to Junior High School civics. The Supreme Court criticizes the President and acts of Congress everyday. It is fiar, just and proper that the President and Congress check the erors of the Court when necessary. By the way, President Obama knows what he is talking about. He taught Constituional Law. Maybe Justice Alito should sit in on a few classes or at least read the Constitution.

Posted by: PepperDr | January 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama didn't look at a camera and scold the terrible and undemocratic decision of the Supremes. He looked them right in the eye and let them know how disgusting their actions were and called for Congress to pass a new law to make sure their overturning of 100 years of law doesn't pollute our elections even worse than they have been lately.

He is a constitutional scholar and he's allowed to voice his displeasure accordingly. He didn't say he was going to try to over ride it with executive orders........he's calling Congress to fix it so we have laws on the books to keep corruption from getting worse.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 28, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Alito and his "gang of five" have have shown themselves to be an ultra-right-wing activist Court who completely disregard the welfare of regular Americans. Free speech is well documented and protected in our Constitution and this insane decision goes overboard in extending the rights of Corporations. How can the average American compete with the Conglomerates that run big business here at home and internationally? Lobbyists already have Congress in a strangle-hold but now the weak willed and easily led politicians, yes, they DO exist in Washington, will be at greater risk of being corrupted by the money "big business" can offer to sway their votes. These "five" should and must be impeached if at all possible. They have no business re-writing our Constitution to serve the special interests of Corporations. A Corporation is NOT a person and to say that it is, is INSANE.

Posted by: billnbillieskid | January 28, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse


Who is the Real Party of NO? And the Big Obama Lie, "I inherited It"...

Q. Who said NO to reforming the Major Toxic Asset Generator FNMA that pumped out Mountains of really bad tenuous loans for years and years?
A..DEMOCRATS that's who. Go to You Tube and watch the CSPAN rebroadcast of Democrats saying NO to this reform....

Q. Who said NO to ALL new practical domestic energy production and just stood by watching energy prices triple, causing the sudden contraction of businesses and pushing those really bad loans off the cliff?
A..DEMOCRATS that's who. Even in Al Gore's book, he praised high energy prices as a good thing...
Hey Rahm Emanuel, when you were at that Toxic Asset Generator and enabler of this Crisis, FNMA, your pay was calculated at $46,000 per hour. How about giving that back to the Tax payers. And Obama, as a lawyer for ACORN who sued lenders to make those bad loans turned to Toxic Assets, YOU OWE the tax payers big bucks too.
The Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Dodd/Democrats are up to their necks in causing this crisis...Obama lies...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

As pointed out in the New York Times' Caucus blog:

"President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections.

"But he’s too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which already prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies."

To the extent existing legislation has a loophole (the relevant statute, 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, is silent on the treatment of companies that are incorporated and headquartered in the United States but are owned by foreigners), that is a matter which can and should be addressed by CONGRESS.

CONGRESS has a free hand to re-draft the statutory language and close that possible loophole (the Citizens United decision expressly stated that legislative barriers to foreign campaign spending were outside the scope of the opinion).

Obama was being disingenuous in blaming the Supreme Court for the problems which may arise from a poorly drafted statute.

One can hardly blame Alito for objecting to the president's mischaracterization of the Court's ruling, as indeed it was "not true."

Posted by: Tinymont | January 28, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

TO: dummy [pants?] who wrote:
“I’m shocked that all the liberals on here don’t seem to understand the fundamental interplay between the supreme court and congress…
It’s the same liberals who probably think that overturning Roe v. Wade would be akin to the supreme court banning abortion.”
____________________

The entire world has seen what Republican policies can do to a thriving country like ours, those policies ran our country into the ground to the degree that’s it’s taking years for the America People to recover, yet the Republifreaks remain stuck on stupid and continuing to support the same idiotic policies that hurt this country so badly the first time.

As for Roe v. Wade: If overturning Roe isn’t akin to banning abortions, then why do the birthers want so desperately for Roe to be overturned.

Dummy is right.

Posted by: lindalovejones | January 28, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Alito vs. Obama: two different things at work here, folks:

(1) Did Obama "walk all over the separation of powers" as some writing here have charged? No. He would have if he had advocated packing the court (like FDR did when he was frustrated by SCOTUS). He would have if he had advocated some other kind of action to weaken the power of the court or if he had declared his intention to circumvent the ruling. He didn't. He said Congress should pass legislation to create a legal solution to the issue, with the clear implication that it should be legislation that this court could find constitutional.

2) Was is unseemly for Obama to "call out" the SCOTUS majority on this decision? Quite possibly, but that's very much a "eye of the beholder" issue and largely peripheral to the larger discussion. I would have preferred that he had been somewhat less confrontational, but this particular thing is a molehill, not a mountain. Let's maintain a sense of proportion. Full disclosure: I am very troubled by the SCOTUS decision, but understand that freedom of speech concerns are not to be dismissed lightly. That said, I think the majority justices are mistaken, NOT treasonous, as some here have written. Can't see the difference? Get a grip.

The issues regarding the SCOTUS decision are very important. THIS story is very inconsequential. The flap over Obama vs. Alito is, I think, even less consequential than the Obama vs. Joe Wilson incident--and that wasn't worth the convulsions we endured over that . . . Cant' see the difference between the SCOTUS decision and the "incident" at the SOTU speech? Get a grip.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | January 28, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I hear Alito and Roberts from the Gang of Five Injustices on the Supreme Court that made this ruling are also going back to revisit the Three-Fifths rule posited at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. As part of their "non-activist" agenda these noble justices are looking to incorporate this rule into modern law. The rule stated that five slaves equaled three freeman votes in federal elections for president, senate, house, etc. Of course the slaves didn't actually get to vote, but the states and the slave masters got the benefit of voting on their behalf. Alito and Roberts are soon to propose that five living breathing US citizens are now equal to three corporations, and since people are all invested in corporations through their 401Ks, pension funds, and general consumer needs, there is no need to actually vest individuals with the right to vote on their own behalf. The right to vote will be solely vested with corporations, whose inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, shall not be abridged by mere mortals. To those who call the latest ruling a blow for free speech, perhaps you should remember that slaves, since they were considered property, were not granted the right of free speech. with Supreme Court rulings like this, soon the average US citizen, like the slaves of old, will be nothing more than property for the corporations to exploit and dispose of as they see fit.

Posted by: Poleman | January 28, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I just phoned over the Supreme Court's main number. I wanted to leave a comment about the recent ruling and Justice Alito's shameful behavior he displayed while the President was speaking.

Get this, the Supreme Court doesn't have a comment line. Go ahead you can check it out yourself 202 479 3000. They will tell you that if you'd like you should contact your Senator/Congress person and tell them. I'd appreciate it if the Washington Post helped drive this point home, The Supreme Court should make themselves available for comment from the general public, and Justices like Alito need to hear, that "We the People" think he's an incompetent, disgraceful, boob.


Posted by: nancykulka | January 28, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Nancy your a FFFFFN idiot. I bet you also picked up the phone to call Congress after they shouted at President Bush during several speech's before congress as I know you keep it fair don't you? I would change my name as NANCY is the most unpopular female name in the US these days. Now get back to class idiot girl. Liberals Suck!

Posted by: Cobra2 | January 28, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I hope Soros buys the seats of remaining Republicans so we can rub it in the treasonous right wings face. Then we can force some laws to have elections be about people again instead of multi national's desires.

Corporations are NOT people.

Taxation WITHOUT representation is FOR PEOPLE.

If companies don't like it they can go to another nation that doesn't have any Federal taxes and allows companies to directly back or campaign against candidates. oh wait there is no such government on the planet and its for good reason.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 28, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court as the third branch of the peoples' government must uphold the Will of the people as well. The people have suffered greatly in recent years due to greed of corporations. Giving corporations more political power in a time when special interest seeks goals opposite to the people's will is an affirmation that the Supreme Court puts Elitist causes above the common man.

Presidents Jackson and Eisenhower warned of corporate influence in which the "money-eyed" interests of a few could trump our democracy during political processes. One must be forever cautious of taking the power away from the people if we value the counsel of those who have governed this Land before us.

So Alito just had to display his disagreement during the State of the Union address by President Obama ? Well, what an arrogant improper display and let the jury note a display of denial covering up guilt ?

Posted by: truthhurts | January 28, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Justices like Alito need to KNOW, that "We the People" think he's an incompetent, disgraceful Judge. Alito should be FIRED from the bench!!

Come on there must be a memo From Bush to Alito telling him how to vote during the Bush Regime!!!

Find the memo and FIRE THE WHOLE BUNCH!!!!

The Supreme Court knows that no matter what they rule...no matter what they say or do they have a JOB FOR LIFE AND CAN'T BE FIRED (unless you find the memo!

Alito and his cohorts can and have created law to favor Corporate Interests over the good of the Nation and the will of the people!!!

This type of judicial rule is activism law and is still illegal. But when it's the high court that's the activist you MUST BRING THE CORT TO THEIR KNEES AND REMOVE THOSE OFFENDERS TO SAVE AMERICA.

IF ALITO AND HIS COHORTS ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO MAKE ACTIVISM LAW. AMERICA AND THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA HAVE LOST and HOPE IS LOST TOO.

CORPORATIONS WILL NOT ONLY OWN OUR COUNTRY...THEY WILL HAVE THE COURT ORDERS SOON ENOUGH TO DISCRIMINATE AGENTS EVERYBODY THAT'S NOT AN OLD WHITE GUY OR THEIR TYPE OF CHRISTIAN!!!

THIS IS YET ANOTHER GIFT FROM GEORGE W BUSH THE GREAT TRAITOR OF AMERICAN!!!

Posted by: imZandor | January 28, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Hey Obama, the big time corporation GE owns NBC and they decided to jump in bed with you and they have all the Free Speech they want anytime they want it...I see you just don't want any competition....
Obama is the neo-socialist empty suit liar...

Thank you people of Massachusettes, the blueest of blue states....

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Of course this right wing thug, appointed to the court by GOP thugs, sitting among right wing thugs on the court, dissents. However, this part and parcel of the system controlled by the elite the way it was intended by the founding fathers who themselves represented the elite class. People make a mistake of thinking they are living in a democracy because that is what the corporate tells them day and night as they sell corporate propaganda.

Posted by: kevin1231 | January 28, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Sophic's comments today as usual demonstrate how absolutely unthinking and demeaning the opposition to our President have become.

Bossie of Citizens United doesn't seem to realize that corporations are citizens and therefore shouldn't be entitled to any rights of free speech. The Supreme Court decision will be changed.

Posted by: MyComments | January 28, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

What if AlQuada became a corporation and donated to political campaigns. What would Scalito, Will and Bossie say then.
*******

god, you're dumb.

they'd probably say "pass a law congress" and if its challanged, it will be upheld.

its funny on obama's part; he wants to give terrorists some constitutional rights (miranda rights, for example) but not others. maybe he should jsut appoint himself to the supreme court since he seems to have very particular and in some cases contradictory views on the constitution.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Hate to drag this dead horse back out but where were the first amendment/ free speech folks when Prof. Gates was exercising his right in his own home?

Posted by: priceisright | January 28, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a knucklehead inspite of his education. First, the Supreme Court should revoke it's holding that a corporation is a "person" for anything except "service: which is a legal fiction.Then, if a corporation wishes to participate in the electorial process, it should should show that the majority of their stockholders agree with spending their money on political acument.

Posted by: webster11 | January 28, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

MerrillFrank
They would say DO YOUR DUTY BE N INFORMED VOTER. Why dont you morons get this?

Posted by: poconnell3 | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Hahahahah. This was the best part of an excellent speech. Those arrogant, reckless justices deserved to be scolded to their face, with a standing ovation roaring around them.

And, pray tell, in what was isn't it "true." They did exactly what Obama said they did. Facts are facts. The implications to what's left of our democracy are staggering when corporations are allowed to, in essence, buy and sell candidates -- and yes, foreign subsidiaries WILL have a say, a BIG say, in our elections.

What Alito et al. did is unconscionable, overturning, as Obama correctly points out, a century of law.

They should be ashamed of themselves and thank God Obama called them out.

Posted by: monk4hall | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

im shocked that all the liberals on here dont seem to understand the fundamental interplay between the supreme court and congress.

their ignorance is obvious when they take the position: X is bad, thus its the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution such that it cant happen. if that were the case, we WOULDNT NEED a congress.

its the same liberals who probably think that overturning roe v. wade would be akin to the supreme court banning abortion.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

the president was way out of line. criticize a supreme court decision? fine. but not with members of the court sitting 10 feet in front of you as part of a captive audience.
Posted by: dummypants
=================================================

That's the BEST time to call them out!

And the judge that mouthed "not true". Who cares what he thinks, he's not the president.

Obama 2012!

Posted by: MUPPET | January 28, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

What if AlQuada became a corporation and donated to political campaigns. What would Scalito, Will and Bossie say then.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | January 28, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

For all of you claiming that Obama lied about foreigners now having a direct say in US elections, consider this:

1. The majority shareholder of a company, even if they do not control half of the shares, can have huge say in selection of the board.

2. It is easy and legal for non-US citizens to own substantial chunks of US companies and for all intents and purposes, name the executive board members.

With these two points, it is very easy to see how the Chinese (or any other) government could create a shell company that would then buy enough shares in a US company to ensure they could pick the CEO. This handpicked CEO could then spend massive amounts of money on ads campaigning directly against the candidates who want a harder line with China.

This is the direct result of the recent SCOTUS decision.

Posted by: SPrior | January 28, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics -- scapegoating 'special interest' bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy," said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC member and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.

---------------------------------------------------

Special Interests are now a boogeyman? But we can all see the cackling hyenas towering over the carcass of the Senate health care bill. Boogeymen are fictional and special interests are quite real. When Americans can plainly see the ads, the press releases and the distortion coming from Big Money Interests it is not a good idea to insult our intelligence and pretend that this isn't happening.

Posted by: theobserver4 | January 28, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Alito's corporate masters told him to do it.

Posted by: ccs4756 | January 28, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

sophic, go pray to your zombie carpenter and ask him what he would do in this situation

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama's refusal to respect the separation of Powers is shameful and disgusting. When the truth comes out about Obama after he leaves office, so many of you will find you have been fooled!

Posted by: Obama_TRAITOR_in_Chief | January 28, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a Joke along with Boehrener and the rest of the do nothing republicans, it should be clear to OBAMA, that these JERKS have no desire to work with you, I would do a BUSHIE, RAM IT DOWN THERE THROAT, I WOULD ASK SCOTT BROWN WHAT HE WANTS IN MASS. GIVE IT TO EM AND THEN PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM AS IS!! LIVE AND DIE BY YOUR POLICIES, THE HECK WITH THOSE IDIOTS, THEY HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE SUCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHAT DO THEY PROPOSE? SHOW ME ONE DECENT IDEA, NOT GOOD, DECENT

Posted by: ste65 | January 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Stick to the subject AS_Wipe. That idiot President indeed had his own Joe Wilson moment. Barak is that kid who used to get his butt whipped on the playground. Many of those little sissies are now in power. You love the Supreme Court when it goes your way (abortion) but cry like the little sissies you are when it goes against you. Jimmy Carter must feel pretty good these days knowing that he is now #2 on the list of worst Presidents in History. Only took Barak 1 year to unseat him. Liberals Suck and your losing power by the hour.

Posted by: Cobra2 | January 28, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Here's the conclusion after looking at most of the comments here:

Obama Voters/leftists/liberals/Democratss are too stupid for Free Speech for Everyone and need their mommy Pelosi and daddy Obama to make decisions for them and to keep them in a lifetime supply of Government diapers...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I just phoned over the Supreme Court's main number. I wanted to leave a comment about the recent ruling and Justice Alito's shameful behavior he displayed while the President was speaking.

Get this, the Supreme Court doesn't have a comment line. Go ahead you can check it out yourself 202 479 3000. They will tell you that if you'd like you should contact your Senator/Congress person and tell them. I'd appreciate it if the Washington Post helped drive this point home, The Supreme Court should make themselves available for comment from the general public, and Justices like Alito need to hear, that "We the People" think he's an incompetent, disgraceful, boob.

Posted by: nancykulka | January 28, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Shocker!

America's deranged LEFT-wing mob -- the dumbest people on Earth -- can't understand how excessive UNION influence on our elections is a BAD thing.

Posted by: dnha | January 28, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

how can obama be opposed to a decision which overturned a view of the first amendment that would have given the federal government the power to outlaw media corporations engaging in political speech? i mean it would be nice if we had less keith olbermann's on cable news, but the free speech of medica corporations should be secured by the first amendment and not by the grace of legislative grant (which could always be withdrawn by the legislature), as was the case before last week's decision.

simply put, to oppose the supreme's decision is to take a shockingly authoratarian stance. whats amazing is that 4 liberal justices did just that and apparently are president is in agreement with this view.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Please, do not be so harsh on Alito, for the next thing he'll do is trot his wife out in front of the media to bawl her eyes out again ad nauseam about just how cruel and unfair the public and media are with her beloved wing nut, "Sammy."

-------

His wife is too busy enjoying their new tropical vacation home that be bought her courtesy of the special interest payoffs he got for his decision.

Posted by: CAC2 | January 28, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

sophic, only an idiot would propose that a corporation have the right to vote because they pay taxes. You have merely confirmed what we have all suspected for some time; you're an idiot with very stupid ideas.

Posted by: JenAZ
_______________________________________

So you like the idea of taxation without representation...huh

I'll be on the side of our forefathers and those Supreme Court justices that uphold Free Speech for Everybody... You can stay with the leftist oppressors of speech...
Yes, you can be on the list with them,

A short list of people who don't like free speech for EVERYBODY:

JenAZ
Chavez
liberals
Media Pimps
Obama
Hitler
Socialists
Mao
Dionne
Stalin
Communists
Progressives
WP
Chiang Kai-shek
NY Times
Hirota Koki
Obama
Pol Pot
Democrats
WiIdi
Wilhelm II
Tingly legged Obama Voters
Tito
Obama
Saddam Hussein
Pelosi
Lenin
Nicholas II
Tojo Hideki
Obama
Benito Mussolini
Babrac Kemal
Radovan Karadzic
Ion Antonescu
Wilhelm II

What a nice group of outstanding A##holes that Obama joins...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Free speech does not mean true speech. All those dictators listed by Sophic had free speech which was called propaganda. Corporations are not a democracy they are a dictatorship run by owners and CEO’s.

Just look at the cigarette companies up through the 60’s who said that smoking does not cause cancer, with great political support; that is the door the Supreme Court has opened up. It has taken decades and much death due to cancer to start to right that wrong. That is what we can be in for if corporations spend wildly to promote what is best for their profits.

The one who spends the most money should not dictate elections, politicians spend too much of there time soliciting for $$ rather then taking care of the government.

It is time for very strict contribution laws to be passed, which is what President Obama spoke to in his State of The Union to Congress.

Posted by: BFeinberg | January 28, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Alito's conduct was unbecoming for a Supreme Court justice.

Posted by: trace1 | January 28, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Judicial activism at its best. Exposing yet another example of GOP hypocrisy. They certainly don't mind when the SCOTUS does it to further one of their causes....

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

monk4hall
You have a vote, You are charged with the duty of making sure the right person is in office. Stop looking for government to take care of your pathetic ass.

Posted by: poconnell3 | January 28, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I would certainly hate to be a Republican and be saddled with the job of defending this obvious perversion of our court.

But then, if things like hypocrisy or dishonesty bothered a person, they wouldn't be a Republican in the first place.

Posted by: Ms_Morgan | January 28, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

According to the liberals the following can contribute:

ACORN
SEIU
Unions in general, teachers, auto workers, etc.
Open Society Institute and other Soros organizations.
PETA
Planned Parenthood
Goldman Sachs
Are we getting the drift?

According to the liberals the following can not contribute:
IBM
Intel
GM (well they shouldn't because of conflict of interest)
Goldman Sachs (weren't they in the first list also?)
Southwest Airlines
etc. etc. etc.

If the second list should not contribute, why should the first? In both lists all of the organizations are populated by citizens of the US. Why should unions get a voice, but the corporations that hire the union workers, not get a voice? Right, only people that agree with Obama get a voice. Now I understand.

Posted by: dnha | January 28, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

high time the supreme court is made to realize they are not God on earth.

those who believe the political system is corrupt need only look to the justice system for runaway corruption.

Posted by: LakewoodOhio | January 28, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito is in denial - there are five Justices on the S.Ct. that should not be there; I'm all about setting term limits. Since when are corporations people? Now there's something that should be revisited. Seems to me that gives them two votes (at least) each, and an ability to "donate" unlimited monetary gifts. The average American has a limit - $2300. And now non-Americans can vote too! What a deal, and only in America. The Frivolous Five.

Posted by: julieforBarack | January 28, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse


In what way isn't it true? Naturally, we never hear that. It IS true. what Roberts, Alito, et. al. was judicial activism at its worst -- and it is a direct threat to the last shreds of democracy left over from eight years of Bush. That's just great. Allow corporations to buy and sell candidates -- including foreign corporations.

And these conservatives cheering it on. Incredible.

Posted by: monk4hall | January 28, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Republicants have shown just what they are made of, nothing. They have no proposals, except tax breaks and no to everything else. When money is the only underlying advantage that politicians have, corporations will funnel even more money to further their causes, further marginalizing the average citizens voice. We will be living 1984, with not just stadiums bearing corporations names, but with the Washington landscape littered with banners all over Congress.
Five justices showed what an activist judge looks like.

Posted by: COLEBRACKETT | January 28, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Good for Alito. Next time the justices should just stay home. This was crass on Obama's part. Having his nose bloodied in recent elections, he wants to pick a fight with the town nerds. The applause from the chamber was like a bunch junkies cheering on one of Marion Barry's anti-drug speeches. Stop us before we shoot up again!

Posted by: maxtel1910 | January 28, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Liberals think that Americans are too stupid to have Free Speech for Everybody. After all IT'S SPEECH NOT THE RIGHT TO VOTE...
Corporations advertise everyday with millions of dollars. Some things they sale really suck and others I like but I GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION NOT GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS...
Free Speach for EVERYONE.
Thank you Supreme Court for making the Right and the Constitutional decision...

2012 can't come soon enough to remove the neo-socialist empty suit and his Democrat accomplices from Washington...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

sophic, only an idiot would propose that a corporation have the right to vote because they pay taxes. You have merely confirmed what we have all suspected for some time; you're an idiot with very stupid ideas.

Posted by: JenAZ | January 28, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a Joke along with Boehrener and the rest of the do nothing republicans, it should be clear to OBAMA, that these JERKS have no desire to work with you, I would do a BUSHIE, RAM IT DOWN THERE THROAT, I WOULD ASK SCOTT BROWN WHAT HE WANTS IN MASS. GIVE IT TO EM AND THEN PASS HEALTH CARE REFORM AS IS!! LIVE AND DIE BY YOUR POLICIES, THE HECK WITH THOSE IDIOTS, THEY HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES TO BE SUCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHAT DO THEY PROPOSE? SHOW ME ONE DECENT IDEA, NOT GOOD, DECENT

Posted by: ste65 | January 28, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

The premise that corporations will buy candidates is only out there because of stupid people voting for people they know nothing about, so they get their info from commercials. It is how Obama got elected. You all have a vote and the corporations don't. Now it is up to the electorate to do their duty.

Posted by: poconnell3 | January 28, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"increasingly expensive and negative campaigns for judicial office erode both the impartiality of the judiciary and the public perception of them." It is all stirred but not mixed that suits the public instead of the hands of the legislators. It is a shoot out. It is O.K. Corral.
The decision is not right for the judiciary or publics but the Justices have no choice because the rules are neither logical nor transparent as can be. Justice Kennedy’s did open the gate for the funds from the corporations and institutions and his action could shift the burden toward the voters choosing their candidates rather than depend on the legislators who desire on their favors.
How many time the justices are to redefine the law on the contributions; and how many time can the FBI catch the villain in action to purchase the seat of the public offices? A Restaurant owner with his cooks gave thousands to the Congressman Goodneed and his family stays in his fan’s vacation home for weeks for no charge. It’s all circumstantial and most find it incredible.
As the increasingly expensive and negative campaigns exploded, it works because the legislators change the rules on the contribution and judiciary office and the public are influenced by the expensive and negative campaigns. Why not judiciary offices? Legislators would not satisfy with the result, some even think of themselves are the owners to the Justices. 7-11 shops of litigations are planted orthogonally to gain to best interest.
Now, the joke is on the Justices, and Justice Alito shook his head and murmured “not truth”, we might not know what he mean. But, I recall the case I and Dr. Armand Hammer both laughed out loud after Professor Richards gave me the book “The invasion of the body snatcher”. I guess he can turn his grave and laugh again. Is it possible that Cold shoulder for justice or Justice Alito is true? Orthogonally, yes. It is because he is not fit for the program on the 7-11 shop for litigation. I would suggest him to move to Florida; but who is to stop them? After all, I lost my job in San Francisco, and Oklahoma retired in Florida; but eventually I return to San Francisco.
Dear Justice Alito, it might not be true to you and it is true to other. I did not afraid of the body snatcher anymore. I am reborn myself. So will you too orthogonally or not.

Posted by: 94134gamesmith | January 28, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse


Shocker!

America's deranged right-wing mob -- the dumbest people on Earth -- can't understand how excessive corporate influence on our elections is a BAD thing.

These people are absurd. And way to go Alito in proving how partial you are as a "judge". This man is clearly not worthy of a seat at our highest court. He's just a partisan hack.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | January 28, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

A Supreme Court decision first gave corporations the same rights as individuals. Now the Supreme Court has given corporations more rights than individuals. Since I have the same rights as corporations by the fact that they have my same rights, I will now write off all my expenses from my taxes including utilities, rent/mortgage payments, water, telephone, advertising, transportation, all local taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc. One can't have more right than another in this country. But when AIG Inc. runs for government office, I won't be voting for them.

Posted by: clairevb | January 28, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe what the conservative movement has come to.......arguing that Russia and China should be able to buy a majority stake in an American corporation and spend $3 Billion to buy our elections.

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

The Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen's right to free speech. The congress and senate were set up to regulate trade and commerce. Even though Goldman Sach's is a name it doesn't mean they are a citizen, their contributions to campaigns do not represent anyone but the company's own self interests. Now if the president of a company wants to use his own money to run a commercial it is fine, but why should we let them use the company's money to influence our thinking? We already saw they picked idiots to run their own companies, do you want their choice for running our country?

Posted by: chandadn | January 28, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito is a disgrace to this nation. He is a perfect example of the kind of feces in a robe that will come from enabling big money to buy judgeships filled through an electoral process.

Posted by: 2incorrigible | January 28, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

sophic wrote (stupidly): Yes, the government gave them that status for TAX PURPOSES. They should have the right to vote too....taxation without representation has always been a bad thing..."
==================================
You have bumped your head hard, haven't you? That's perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen you post yet and your posting is prodigious and well as insipid, so this was a real bonafide assinine pronouncement without equal.
____________________________________

ROFL, I see that all you have is a no content assinine so called reply...that's wby Air America bit the dust, any trucker with a cell phone could beat down the hosts so called arguments...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse


What else would one expect from a partisan GOP Supreme Court Justice? He and his party would not know class if it slapped them upside the head. Young children are more civil and probably more intelligent also.

Posted by: edanddot | January 28, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Why not just expand NAFTA and send all the rest of our jobs overseas?

Posted by: racam | January 28, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I love that Obama is so indignant about the Supreme Court decision.
Shouldn't he be happy that Soros doesn't have to "hide" his unlimited contributions behind so many fronts? Soro's fines have been minimal compared to his unlimited contributions to Obama.

Obama: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

Floodgates have been open to Soros already in each of these categories. Obama the hypocrite. Thank you Justice Alito for taking a stand. Love it!

Posted by: pjcafe | January 28, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

hansenthered: Hey idiot, you need to re-read my post. This is the third time you posted that. I was calling out come other religious, zombie carpenter-worshiping freak, I don't believe that stuff

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse


From George Will 9-13-2009 about this case.

Last March, during the Supreme Court argument concerning the Federal Election Commission's banning of a political movie, several justices were aghast. Suddenly and belatedly they saw the abyss that could swallow the First Amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia was "a little disoriented" and Justice Samuel Alito said "that's pretty incredible." Chief Justice John Roberts said: "If we accept your constitutional argument, we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book" -- a hypothetical 500-page book containing one sentence that said "vote for" a particular candidate.
What shocked them, but should not have, were statements by a government lawyer who was only doing his professional duty with ruinous honesty -- ruinous to his cause.
He was defending the mare's-nest of uncertainties that federal campaign finance law has made and the mess the court made in 2003 when, by affirming the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold's further speech restrictions, it allowed Congress to regulate speech by and about people running for Congress.
HOW WOULD YOU HAVE RULED?

Posted by: poconnell3 | January 28, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Scalito's a whiny little boy, but he's also a traitor to this country. I hope he receives justice one way or another.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | January 28, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

So sorry maurban but only a religious fanatic who wants a theocracy could argue that a woman being in charge of their own bodies is akin to killing babies. Stop trying to force your religious views on good Americans who do not carry your extremist water.

Late term abortion is now illegal. What is next, no abortion at all, even for rape? After that I guess no contraceptives or sex education. When will it end? Medieval thinking has no place in modern democracies that value liberty for all of its citizens, not just those with external reproductive organs.

Posted by: hansenthered | January 28, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

sophic wrote (stupidly): Yes, the government gave them that status for TAX PURPOSES. They should have the right to vote too....taxation without representation has always been a bad thing..."
==================================
You have bumped your head hard, haven't you? That's perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen you post yet and your posting is prodigious and well as insipid, so this was a real bonafide assinine pronouncement without equal.
____________________________________

ROFL, I see that all you have is a no content assinine so called reply...that's wby Air America bit the dust, any trucker with a cell phone could beat down the hosts so called arguments...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Dear Leader does not approve of the Constitution's balance of power. Isn't that a shame. I hope the Supreme Court makes a lot of decisions to restore the constitution. Limiting American's free speech was unconstitutional - and it was not just corporations who were illegally silenced by McCain's leglislative temper tamptrum against the American people.

These restrictions applied to all citizens - nonprofits as well as groups of citizens who desired to pool their money just to make their own views heard during elections.

The only voices permitted to speak in the last weeks of the election were the media. And we saw where that united bias got us during the last election. Thanks to the Supreme Court, everyone can have their voices and issues heard by the electorate again.

Posted by: sj121387 | January 28, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"the supreme court hasnt kept the congress from acting. obama should stop whinning and tell congress to get on the job."
======================================
ummm, that's exactly what he asked them to do yesterday right after he called out the SCOTUS

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

So sorry maurban but only a religious fanatic who wants a theocracy could argue that a woman being in charge of their own bodies is akin to killing babies. Stop trying to force your religious views on good Americans who do not carry your extremist water.

Late term abortion is now illegal. What is next, no abortion at all, even for rape? After that I guess no contraceptives or sex education. When will it end? Medieval thinking has no place in modern democracies that value liberty for all of its citizens, not just those with external reproductive organs.

Posted by: hansenthered | January 28, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Only 6 Justices in the front row. Notice who was missing: Scalia and his toady Clarence Thomas (Okay Stevens too, but he's 90 something and it was past his bedtime, no cruelty intended. So, when you speak of Obama's alleged slight of the Justices, please notice the right wing extremist Justices' slight of the President.

Posted by: underdog100 | January 28, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Good point so busy being disgusted by Alito the prick did not realize who was missing The conservatives are a scary bunch wow They remind me of the youth for Hitler

Posted by: lildg54 | January 28, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities,"

What Obama should to add is... unless it's advocating democrats... unions, ACORN, etc..

Posted by: ravioliman6666 | January 28, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Um, MikeChicago, A+B = A+B. AB is A times B. Whatever you were trying to say, however poorly, this reader is sure happy you're not on the court.

Posted by: Davidd1 | January 28, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

The media in bed with Obama and OWNED BY CORPORATIONS has Free Speech ALL THE TIME... Why shouldn't everybody have the same privilege...huh

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

thehamptons1: You do realize that Bush had more czars than Obama does now? Right? Or are you that thick? and 80% of the czars that we have now are holdovers from Bush, he didn't appoint them all. Stop watching Beck and do your research

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I love the way conservative get all teary-eyed when the first amendment "rights" of corporations are threatened. Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are persons with fundamental rights? Nowhere. That is an invention of the Supreme Court. I guess Exxon will be running for Senate soon or demanding a vote in local elections.

Posted by: gtinla | January 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to be called out on his blatant LIES. Certainly WaPo and the main-stream media will not do it.

Posted by: pgr88 | January 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I am appalled our Supreme Court has given away our country, just like that. No questions asked. How dare they!
********

the supreme court hasnt kept the congress from acting. obama should stop whinning and tell congress to get on the job.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Claiming the opposition is opposed to 1st amendment rights for individuals is bizarre. Asking congress to preclude foreign interests in our election process is a no brainier.

A domestic corporation can be owned by foreign individuals who have no business influencing American politics.

That's the trap.

Posted by: trident420 | January 28, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: maurban
So what happens if China takes a little bit of that $2.4 trillion they have stashed away and buy a majority stake in an American corporation? Then they will be able to buy as many tv commercials as they want telling the American people how they should vote.
____________________________________

So What? They CAN'T VOTE CAN THEY? Are you to stupid for Free Speech...Obama, thinks so too....

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Those Supreme Court judges looked like they were stoned or boozed up. What a moth-eaten group of old zombies they appeared to be.

God help our nation.

Posted by: Ruhu | January 28, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Those Supreme Court judges looked like they were stoned or boozed up. What a moth-eaten group of old zombies they appeared to be.

God help our nation.

Posted by: Ruhu | January 28, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Congress makes poorly thought out laws,in a hurry, without proper critical examination and some one else has to sweep up the mess while Congress is crowing about the fine work they put together that was stopped by those nasty courts..
Right where health care bill was headed..
Old trick..old dogs..need new dogs.

Posted by: jacques21 | January 28, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

hansenthered: I was responding to sophic, who claimed all liberals love killing babies. I obviously do not believe such idiotic nonsense.

I wish these people would just go worship Josh the Zombie Carpenter in quiet and stop trying to press his teachings on me

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

sophic wrote (stupidly): Yes, the government gave them that status for TAX PURPOSES. They should have the right to vote too....taxation without representation has always been a bad thing..."
==================================
You have bumped your head hard, haven't you? That's perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen you post yet and your posting is prodigious and well as insipid, so this was a real bonafide assinine pronouncement without equal.


Posted by: JenAZ | January 28, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

As usual, as is always the case with statists, Marxists and socialists, the US Constitution remains an obstacle to their dictatorial agenda and plans. But, "calling out" the Justices on a Constitutional matter points to an ego maniacal juvenile we have in the White House. The dems follow this fool at their own peril. I noticed that Obama never mentioned the $63 million Andy Stern of the SEIU bragged about spending to get Obama elected, ot rhe $33 million the AFL-CIO pumped into the campaign, or the Teachers Unions $24 million. How come those "businesses" were left out of the jab?

Posted by: vgailitis | January 28, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I believe that the JOE WILSON moment came from Obama, what a classless way for a president to anounce his unhappiness. Even the lib justices were not pleased with it. Typical Chicago pol.This man will embarass every American in one way or another before he hopfully is voted out of office in 12

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Right! No one should ever question a decision that cleared the court with a single vote.

At what point should they be taken to task for a decision that a majority of Americans knows to be wrong.


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | January 28, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

the president was way out of line. criticize a supreme court decision? fine. but not with members of the court sitting 10 feet in front of you as part of a captive audience. and his faux concern over foreign influence in our elections is charming considering how he waxes on about "world opinion" when discussing the most important matters of national security. i mean, he openly advocates closing guantanamo based on what al-qaida thinks about it. he even thinks judge made law from other countries can be applied here in the united states by appointed judges. but all of a sudden BASF cant run have any inputs into the market place of ideas in a democratic process? he must have precious little faith in the the american people's ability to do what they think is right regardless of who weighs in on what side.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Free "speech" isn't equal when money is doing the talking, but if SCOTUS has taken this route, then we must be sure that any and all corporate contributions are publically available, so that I can excersize MY right to free speech and boycot companies that I disagree with.

Posted by: meharg | January 28, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

So sorry maurban but only a religious fanatic who wants a theocracy could argue that a woman being in charge of their own bodies is akin to killing babies. Stop trying to force your religious views on good Americans who do not carry your extremist water.

Late term abortion is now illegal. What is next, no abortion at all, even for rape? After that I guess no contraceptives or sex education. When will it end? Medieval thinking has no place in modern democracies that value liberty for all of its citizens, not just those with external reproductive organs.

Posted by: hansenthered | January 28, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

So sorry maurban but only a religious fanatic who wants a theocracy could argue that a woman being in charge of their own bodies is akin to killing babies. Stop trying to force your religious views on good Americans who do not carry your extremist water.

Late term abortion is now illegal. What is next, no abortion at all, even for rape? After that I guess no contraceptives or sex education. When will it end? Medieval thinking has no place in modern democracies that value liberty for all of its citizens, not just those with external reproductive organs.

Posted by: hansenthered | January 28, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

After reading through these comments, what stands out to me is how Obama has mesmerized his supporters to think he actually means what he says. Obama truly thinks the end justifies the means, therefore he will say anything to promote his agenda which he admits to be "fundamentally transforming America".

What got him elected were his promises of transparency, never allowing earmarks, no lobbyists on his payroll, no more back room deals and a new foreign policy. He hasn't kept any of these promises, and he can't blame the GOP, conservatives or Bush for that.

Instead we've seen radicals and lobbyists in and around the White House, nearly 40 unaccountable "czars", no open debates on C-Span, the Nebraska bribe , the Louisiana purchase, the Union tax exclusion, bowing to foreign leaders. These issues have nothing to do with Bush, GOP, right wing conservatives or FOX News.

Posted by: thehamptons1 | January 28, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Read the first ammendment and the actual Supreme Court opinion. If Barack Obama cared about anything other than his own power, he would applaud the ruling.

Posted by: bruce18 | January 28, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

"profits to finance campaigns"

Barnes, YOU LIE. It does NO such thing. The Supreme Court ruling does NOT change the amount that businesses or anyone can give to campaigns... It allows their money to be used as FREE SPEECH any time it chooses.
Who can be against Free Speech, as much as you want, anytime you want, anybody who wants to take the opportunity to speak up...LET THEM!

Let me tell you who's against free speech for everybody, as much as they want:

A short list of people who don't like free speech for EVERYBODY:
Chavez
liberals
Media Pimps
Obama
Hitler
Socialists
Mao
Dionne
Stalin
Communists
Progressives
WP
Chiang Kai-shek
NY Times
Hirota Koki
Obama
Pol Pot
Democrats
WiIdi
Wilhelm II
Tingly legged Obama Voters
Tito
Obama
Saddam Hussein
Pelosi
Lenin
Nicholas II
Tojo Hideki
Obama
Benito Mussolini
Babrac Kemal
Radovan Karadzic
Ion Antonescu
Wilhelm II

What a nice group of outstanding A##holes that Obama joins...
I could go on but this will do for now...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama was right on I am so sick of these phony self righteous conservatives who sleep w/their guns, screw their neighbors wife, while drunk but preach family values what hypocrites they just don't and never will get it. Of course the supreme court was wrong Alito is a prick and excuse me like it or not Obama be the prez Alito should keep his fu*kin mouth shut.These conseravtives are disgraceful really thewy are the American Taliban

Posted by: lildg54 | January 28, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Lies do great damage to America.Confront and expose them wherever they may be.

Posted by: Imarkex | January 28, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."

~
I am appalled our Supreme Court has given away our country, just like that. No questions asked. How dare they!

It is bad enough lobbyist buy and sell the American people's, homeland, Technology Bill of Rights and jobs to foriegn investor's as easily as they drink water, but NOW our Supreme Court has Ruled it is OKAY for foriegn entities and investors to buy Politicians who are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

Wow that is simply disgusting and as UnAmerican as you can become. Shame on all of you!

You have sold our country right out from under our noses, shame on all of you Justices!

Posted by: MyTwoCents4 | January 28, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

So what happens if China takes a little bit of that $2.4 trillion they have stashed away and buy a majority stake in an American corporation? Then they will be able to buy as many tv commercials as they want telling the American people how they should vote.

They still wouldn't be violating the 1996 law, but they would have a major influence on the election. They could easily throw down $3 billion, three times as much as was spent last election. They would be able to choose our President, essentially.

This is ok with you people?

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito dissents...?

The majority of the American people also "dissent" to your idiotic attempt to destroy Democracy as we all know it!

Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | January 28, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I believe that the JOE WILSON moment came from Obama, what a classless way for a president to anounce his unhappiness. Even the lib justices were not pleased with it. Typical Chicago pol.This man will embarass every American in one way or another before he hopfully is voted out of office in 12

Posted by: poconnell3 | January 28, 2010 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Alito should have conducted himself with more stony dignity and the press probably shouldn't cover this unless they know for sure. The ruling stinks of judicial activism, something conservatives are supposedly against except when they're not. Hypocrisy and intellectual inconsistency is apparently a family value. Congress should fix this forthwith by stripping person hood from corporations. Read my lips: it's dumb.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 28, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Whether or not you believe in what was said, it should not have been said at that time. If the associate justice believed that strongly, he privately should have said it, not during the State of the Union Speech. I will defend his right to say it, but the timing was inappropriate at best, and lacked thought.

Posted by: wilson0004 | January 28, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."

~
I am appalled our Supreme Court has given away our country, just like that. No questions asked. How dare they!

It is bad enough lobbyist buy and sell the American people's, homeland, Technology Bill of Rights and jobs to foriegn investor's as easily as they drink water, but NOW our Supreme Court has Ruled it is OKAY for foriegn entities and investors to buy Politicians who are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

Wow that is simply disgusting and as UnAmerican as you can become. Shame on all of you!

You have sold our country right out from under our noses, shame on all of you Justices!

Posted by: MyTwoCents4 | January 28, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Bush sure did appoint boneheads to the court.

Posted by: Emmetrope | January 28, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

A+B=AB, not C

Posted by: MikeChicago | January 28, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"The law that bans political contributions from foreigners was passed in 1996. This law IS still on the books.

Obama ia a liar.

Posted by: hartwr1 | January 28, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse "
============================

You people do understand that foreign entities buy US stocks, right? that the largest shareholder in Citigroup is Saudi Arabian? So if the largest shareholder is foreign, and he controls how the corporations spend their money on political advertisements....how can you not make the connection that foreign entities can now influence our elections? A + B = C

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Only 6 Justices in the front row. Notice who was missing: Scalia and his toady Clarence Thomas (Okay Stevens too, but he's 90 something and it was past his bedtime, no cruelty intended. So, when you speak of Obama's alleged slight of the Justices, please notice the right wing extremist Justices' slight of the President.

Posted by: underdog100 | January 28, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Yes sophic, 175 million Americans just LOVE to kill newborn babies.

You sir, are an idiot, and a disgrace

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. It is the president's job to uphold it. His condescending attack was nothing less than a condescending attack on the Constitution. He owes the justices an apology.

Posted by: lashadow | January 28, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Attacking the Supreme's decision and/or judgement at the SOYU speech is not going to make things any easier for Obama. He wants to get bi-partisan support but he politically attacks the Supreme's on his most important speech of the year. I'm sorry I voted for this guy!
Independents that voted for change will make real change in November to run this bunch of political hacks out of office.

Posted by: Independent23 | January 28, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

There were several potential "You lie" moments. In particular, when the president stated that at no time in history has there been a more transparent process in making policy decisions. All the while, the wicked witch of the west was sitting behind him smiling, nodding, and clapping in approval with bobble head Biden right beside her. That was quite laughable.

In the same minute he was talking about getting lobbyists out of government, while half of his WH staff was plucked right out of lobbying firms.

You lie Mr. president......you lie!

Posted by: yampaco | January 28, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Mupright_2000: You are absolutely correct. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Posted by: Tollthebell | January 28, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Corporations are not people; they are a legal entity that protects the people who run them from certain personal liability and allows groups of people to own them for personal profit.
Those who cry that they should have the same rights as people and spend as much $$ as they wish to promote a political agenda and politician must know that that politician will be in their pocket. This is in the best interest of the company but not necessarily the people.
The way it works now is that leaders of corporations expect their senior management to contribute to the politician that supports the company and make sure they do whether they all want to or not. This is not free speech or choice.

Posted by: BFeinberg | January 28, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The law that bans political contributions from foreigners was passed in 1996. This law IS still on the books.

Obama ia a liar.

Posted by: hartwr1 | January 28, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Looking at the ignorance posted here, I'm glad both parties agree to make education better. Obama did lie, foreign corporations are forbidden to donate or materially enhance election outcomes, with one so far accepted exception, the Vatican bankrolling pro-life groups. Judicial activism overturning precedent is moot in this case, as precedents were overturned in the past. The 2000 election decision was judicial activism (overturned state law without constitutional justification). Thomas is a lightweight, read his opinions, Alito is not, but never should have been confirmed not acknowledging the right to privacy like Roberts. They are both against Roe, but Alito may take away your right to privacy to overturn it.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 28, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

One has to remember, that the SCOTUS decision on campaign spending also allows unions to keep on spending freely. It is all about First Amendment rights. Newspapers, especially those on the progressive-side(almost all)have First Amendment rights and use them liberally(pun intended)all the time. So Americans hate "big" especially corporations. Did the left not hear Pres. Obama say that these corporations(big and small)are the key to rebuilding our economy? Oh the non-thinkers on the left. How sad. Where were they when the school bell rang. Cheers.

Posted by: benlaime | January 28, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

When monies going to his side from acorn and other questionable grass root organizations which received millions and more from government coffers thats alright; taxpayer financed Democratic party elections is fine as long as it goes their way. Over paid and Washington dined union officials held and holding sway the workers of the nation thats alright. but allowing those workers choice, no way. There is a difference between rich and wealthy. rich men work from 9 to 5 while wealthy men tell them what to do. wealthy men have homes in trust have charities and more they use to lower the tax they pay. all the while they promise us their going to make the man, that rich man pay. That they do, we always do; for we are all that rich man; they speak of but thats alright every one will pay, for it is fair? Except the wealthy for they need money to tell us what to do. They who lead they need more. They know so much so need far more yes,they need so they can lead. We must accept that they know more it is the democratic way you see, just ask Nancy and Harry and you'll see. They want us just to be, well they would rather we did as we are told than question them and well just say no. For no is a word they can not comprehend. For they they think and they feel feel so it seems we the people are just fools.

Posted by: jamesbrownlord | January 28, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Just remember:
If individuals have "free speech" rights but "corporations" don't......

...you've just granted the government the right to censor or shut down newspapers, news channels, cable news networks, etc. Furthermore, they would have to be banned from endorsing political candidates.

Think about it.

Posted by: LNER4472 | January 28, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

As President he should show some class. His calling out of the SCOTUS with the Democrats standing and applauding in their ears showed less class than the "You Lie" guy, Joe Wilson. If he has a problem with their decision I'm sure he can have his people call their people and schedule a meeting.

After all his rhetoric during the speech about "gotcha" politics and working together, for him to use his bully pulpit during the speech to have his own "gotcha" moment, shows just how clueless and hypocritical he is regarding civil behavior in public. It was a completely classless act and while there were many parts of the speech, to my surprise, that I agreed with, I still have a very difficult time trusting him and his party because of their propensity to disparage and dismiss, in a very uncivil manner, any form of dissent or political disagreement. (See Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews for examples) The calling out of SCOTUS was a completely classless act and it is this type of behavior that is defining this administration and causing more and more people to turn away. He and his cohorts may have Ivy League educations, but apparently they missed the class on Civil Discourse. Or, maybe Saul Alinsky was the professor.

Posted by: dnha | January 28, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Now, when Obama trashes the economic engines of our country, they can talk back.
What a concept, it should be in the Constitution....Damn, it IS in the Constitution...

Why do leftists hate Free Speech, hate corporattions that produce JOBS and why do they like to kill innocent babies just before they take their first breath or sometimes just after...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a worm & racist. He should have never been confirmed.

Posted by: question-guy | January 28, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

You people do understand that foreign entities buy US stocks, right? that the largest shareholder in Citigroup is Saudi Arabian? So if the largest shareholder is foreign, and he controls how the corporations spend their money on political advertisements....how can you not make the connection that foreign entities can now influence our elections? A + B = C

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

It was a beautiful moment last night when President Obama blasted the supreme court, with the same ferver that I did on the metro the day I read the decision they made on campaign financing. The Supreme Court has effectively sold public office to the highest bidder. 100 years of legislation down the tube thanks to our supreme court.It was refreshing to see President Obama confront them,forget the decorum, it had to be said. It's sad that the American people have to deal with an undisclosed amount of years of Bush appointees to the Supreme court.They will take us back to involuntary servitude on their watch.

Posted by: OrlandoUDC | January 28, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

RE: Citizens United President David N. Bossie. - - - - - Organizations that have the words 'citizen,' 'heritage,' and 'enterprise' represent corporations, radical revolution, and croney capitalism.

Posted by: Marcaurelius | January 28, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

What great entertainment. The right wing hacks posting here appear to not have graduated from Elementary School. To the educated and informed observor, Alito broke judcial code of conduct - like it or not, it's fact.

So blah blah blah, show your ignorance and keep blah blah blahing. And get an education in a college. You can't get a degree from Fox.

Posted by: ScottChallenger | January 28, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama LIED when he referenced foreign corporations.
Well, either he lied or he didn't understand the decision (and he is supposed to be brilliant, right?).
Why shouldn't Alito shake his head?

Posted by: Darlene_Jr | January 28, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Alito has no class. Why should anyone be surprised. He is just another right wing conservative just like Joe Wilson.

Posted by: truth1 | January 28, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Andre_johnson83
I thought that free speech was given to individuals. When did a corporations become an individuals?
________________________________________

Yes, the government gave them that status for TAX PURPOSES. They should have the right to vote too....taxation without representation has always been a bad thing...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Eight years of Bush 'bs'... followed by a year of BO 'bs'... so far...

...either way, it's 'bs'. Though Mainstream American Media certainly do react differently: "All hail Obammie! All hail Obammie! [gasp!] Dissent!?"

I must say, for an affirmative action Chitown pol -- who broke his promise to use federal funding for his general election campaign -- to take a swing at big money running politics is well beyond ludicrous... it's laughable to the point of being 'camp', really.

Posted by: srb2 | January 28, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a fascist enemy of the US Constitution. A traitor that should be removed from the bench and tried for his acts of treason.

Posted by: brattykathyi1 | January 28, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama did not smear the Supreme Court. Objecting to a decision and explaining why is not "smearing." Saying Alito is a "fascist" or Obama expects everybody to kowtow to him as a "dictator" is smearing.

As for being a cowardly attack because it was not a venue that allowed for Alito to respond is also not true. There were a hundred microphones just outside that door where he could have responded and justified his decision to the American people.

Posted by: buzzkill1 | January 28, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Of course Alito is right. After all, the document does begin with those immortal words 'We, the Corporations, in order to form a more perfect Union, ...'.

It goes to define how corporations can become citizens and vote, and all sorts of other things.

Why does anyone think that PEOPLE are of any consequence?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | January 28, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

The GOP has yet to learn abpout RESPECT to others. If the Supreme Court wants to be respected they should act respectworthy, and stop blaming others for how they act. It is UGLY to watch the GOP with their BAD habits and lack of RECPECT for others.

Perhaps the GOP's problem is RESPECTING a BLACK president, something new to the GOP, but not new to their behavior of treating and disrespecting black men as second class citizens. Perhaps OLD habist are difficult to chage, or let go of.

We should feel sorry for the GOP since they do not know how to RESPECT Black Men in ANY capacity.

Even our Congress and Supreme Court lack the ability to RESPECT a BLACK MAN, president or otherwise. America has a long way to go, before America can call themselves progressive. Americva is still a conservative place as long as these activities are allowed to continue. Many of the posters are going to defend Samual Alito, whcih speaks about their ability to RESPECT a BLACK MAN, as well.

Posted by: patmatthews | January 28, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

My favorite part was when the GOP refused to clap for tax cuts. They are against anything he is for, even when it is one of their favorite things. Like cutting Medicare, which they have been trying to do for 30 years. Now that he wants to as well, they are steadfastly against it

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I LOVE IT!!!

President Obama calls out the five loony conservative activist judges who have so often overturned established law to impose their ideology onto us.

Alito had it coming. Then he showed us how right President Obama was by not even having the class to keep his big yapper shut. What a disgrace!

Posted by: losthorizon10 | January 28, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Corporations are not people. They are made up of people and that is not the same thing. Every person hired by a corporation can get off his butt and go down and vote and can donate his personal monies to a candidate.
The corporation (a legal entity) is non-personal. People run it. People hide in it. People use it to cover up their dirty laundry but the corporation is a legal entity not a person.

Posted by: aorj | January 28, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Actually, when Wilson yelled "you lie", it was right after Obama said something that was absolutely true.

But many people on the right are so twisted and turned in their revulsion of this man that they no longer have any idea what is true. They think he spent $3 Trillion (not true), they think the bank bailout was his program (not true), they think he spent more money than Bush and the GOP Congress did (not even remotely true).

The fact is that this Supreme Court ruling means that China or Russia can by a majority stake in a corporation in America, then spend $3 billion dollars blasting the airwaves and tv stations with ads for the favorite candidate...

Corporations or NOT humans, NOT citizens. The notion that they should enjoy the same rights as we do is ridiculous. Our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves

Posted by: maurban | January 28, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Two hours of reading a Teleprompter filled with excuses, blaming, cheap shots, more promises that he's already broken and empty rhetoric, demonstrated that he's the same old incompetent empty suit he always was.

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I thought that free speech was given to individuals. When did a corporations become an individuals? There is no reason under the sun and on God's green earth that foriegn entities should be a participant in our electoral process. Our for father's wrote the declaration of Independence for the citizens of these United States not corporations and certaintly not citizen of a foriegn country. One person one vote not one corporation one vote.

Posted by: Andre_johnson83 | January 28, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Until all the Bushies either die or resign we are stuck with a failing nation. Nothing anyone can do will stop the inevitable decline of this nation until we are rid of every single one of the judges he appointed, every congressman riding on the chimp's long tail -- not until they are gone will this county ever snap out of its 'fail'.
Then, we'll still have to deal with the weak brained 'pubs whose histrionics forever cause this nation to flounder.

Posted by: Karmicquickdraw | January 28, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Everyone in America is now standing up and telling Barack Obama: YOU LIE!

Posted by: Jerzy | January 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

carolina-born
As long as it is disclosed where the money comes from, I see no problem
-----------
There's one or two cases working its way up the courts that would remove the disclosure and disclaimer requirements and guess who's leading the fight on that one: James Bopp, a RNC conservative who's promoting the list of litmus test for Republican candidates or they will not be funded.

Posted by: beeker25 | January 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

profits to finance campaigns"

Barnes, YOU LIE. It does NO such thing. The Supreme Court ruling does NOT change the amount that businesses or anyone can give to campaigns... It allows their money to be used as FREE SPEECH any time it chooses.


It looks like Obama wants to have Free Speech all to himself,
GE owns NBC and decided to jump in bed with Obama and they have free speech ALL THE TIME...Why should EVERYBODY have free speech ALL THE TIME...

Obama LIES...what's knew...


Posted by: sophic
________________________________________

OK, clearly I'm not dealing with a rational person here. I give up. now get out of the library and go back to class before the teacher catches you...

Posted by: emoenergy1 | January 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I find the knee-jerk, name-calling, partisan-to-the extreme comments posted here disappointing. It is no wonder our politicians cannot get anything done if they are hearing this sort of feedback from their constituents. Both sides appear to be equally bad.

Posted by: wwat | January 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito is a smug little troglodyte who's impartial and politicized tack doesn't serve the Court or the People.

Posted by: bobmacneal | January 28, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

profits to finance campaigns"

Barnes, YOU LIE. It does NO such thing. The Supreme Court ruling does NOT change the amount that businesses or anyone can give to campaigns... It allows their money to be used as FREE SPEECH any time it chooses.


It looks like Obama wants to have Free Speech all to himself,
GE owns NBC and decided to jump in bed with Obama and they have free speech ALL THE TIME...Why should EVERYBODY have free speech ALL THE TIME...

Obama LIES...what's knew...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

The Daily Caller is a phony site which bans people from commenting who politely offer dissenting views...I was banned simply for making the following true observation.

If this happens to you please write me at
chip@chipshirley.com

Posted by: ChipShirley | January 28, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Another Obama lie or half truth.

Posted by: richard36 | January 28, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Joseph Alito should never have been confirmed to the Court. Furthermore, his prevarication under oath during his confirmation hearings should become the subject of impeachment proceedings, as should his injudicious conduct in refusing to recuse himself to a case that came before him as an appellate judge in which he had a direct financial stake, and he ruled in favor of his personal financial interests.

He would certainly NOT have been approved had the Democratic senatorial minority (a minority of 50 at the time) not foolishly forfeited its ability to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees out of a spirit of "bipartisanship," a word I am growing increasingly annoyed at hearing.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | January 28, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: emoenergy1
please stop it already.... This was about donating money to political campaigns.
____________________________________

NO IT ISN'T! This does NOT change the amount of money that can be given to a campaigns. It allows them to spend their money on Free Speech! What the hell is wrong with that ....Free Speech is ALWAYS GOOD, ALL THE TIME FOR EVERYBODY....


Posted by: sophic
____________________________________

please please please please, before posting your right-wing talking points, read the news first...

"By 5-4 vote, the court overturned federal laws, in effect for decades, that prevented corporations from using their profits to buy political campaign ads."

you see? before this, corporations were BANNED from using profits (ie money) for campaign ads. now they are allowed to (re: 'overturned'). This ruling was ALL about money. It certainly did "change the amount of money that can be given to campaigns" from Corporations, from $0 to unlimited...

Posted by: emoenergy1 | January 28, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Nowhere in any of the documents our country was founded upon, no where in any of the writings or speeches of the founders of our country is there any justification for granting the same rights to corporations that are inalienable to humans.

What greater act of judicial activism then granting human rights to an artificial, non-living entity? What greater charade has been perpetrated on US citizens than allowing an individual to forego and all personal
responsible by calling him/herself a corporation?

Posted by: lennyp | January 28, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: emoenergy1
please stop it already.... This was about donating money to political campaigns.
____________________________________

NO IT ISN'T! This does NOT change the amount of money that can be given to a campaigns. It allows them to spend their money on Free Speech! What the hell is wrong with that ....Free Speech is ALWAYS GOOD, ALL THE TIME FOR EVERYBODY....

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I nominate Judge Samuel Alito and Joe Wilson for The Metal Of Freedom Award for speaking truth to lies.

Posted by: Imarkex | January 28, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama always has to scapegoat someone: middle class Americans, fat cats, insurance workers, etc., etc.

And now he smears the Supreme Court of the United States.

Aren't we all getting more than a little sick and tired of this Chicago thug?

Posted by: Jerzy | January 28, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The Executive Branch with Obama at the tiller controls the Legislative Branch with the two dimwits of the century, Reid and Pelosi, at his beck and call. Obama cannot stand the idea that the Judicial Branch does not work for him also. Alito was correct if he said "not true." Obama is looney tunes if he believes this decision by the supreme court overturns 100 years of something. What Obama likes with campaign financing is that corrupt organizations like SEIU and ACORN can spend and spend and cheat and cheat to get him elected. Unions OK; others NO.

Posted by: Mindboggle | January 28, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: sophic
"Corporations are classified as a "person" for TAX purposes. They should have the right to VOTE TOO! Taxation without representation was ALWAYS a bad thing..."

Except in the District of Columbia, of course, since they would vote Democratic.


Posted by: jeadpt | January 28, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

The hottest job market right now - lobbying for Chineese corporations in Washington DC.

If you think our international trade agreements are unfair right now (which they clearly are from a labor Vs labor view), then you aint seen nothing yet.

The keys to the house, the senate, and the white house have been handed to those with the deepest pockets - that would be a few large US Corporations and hundreds of Chinese Corp. backed by their central party.

Get ready US middle class....more layoffs and off-shoring is on the way. The Chinese have their own labor problem - and so they will do anything to get more jobs for their working class......unlike our government. And the Chinese don't do it with tax cuts for the rich or hand outs to their banks or corp. tax cuts for Capital equipment (that isn't a tax cut for jobs).

Posted by: go2goal | January 28, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

lernerlaw said
"The strict constructionists, it they were honest, would acknowledge that the founding fathers had no intention of including business entities, and especially not corporations (which did not yet exist)to be included in the protections or rights and obligations included in the Constitution. Ask yourself did either Hamilton or Jefferson, or Madison intend to give Goldman Sacks the right to bear arms? "

Dude, I agree with you, but it was John Jay and not Jefferson.

Posted by: astroland | January 28, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: emoenergy1
please stop it already.... This was about donating money to political campaigns.
____________________________________

NO IT ISN'T! This does NOT change the amount of money that can be given to a campaigns. It allows them to spend their money on Free Speech! What the hell is wrong with that ....Free Speech is ALWAYS GOOD, ALL THE TIME FOR EVERYBODY....

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

This is the same clown whose wife cried during his confirmation hearing when the republicans were complimenting him. They remind me of trailer park trash whiners.

Posted by: nwWilma | January 28, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court - the majority of which is owned by the Neo(Nazi)Conservatives and the RNC. Very nice Sc-Alito! The Republicans won't be happy until they TOTALLY trash the USA. These weasels are the only lower-life form that will steal the pennies off a dead mans eyes and THEN demand they get a matching tax cut for their "entrepreneurial labors."

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | January 28, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

what is sad is that democracies eventually flounder and give way to dictatorships...due to the fact...that in most cases...as is exemplified by the United States...the citizenry is largely composed of uneducated idiots

Posted by: kiler616 | January 28, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

For mupright_2000: I stand corrected. Thank you.

Posted by: Tollthebell | January 28, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

The President is entitled to his opinions, but reprimanding the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address was poor decorum. I'm sorry, but the President displayed poor manners last night.

Posted by: forgetthis | January 28, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

There are comments all over the map here. Giving Big Corporations unchecked spending and influence. Is like legalizing loan sharking from the Mob! Corruption on steroids! All of you can't be that NAIVE, you just can't be! All you so-called Tea Baggers, where's your gun toting tea party on this one. Corruption has been elevated by the Supreme Court. America is now sold out to Communist China who owns and backs these Corporations and Old angry Men who are nothing more than THUGS! They use your Patriotism and intolerance against you. If you apply the simple rules of common sense to this one it stinks to high heaven and you the common man in middle America is gonna suffer. WAKE UP!!

Posted by: minco_007 | January 28, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Gee I wonder who is paying them off. Overturning this is a real slap in the face to American voters.

Posted by: peep1935 | January 28, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

AlbyVA: My understanding is that corporate donations go about evenly 50% each to Democrat and Republican candidates. As long as it is disclosed where the money comes from, I see no problem. I might take issue with foreign corporations, don't know about that. Also, I thought Obama was way out of line. This was a public forum, he had the bully pullpit and the Justices, equal in their separate branch, had no venue for rebuttal. I have never seen such a display by a President in my many years watching SOTU speeches. He was clearing trying to recast himself as a populist. I don't see many buying it.

Posted by: carolina-born | January 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

One could take the President's comments about the decision more seriously if he and his party weren't taking so much money from their labor union buddies. No restrictions on those guys, no sirree.

Posted by: TArbiter | January 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

If the Supremes think corporations have the right to free speech, do they also have the right to vote? Can we draft them into the army? Can we bury them with a tombstone in Arlington National Cemetery?

"We hold these truths to be self evident, all corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Posted by: cyberfool | January 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

All 2 hours of Obama BS last night doesn't change this:
Since the media is in bed with Obama, he's being vetted on the job....

This is what we do know about Obama.
He's the Commander in Chief with No Military experience, He's the Chief Executive with No Executive experience, he has No business experience, NO economic experience, NO financial experience, No Foreign affair experience, No mayor, NO governor, Nothing. And he surrounds himself with Tax Cheats, Chicago thugs, incompetents, radical loony perverted Czars and has Democrat accomplices in congress that can't even READ the trillion dollar pork packages and Obama/Pelosi Government Crap Care they put their X on and inflict on Americans. He's quadrupled the deficit in months which hasn't stimulated a flea, just added to the already bloated government that will keep Americans in financial bondage for the unforeseeable future. His future polices of Cap and Trade and other onerous AGW hoax policies will further kill businesses especially small businesses and destroy the American dream and surrender the sovereignty of the United States. And his idea of redistribution of wealth is insane and has the mind­­­set of a Chicago thug. Tingly legged Obama voters, you out did yourselves.

Unemployment is at 10% (17.5% if you include those that stopped looking and those with temporary jobs) and RISING, Taxes on EVERYBODY will be rising(just watch, I mean EVERYBODY), Businesses in financial straits...

Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Democrats are Incompetent and thieves....bye bye


Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

please stop it already. this was never ever ever about the First Amendment and Free Speech. Nothing has EVER stopped the CEO of Exxon from standing up in front of a crowd and shouting 'VOTE FOR BUSH"! or whoever... This was about donating money to political campaigns. And now that corporations are unlimited, imagine all the oil companies getting together and targeting 20 Democratic Senators, pooling their money, and running attack ads in every TV station in those 20 states, every two hours, every day, for two months before the elections. You're telling me that that wont sway voters? what would that cost them, $800 million? chump change to them. Exxon alone made $42 BILLION in profit last year. And they would do this in a heartbeat to get a 60 seat Republican Senate majority that would pass a bill allowing unlimited drilling anywhere they want... thats what we're headed for...

Posted by: emoenergy1 | January 28, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama got lost when he stepped over the barriers of separation of powers

Posted by: houston123 | January 28, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

No big surprise Alito would mouth something sour and surly during the speech. The justices know that they made a bad decision for political purposes--something that seems to be happening more often, these days--and Alito, as part of the ultra-right cabal, can't be happy about being called on it by the president.

Posted by: dbitt | January 28, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

In his confirmation hearings, Alito like his brethren Roberts, said he would uphold precedent and refrain from being an activitist judge. Like his brethren Roberts, he lied and has revealed himself for the political hack in judges robes that he actually is. These guys need to be exposed as apologists for the plutocrats who have gained control of our Republic and who better to do it than a president who's speciality was Constitutional law. A shot over the bow was needed, but unfortuately it will probably not be enough to stop the power grab by the corporations and wealthy elite of this country. That will take their demise (maybe they could go hunting with Cheney like Scalia does) or a revolution given their young years. For the time being, we'll have to be satisfied with Obama pushing, and congress passing, some constraints on this idiotic ruling to keep the Chinese and Saudis, along with Exxon and Halliburton, from buying even more of our government.

Posted by: Poleman | January 28, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

When the Supreme Court is making partisan decisions they should be held to public account and derision. Thanks, Pres. Obama.

Posted by: HillRat | January 28, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

profits to finance campaigns"

Barnes, YOU LIE. It does NO such thing. The Supreme Court ruling does NOT change the amount that businesses or anyone can give to campaigns... It allows their money to be used as FREE SPEECH any time it chooses.


It looks like Obama wants to have Free Speech all to himself,
GE owns NBC and decided to jump in bed with Obama and they have free speech ALL THE TIME...Why should EVERYBODY have free speech ALL THE TIME...

Obama LIES...what's knew...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr Obama is, simply, just extremely worried about he and his party's fate if big business leans to the conservative side. He had some memorable moments last night trying to divert from his teleprompter text to appease or gloss over...fumbling over and giving second thought to his words.

Posted by: dcwca | January 28, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The court's decision has paved the way for our democracy to be taken over by foreign powers. The five treasonous justices who voted for this travesty are aiding and abetting our enemies. And when the foreign money starts rolling in, just watch the politicians from both parties lap it up.

Posted by: gmcduluth | January 28, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama got the supreme court decision WRONG. How embarrassing. Obama should resign for I feel he is incompetent for the job.

Posted by: 45upnorth | January 28, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Judge Alito.

He's nuts.

Posted by: bs2004 | January 28, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito has violated the dignity and (appearance of) impartiality of the Supreme Court and needs to step down immediately.

Posted by: member5 | January 28, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The president should send legislation to congress that will “prohibit the participation in the political process, or donate money, or engage in advertising in support of their political agenda” any corporation foreign and domestic that for the purpose of avoiding paying taxed has moved their corporate office over seas or take advantage of exiting loop holes in the tax code. Individuals or Corporations that do pay taxes should not be allowed to participate in the political process of our nation.

Posted by: tepexpan | January 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Odumbo was brialliant form last, just another snake oil salesman, freebies for everyone............... Keep your hand outstretched because the government will fill it with all your needs..........

Posted by: goziner | January 28, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT LOBBYING IS THE SAME AS PETITIONING IS THE SAME AS LOBBYING AND OPENED A DOOR THAT COMPLETELY CORRUPTED OUR GOVERNMENT.WITH THIS LAST JUDGEMENT THEY JUST PROVED THAT ANYONE IN D.C. CAN BE BOUGHT.

Posted by: SISSD1 | January 28, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Joe Wilson and Justice Alito "ain't had no home trainin'- Joe can't help it but Justice Alito should show control himself in public, but he has his job for life. In the 1950s we read "The Ugly American" by E. Burdick and the other author who died recently. Wow...we are really ugly now! Way down deep, it may be that we are still not looking at our whiteness and we still see white as positive and brown as negative...with no thought of content of character..also some fear that white is losing power of being number ONE!.hmmmm think about it!

Posted by: judithclaire1939 | January 28, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

It is most unfortunate that the Supreme Court has lost its mantle of political impartiality, and with it the respect of the people, in the past decade.

Posted by: zephyr99 | January 28, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Spiritof761 wrote
Five men in robes undid in one vote what hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform died trying to defend in many wars. How shameful.
__________________________________________

Really? I thought they died to protect America and UNLIMITED FREE SPEECH...

GE owns NBC and decided to jump in bed with Obama and they have free speech ALL THE TIME...Why should EVERYBODY have free speech ALL THE TIME...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Five men in robes undid in one vote what hundreds of thousands of Americans in uniform died trying to defend in many wars. How shameful.

Posted by: Spiritof761 | January 28, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Not enough "Negro Dialect" for Chris Mathews apparently.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Corporations are classified as a "person" for TAX purposes. They should have the right to VOTE TOO! Taxation without representation was ALWAYS a bad thing...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

To those of you who think Corporations and Unions should have the same rights as a person...who's voice do you think will be heard the next time you oppose something ExxonMobil wants...Yours or Exxon's?

Posted by: mupright_2000 | January 28, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Same old nonsense...The country split fifty fifty...Half thinks they were right...half thinks they were wrong....If it had gone the other way....same old story..half thinks they were right...half thinks they were wrong..The law is the law...live with it...

Posted by: lucygirl1 | January 28, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Joe Wilson and Alito were honest

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

President Obama is absolutely right. The Supreme Court's decision was a travesty against Democracy. But when have conservatives EVER cared about Democracy?

Or freedom, equality, fairness, human rights, justice...

Obama did a great job last night and I'm reminded of that this morning when I read the pathetic, extremist, goofy rants from our right-wing lunatic friends here who really have nothing to stand on besides hate and desperation.

And Alito is a fool.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | January 28, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama`s public rebuke of the Supreme Court was an arrogant,condescending and classless comment.Obama preaches "civility" and "unity" and practices neither.The president`s hypocrisy is stunning!

Posted by: bowspray | January 28, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse


Barry is the President of HOAX & CHARADE !

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Alito & the Supreme Court is deserving of all the criticism it gets & more, but Obama's chastisement of the Court means little if he's not ready to back his words with action.

Obama can do little about decisions made by the Court - it is a truly independent branch of government, unaccountable even to the people.

The latest decision by the Court to allow unlimited corporate funding of the campaigns of politicians is every bit a direct interference by the Court to advance it's version of Fascism as it's decision to install Bush II as President in 2000.

While Obama can do little about decisions from the Court, he can be instrumental in changing it's makeup in order to change the course of future decisions. He has the ability to change the number of justices which serve on the Court. FDR was working toward changing the number to 15. He didn't succeed to that extent but he did increase the number.

If Obama is serious about his criticism of the Court's attempts to push the nation into Fascism, he will have to take action. Words alone will accomplish nothing.

Posted by: book134 | January 28, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

To Tollthebell...this was Obama's first State of the Union address

Posted by: mupright_2000 | January 28, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Sam Alito's Joe Wilson moment.

Posted by: politicalmajority | January 28, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

The liberals attacked Wilson for his so called "Tacky" but truthful words in Congress to Obama and wanted him to apologiize

Last night the Outrageously tacky Obama did the same thing in congress to a captive group and stepped all over separatioin of powers.
Obama, it's time for YOU to apologize for your tacky remarks against the Supreme Court and Free Speech

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse


Barry is getting very poor advice. His defiance to literally stay the course and ratchet it up ignores once again where the Country is. VA, NJ, MA. The Dem Congressional members up for re-election will certainly begin to distance themselves from Barry. It is not Republicans that are his problem. It is his own party that is loosing confidence in him. With his unstable frame of mind he has become toxic.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Are we possibly missing the point? There is a seperation of powers and evidently it works. The supreme court "interpreted" the law as they saw fit and over turned previous rulings. Subsequently, the President sought to make a new law that cannot be mis-interpreted similarly that will ban foreign special interest from running our government.

Simply becuase he said it does not make it law, otherwise we would have healthcare reform already. However, it seems that this could be the "devil" we don't know that has all congress concerned.

We don't have to look far to see the potential for foreign corporations with lobbying power in our country. Consider the Chinese who may seek better import protections, or the Saudi's who may seek to have us oil dependant, the Iranians who may want to have Islamic law introduced, or perhaps the place where Hugo Chavez is from. Who knows what this could bring about? How would it feel if your candidate is "bank rolled" by one of these interest and are supposedly elected to "represent" you. The question would then become exactly who's interest are being served?

Posted by: ce_ash | January 28, 2010 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Corporations are not citizens and are not subject to the same protections of citizens. Even the Founders recognized that. It was a bad decision that will rank as one of the worst decisions ever issued by the court.

Posted by: tlandfried | January 28, 2010 12:26 AM

///////////////////////////////////

I agree with this post. However since you can't overturn SCOTUS in the immediate future, the answer is simple. Congress needs to enact true campaign finance reform that will be in line with the SCOTUS decision. All campaign finance is public only. Any person or corporation can only donate campaign funds of any kind to a political party and their donation is made public. So for example if you wish to donate money to your favorite Congressman/Senator then you donate money to the Republican/Democrat/Independent parties, etc... Any candidate running for public office can only pull campaign funds from that political parties' public fund if not using their own personal wealth.

If this were enacted, you might actually start seeing an honest politician.

And being a politician is not being called a nice name anyways but is does show their true nature. Think about it. The word politics. Break that down into it's root words. "Poli" or Poly meaning multiple or many and "tics" or Ticks meaning a blood sucking parasite. So in essence a politician is just one of many blood sucking parasites.

Posted by: Citizen16 | January 28, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

"profits to finance campaigns"

Barnes, YOU LIE. It does NO such thing. The Supreme Court ruling does NOT change the amount that businesses or anyone can give to campaigns... It allows their money to be used as FREE SPEECH any time it chooses.
Who can be against Free Speech, as much as you want, anytime you want, anybody who wants to take the opportunity to speak up...LET THEM!

Let me tell you who's against free speech for everybody, as much as they want:

A short list of people who don't like free speech for EVERYBODY:
Chavez
liberals
Media Pimps
Obama
Hitler
Socialists
Mao
Dionne
Stalin
Communists
Progressives
WP
Chiang Kai-shek
NY Times
Hirota Koki
Obama
Pol Pot
Democrats
WiIdi
Wilhelm II
Tingly legged Obama Voters
Tito
Obama
Saddam Hussein
Pelosi
Lenin
Nicholas II
Tojo Hideki
Obama
Benito Mussolini
Babrac Kemal
Radovan Karadzic
Ion Antonescu
Wilhelm II

What a nice group of outstanding A##holes that Obama joins...
I could go on but this will do for now...

Posted by: sophic | January 28, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

What a jerk!

Posted by: bbbbmer1 | January 28, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

He didn't have to. He learned early on the riding the affirmative action train was alot easier.

Posted by: cschotta1
*******************************************
No doubt you can specify which affirmative action program Obama needed to be accepted to Harvard Law School and graduate in the top 10% of his class?

Oh, you can't? Well, we already knew that. You *cschottal* have a long history of shooting your mouth off without having anything to say. I guess you claim you're consistent.

Posted by: st50taw


Sure would love to see those grades and papers that he refuses to show us.

PS-Harvard Law isn't the same as Harvard Medical School of Harvard School of Business. Frankly, If I graduated from Harvard Law, I would be embarrassed to know that an alumni would spend over 20 years with Reverend Wright, yet no know he was a racist, eh lib?

Barack Hussein Obama-Why affirmative action doesn't work!!

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

medogsbstfrnd

Barry (S.E.I.U. ACORN MAO) Soetoro disgraces and stains the office he holds.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

James10

Libs are paranoid.

Corporate donations gave equally to both parties.

Unions are problem more than Corps.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

It was well know that President Obama had ZERO leadership/management skills in his resume before he was elected President. He showed that lack of experience in his first State of the Union speech. Whether you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision, President Obama violated Leadership/Management skills 101: "You reprimand in private and praise in public." He showed the world his lack of leadership. It was a sad moment.

Posted by: Tollthebell | January 28, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Alito is about as far right as you can go before you live in some backasswards county of Alaska swearing your allegiance to John Birch or Sarah Palin's Moose Lodge. Perhaps the Concerned Alumni of Princeton might lobby to have Martha-Ann sit beside him at the next State of the Union and burst into salty tears. Alito disgraces the Supreme Court.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | January 28, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

YOU LIE!

Posted by: pgr88 | January 28, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

First he pleads for togetherness, then proceeds to woodshed W again, the Republicans and the Supreme Court.

Yeah, that'll work.

No wonder Obama fails trying to get anything done. The Great Polarizer from the Podium !!

Posted by: bandcyuk | January 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

He didn't have to. He learned early on the riding the affirmative action train was alot easier.

Posted by: cschotta1
*******************************************
No doubt you can specify which affirmative action program Obama needed to be accepted to Harvard Law School and graduate in the top 10% of his class?

Oh, you can't? Well, we already knew that. You *cschottal* have a long history of shooting your mouth off without having anything to say. I guess you claim you're consistent.

Posted by: st50taw | January 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Members of the Supreme Court are not gods. They do make mistakes time to time. The Supreme Court is just one of three branches of government. In any case, they have lifetime appointments. So it doesn't matter what anyone says. It didn't make sense why Justice Alito would show any emotion in this regard, he should be apolitical.

Posted by: AMQ1 | January 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Is it true, as soon as he heard, Justice Thomas automatically mouthed the exact same Alito "not true"?

Clarence the Clone? Alito's Justice Dummy?

Justice Thomas, Sir, you can outrun the historically hysterical reports you are too stupid and self serving to decide anything without holding Justice Alito's hand.

Resign now,today. Announce you are doing so in order to allow Pres. Obama his next SCOTUS choice.

Do this and you will become an instant hero. United States history will record your action with so much favor all the denigration now following you into the history books will diminish to less than trivia.

All of the dis-respect I hear about you regarding your present status as token Republican Negro, or more in tune with older Civil Rights types street vernacular: Uncle Tomin' and he's no more than a fancy House Ni....

Oops, can't be too truthful here, the censor will get me. But, Justice, Thomas, you (as well as everybody) know exactly what I mean.

Resign, Sir. Resign with a wave of glory. Do so and all the ugly stuff being recorded for history goes away. You become our new American hero and never again will those of us left over from the Civil Rights days be able to say you are too stupid to be Black.

However, stay on the Justice Alito "not true" side and history will record you as the very self serving Justice you now are and, indeed, as too stupid to be Black.

Posted by: steveswimmer1 | January 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Barry's redo Campaign speech was designed by his Re-tread Marketing guy, Fluff, to fire up his base of Zombies. The tone was one or defiance, arrogance and school yard behavior. The Zombies will rally for a day or so then cover themselves over with dirt again.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Nothing like a conservative Constitutional constructionist .... to paraphrase ... Where in the Constitution does it says corporations are persons?

Posted by: James10 | January 28, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Alito and the rest of his corporate facist companions on the Court should be impeached. Foreigners cannot be allowed to participate in the political process of the United States. Furthermore, corporations are not people, they are creations of the state, chartered by the state, and regulated by the rules laid down by the state. As such, why is it unconstitutional to make a law that says it is illegal for a corporation to participate in the political process in any manner? There is nothing in the Constitution that grants any rights or privledges to non-people.

This ruling will go down in history as the most twisted and devious, self-serving, and activist ruling in history. It is a disaster for the US. The Republican stooges on the court have certainly paid back their corporate sponsors. The corporations will now be able to take complete control of the Congress and turn us all into serfs. Bush Senior and his buddies in the Carlyle Group, as well as the entire military-industrial complex have got to be dancing a jig right now.

Congress should pass and the states ratify, without delay, a Constitutional amendment that clearly states that participation in the political process of the United States of America in any way is reserved only for the individual citizens, that corporations cannot participate in any manner, that corporate funds cannot be used for any political purposes whatsoever.

Posted by: Chagasman | January 28, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

these are the same people that said lobbying is the same as petioning.now we know that lobbyist have corrupted our government from top to bottom now they really let the dogs loose.as far as i am concerned any one in D.C. can be bought with corporation money.

Posted by: SISSD1 | January 28, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

mtnmanvt

You are stupid. Seriously. Just ignorant.

Posted by: jas7751 | January 28, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

The liberals attack even the Pope at every turn but express shock and sorrow when Barack Obama's assertions are questioned.

Posted by: improvista | January 28, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

First let me state up front that I have no political affilliation. Second, the SCOTUS decision at issue is irrelevant to my appraisal of the situation.

Where does Obama get off scolding the Supreme Court? Eff him on this one. That's why we have a separate judicial branch, to keep all the egotistical jackashes in the other two branches of government in line.

Posted by: Wallenstein | January 28, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse


How come the demo-socialists weren't concerned when Johnny Chang and other foreigner's were bankrolling the Clinton/Gore campaigns?

Of that's right, the rules only apply to the Republicans.

Posted by: jrealty | January 28, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Whoops my mistake, I meant to say Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy all need to go.

Need coffee.

Posted by: mtnmanvt |


I'm sure Obama won't mind getting you a cup of coffee.

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Just wait until Odumbo is crippled in the fall elections, when he'll start playing the race card, as nearly all Black elected officials eventually do.

Posted by: tjhall1 | January 28, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

BEST PART OF THE ENTIRE SPEECH LAST NIGHT! ENJOYED IT!

Posted by: genbarlow | January 28, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Whoops my mistake, I meant to say Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy all need to go.

Need coffee.

Posted by: mtnmanvt | January 28, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I find it ironic that some use the logic that foreign corporations should not be able to support specific candidates because they are not citizens of our country but believe we should afford foreign based terrorists legal proceedings afforded American citizens. You can't have it both ways. It seems like the administration is saying just that. It is up to shareholders to say "no" to corporate funds used contrary to the shareholders interests. Then again union members can't do that either. Whats the difference between sending funds to various organziations to support a corporations or industries interests or spending it directly? At least there would be greater transprency.

Posted by: westmont | January 28, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Do we blame those who publish the ads or the idiots who believe them? Prior to elections, our media is already jammed with political ads. Not sure if its even possible to air more.

Posted by: lsbg_t | January 28, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

President Obama is being accused of everything from bad manners to arrogance to disrespect for the Court in bringing up his fundamental disagreement with their decision on corporate financing. Good for him, because I will bet the vast majority of Americans agree with him.

The fact the Court decided the way it did in a not so sweeping decision (5 to 4 at the Court may lead Alito to believe it was an easy case to decide but it is the judiciary equivalent of a sudden death overtime at the Super Bowl).

So if Alito mouths a few words of disagreement to the President having the cajones to state publicly what many of us believe, it is his problem. Of his arrogance, his hubris and his true believing far right wing views. Yes, Sam Alito is right, far right!

I do not agree with Barack Obama on a lot; but on this one let's give this President credit for, at the least, standing up and publicly stating what he believes in. And, he did not in his speech denigrate the Court; he rightfully positioned it as one of the instruments of our democracy and suggested he and the legislative branch might do what is their right and obligation to do in order to take action to reverse this decision and place some new and, according to the interpretation of this court, constitutionally acceptable limits on campaign contributions by corporations.

And, in case anyone wasn't listening to a point the President made, he raised the issue of foreign based corporations making contributions on behalf and through their U. S. subsidiaries. At the very least that is one huge loophole our Congress might want to plug as a result of this decision.

The law of the land now says Sony Corporation can spend any amount it wishes to influence elections, for candidates who might just be a little more favorable to foreign trade agreements which favor companies based outside the United States and to the detriment of American companies and their employees. No, you say? Take a case in business law and learn what a corporate entity is and how it can operate with special protections and immunities not granted to individuals.

Justice Alito may believe this was a simple and obvious one to decide but it is going to have huge ramifications for us as citizens and how much more power has been given to monied special interests at the expense of the individual and public interest.

Posted by: bobfbell | January 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

There is precedent for impeachment of supreme court judges. It is time for it to happen again. The decision made by the 5 extremists on the court, if allowed to stand, means that the corporatocracy wins out full on, and everyone, even the right wing idiots posting here, will eventually look back on this as a disastrous decision not only for the US but for the world.

Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Stevens all need to go.

Posted by: mtnmanvt | January 28, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

President Obama is being accused of everything from bad manners to arrogance to disrespect for the Court in bringing up his fundamental disagreement with their decision on corporate financing. Good for him, because I will bet the vast majority of Americans agree with him.

The fact the Court decided the way it did in a not so sweeping decision (5 to 4 at the Court may lead Alito to believe it was an easy case to decide but it is the judiciary equivalent of a sudden death overtime at the Super Bowl).

So if Alito mouths a few words of disagreement to the President having the cajones to state publicly what many of us believe, it is his problem. Of his arrogance, his hubris and his true believing far right wing views. Yes, Sam Alito is right, far right!

I do not agree with Barack Obama on a lot; but on this one let's give this President credit for, at the least, standing up and publicly stating what he believes in. And, he did not in his speech denigrate the Court; he rightfully positioned it as one of the instruments of our democracy and suggested he and the legislative branch might do what is their right and obligation to do in order to take action to reverse this decision and place some new and, according to the interpretation of this court, constitutionally acceptable limits on campaign contributions by corporations.

And, in case anyone wasn't listening to a point the President made, he raised the issue of foreign based corporations making contributions on behalf and through their U. S. subsidiaries. At the very least that is one huge loophole our Congress might want to plug as a result of this decision.

The law of the land now says Sony Corporation can spend any amount it wishes to influence elections, for candidates who might just be a little more favorable to foreign trade agreements which favor companies based outside the United States and to the detriment of American companies and their employees. No, you say? Take a case in business law and learn what a corporate entity is and how it can operate with special protections and immunities not granted to individuals.

Justice Alito may believe this was a simple and obvious one to decide but it is going to have huge ramifications for us as citizens and how much more power has been given to monied special interests at the expense of the individual and public interest.

Posted by: bobfbell | January 28, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

President Obama has more clas in his linky than the entire activist radical gang of five who are bent on taking the US backwards.

President Obama learned class by working with, growing up with, being one of, and working for, those of us who are usually looked down on by the powerful and wealthy.

Posted by: John1263 | January 28, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

THE PRESIDENT LIED! FOREIGN ENTITIES CAN’T DONATE. BOTTOM LINE - LIBERALS ARE GOING DOWN. BTW - THE LATEST ACTIVIST JUDGE IS A HARD ON THE EYES - NEED EYE FLUSH.

Posted by: genbarlow | January 28, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

I propose a constitutional amendment as follows: All reference to person or persons in this Constitution, including amendments thereto, shall be limited to natural persons.

The strict constructionists, it they were honest, would acknowledge that the founding fathers had no intention of including business entities, and especially not corporations (which did not yet exist)to be included in the protections or rights and obligations included in the Constitution. Ask yourself did either Hamilton or Jefferson, or Madison intend to give Goldman Sacks the right to bear arms?

Posted by: lernerlaw | January 28, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Alito might consider stepping down for his insubordination against the commander and chief. It would be the honorable thing to do given his position of power and respect. Bossie and Smith don't seem to understand who the boss is. What it seem to come down to is a whole government of flapping tongues with no one in command. I'm proud of Obama for putting the hammer on these ingrates.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | January 28, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama may have attended class at Harvard, he certainly didn't acquire any.

Posted by: ADNova


He didn't have to. He learned early on the riding the affirmative action train was alot easier.

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

SO, Justice Alito's big ego took a blow.

He had it coming. So did the four other conservative judicial activists who have so frequently imposed their ideology onto America, cloaked as legal principle.

Alito has hurt America far worse than he can admit to himself. And he didn't even have the class to keep his big yapper shut- just like wingnut Joe Wilson last year.

The sooner we get some another honest, principled justices on the Supreme Court to counter-balance the Senile Corporate-owned Alito, the better.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | January 28, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

we'll see how much Rethugs like this decision when Mike Bloomberg is using his personal fortune to bankroll anti-gun legislation throughout the country, or limiting your personal choice to eat what you want or smoke cigarettes.

Can't wait to hear the whining especially when the ACLU money starts flowing into coffers either.

And the debt will explode in 2012 if a GOP candidate wins, because a war in Iran will DWARF what's happening in Iraq. Their Fiscal Conservatism is as much a pile of tripe as Compassionate Conservatism.

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | January 28, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Obama may have attended class at Harvard, he certainly didn't acquire any.

Posted by: ADNova | January 28, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

In Dred Scott, people became property. In Citizens United, property became people. Alito certainly should try to defend himself, but there's nothing wrong with Obama for taking the court to task for a "CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST" decision.
Do corporations have baby pictures of themselves?

Posted by: bdunn1 | January 28, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

The Media Hype to make people believe
obama is a 'great orator'
is complete bull.
It is like watching steve urkel,
this idiot has no connection
whatsoever with americans,
no clue,
never worked a day in his life,
cant bowl, cant throw a baseball,
can't RELATE!!!
His insult to the justices was a small man
who has much more money then his opponents,
and this creates a fair playing field.

there is no limit on Msnbc, nbc, abc...
All very very liberal vehicles!

Posted by: simonsays1 | January 28, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

"you lie"' "not true" - same difference, both true...

Posted by: civilemik | January 28, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Alito must be denying his vote. I am proud of President Obama for saying his opinion right to his face. What isn't true about that vote? Or maybe Alito has a problem with the truth? Just because your name might be addressed by Judge, or professor doesn't mean your not a lunatic, psycho, pedophile, or pervert, or something similar.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | January 28, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to be scolded. He's SO IMMATURE!

Posted by: bob59 | January 28, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Recent news headline: "Saudi Arabian government to strengthen ties with News Corp". That's FOX folks. Justice Alito, it IS true that not just foreign corporations but foreign governments have a huge amount of influence in our media, even the most "trusted" one. It is also true that this Republican court has been the best friend that Big Business, domestic or otherwise could possibly have. It seems that the Party of Patriotism is looking out for the interests of the wealthy everywhere. But patriotic, good for America? That's just a line that politicians have been using since there was an America. And the GOP has abused that line for far too long. When do people wake up? I guess in a country where one of our major social problems is an obesity epidemic, the chance of people waking up is slim indeed. No country with an obesity epidemic has ever been first in anything, and never will be.

Posted by: curtb | January 28, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Here in this great roiling throng of boisterous pageantry sat six figures in solemn black -- I personally thought the frail but fierce Justice Ginsburg was an especially moving sight -- COEQUAL with the vast executive and the teeming Congress. The Court is a miracle of history. It is a living testament to the wisdom of the founders, to Justice Marshall and his progeny, and to, oddly enough, the American people.

President Obama is, thank God, free as we all are to criticize opinions of the Court. But his sharp words to their faces in a public setting had an odor of bullying about it and recalled to more than one viewer the notorious misconduct of Representative Wilson last August. Our President also needs to mind his manners.

And as a former professor of Constitutional he should at least be right on his facts, as he was not last night in his characterization of the decision.

Posted by: miglefitz | January 28, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Hello, dear ladies and gentlemen,
Buy now proposed a "New Year's gift '. A rare opportunity, what are you waiting for? Quickly move your mouse bar.
commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, coolforsale will provide service for you all, welcome to
1. sport shoes : Jordan ,Nike, adidas, Puma, Gucci, LV, UGG , etc. including women shoes and kids shoes.
2. T-Shirts : BBC T-Shirts, Bape T-Shirts, Armani T-Shirts, Polo T-Shirts,etc.
3. Hoodies : Bape hoody, hoody, AFF hoody, GGG hoody, ED hoody ,etc.
4. Jeans : Levis jeans , Gucci jeans, jeans, Bape jeans , DG jeans ,etc.NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36
--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $20 For details, please consult , http://www.coolforsale.com

Posted by: styrutdhfgjytieuyrgdef | January 28, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

O is an immature, small minded narcissist. And to think we have three more years of this buffoon.

Posted by: Kansasgirl | January 28, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Obama`s rebuke of the Supreme Court decision was an arrogant,condescending and classless comment!Obama preaches and pontificates on "unity" and "civility" but his actions continue to reinforce his hypocrisy.

Posted by: bowspray | January 28, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Democrats are just pissed because Big Money will back Republicans. But you cannot keep FREE SPEECH silenced because you don't like the message of that those with money can afford to deliver.

This is a FREE SPEECH issue, not a campaign fiance issue. Obama knows this and is just pandering to liberals to figure out how to squash free speech.

Posted by: AlbyVA | January 28, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

"Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was disgusting, and totally uncalled for. It shows his disdain for the constitution,...."

I'm not even going to bother challenging you or anyone else to explain this. Like every other conservo you actually have no facts to back up your rhetoric and instead are only motivated by hate and believe yourselves infallible because of your ingrained situational morality.

Posted by: washpost18 | January 28, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

I am afraid that Justice Alito's reaction provides all the evidence needed to prove his political motivations are the basis for his judicial opinion.

Posted by: NewThoughts | January 28, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Well ........ Obama will go down in history as the "Great Divider-in-Chief" for attacking our 3rd branch of government, the Supreme Court, the ONLY Branch of government the American people approve of.

Obama's lecturing and attacking their decision broders on Fascism.......bullying at least.....

Obama = Used car salesman.......sad.

Posted by: allenridge | January 28, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

The court decision wrong, functioning under some guise of righteousness in politics--please. So since the court removed restrictions from big business, then Congress needs to restrict itself so that it doesn't matter how much a company or entity wants to give in direct contributions, they can't give more than...whatever. That's the way it should be anyway; just like how limits are placed on gift costs for an office party. It levels the playing field, so that you have to run on what you bring to the table, not just on how much air time you can command.

Posted by: lidiworks1 | January 28, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Let's cripple this clown in the fall and then send him packing to his birthplace Indonesia in 2012.
Posted by: tjhall1 | January 28, 2010 8:06 AM
___________________________________________
Indonesia? Your way out in front of even the Birthers on that one. Amazingly ignorant.

Posted by: Lefty_ | January 28, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Since when are corporations people who vote in elections? Where does the constitution give corporations rights?

Posted by: george11 | January 28, 2010 8:00 AM
___________________________________________
Since a Supreme Court controlled by activist Right wing justices who twisted the Constitution and threw out 100 years of precident in a partisan decision that favors their political party. These are all things that Republicans railed against when the court was controlled by the Left. But it's OK when they're in control, right? Shameless.

Posted by: Lefty_ | January 28, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Alioto and his gang of reactionaries HAVE opened the door to any entity with loads of money that wants to buy itself a legislator or two or three. After 100 years of laws to protect the people from the ravages of international corporations with unimaginable amounts of money to spend, the horrendously "activist" Supreme Court has upended all of that and sold us down the river.

If wall street doesn't like a lawmaker, they can pump literally billions into ruining that candidate and hundreds of others.

The word "corporation" never appears in the constitution; the rights enshrined in that document are given to the people ... not to Goldman Sachs, not to Exxon, not to the State of Israel and not to the oil barons in Iran. Nowhere in the constitution was it ever imagined that such entities to buy into our government.

Alioto, just like Representative "You Lie" Wilson, is lying himself. This ruling, like the one that appointed Bush to his first term, will tarnish the court forever, and forever deny the people control of their country. SHAME!

Posted by: Casey1 | January 28, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Let's cripple this clown in the fall and then send him packing to his birthplace Indonesia in 2012.

Posted by: tjhall1 | January 28, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Alito lied during his confirmation about his respect for precedent and disdain for judicial activism. I hope he's really P.O.'d about the criticism he and his neanderthal right-wing cronies on the court are receiving. He deserves an ulcer for that decision.

Posted by: st50taw | January 28, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

"Breach of decorum"? Come on! So two branches of government -- the Executive and the Legislative -- can snipe at each other all they want, but the third branch of government is off limits from criticism?? There's a basic contradiction in arguing this along with talking about Freedom of Speech...

Posted by: Kathy8 | January 28, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

"Judge Alito was wrong, and behaved in a manner unfitting a Supreme Court Justice. His behavior was more outrageous than Wilson's shouting out because of his position as a Supreme Court Justice. If he cannot control himself he needs to stay home or resign from the court as lacking in the solemnity of the court."

Posted by: merrylees | January 28, 2010 1:27 AM |

Obama seems to think the SOTUS is an opportunity to lecture all who may disagree with his left-wing agenda. His arrogance and contempt for others are unpresidential. Couple that with Biden behind him grinning like a cheshire cat at odd moments, and Pelosi's lopsided face, and the whole picture is an embarrassment. These people couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Furthermore, the man is a serial liar. Read the American Thinker regarding Obama's own foreign contributions.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

Posted by: thinker16 | January 28, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Sure, it will open the doors to foreign money buying American politicians. It's simple.

Foreign corporation forms wholly-owned US subsidiary. Foreign parent contributes cash to US sub in exchange for all its stock. This is a routine transaction.

US sub contributes cash to US campaign. Or US sub earns profits, and makes campaign contributions to US candidates.

In each case, foreign parent calls the shots. It owns 100% of all classes of stock in US sub. It appoints management of US sub, who may or may not be foreign nationals. They do their foreign masters bidding.

US corporations are independent persons under US law, and Citizens United did nothing to change that. US sub is protected by conservative justices and originalism (a/k/a "defend wealth at all costs").

That foreign corporation is owned by foreign nation is irrelevant under Citizens United and originalism.

Result: Beijing funds US campaigns with money we lent them. Beijing joins Goldman Sachs, Enron, Walmart, and Pfizer in owning US Congress.

The only way to stop this is to limit Citizens United to corporations ALL of whose stock is owned by US citizens. But if this is done, a single foreigner buying a single share of stock DQs that corporation from Citizens United.

Limit it to corporations with a majority of US shareholders? By vote or value? By number of shares? What about the quite-common super-voting rights?

I would love to hear Alito's explanation of how Citizens United keeps foreign money out of US elections.

Posted by: Garak | January 28, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Since when are corporations people who vote in elections? Where does the constitution give corporations rights?

Posted by: george11 | January 28, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Not looking good libs. Barack Hussein Obama is sending the democRAT party down the same road as the Titanic, yet instead of taking blame, he acts like the manchild he is and blames everyone but him! LMAO!

Barack Hussein Obama-"ONE AND DONE"

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

So when the president says something true in the SOTU address, even though it makes some of the people he is calling out, it is impolite? He did not call them names, did not denigrate them in any way, simply pointed out that they are WRONG and that in our system of checks and c]balances Congress must act and act switly to correct the mistake - the HUGE mistake --that the third and least powerful branch made this week. Not disrespectful. Muttering obscenities under your breath at the POTUS - or being a crass uninformed fool like wilson -- THAT is disespectful.

Posted by: John1263 | January 28, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

With the supreme court's rationale for thier ruling and the idea that all people should have a voice, what's to stop foreign governments or even domestic governmental agencies or sub-groups from using this expanded interpretation of freedom of (individual) speech? The 'individual' is, to my way of thinking, the founding fathers missing, yet understood (though not by the court or at least the right wing individuals on the court) component of this concept.

Posted by: MemphisSlim | January 28, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Conservative values are clear and simple, 1st is greed, 2nd is selfishness and 3rd is control the economic system for the benefit of the super rich and corporations. There is no place for the people. For them people are just another asset to use and abuse.

Posted by: moemongo | January 28, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Alito is one of the Papist drecks on the Court, appointed by one of the worst presidents in modern times, who in turn was appointed by one of the worst Supreme Courts of modern times. The damage the Bush's wreaked on the country will continue for decades through the "decisions" of dolts like Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts.

Posted by: jrw1 | January 28, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

scalito looked like he was mouthing a racial epithet to me -- one that starts with n....

alito is clarence thomas' savior. He save thomas from being the least qualified and least sane member of the SCOTUS in the last 100 years. FINALLY thomas has someone whose legal "reasoning" even he can make fun of.

Posted by: John1263 | January 28, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

The Founding Father and Framers never envisioned that today's Supreme Court would be unable to distinguish the difference between individuals and corporations because in 1787 there were no corporations in the sense that we have them today. Had they divined that ignorance would rule the day in 2010 Washington, then they might have used the term "human being" instead of "people" or "individual" and included a picture so there would be no mistaking their intent. There is something terribly amiss when the letter of the law supercedes the spirit and true intent of the law, and that, unfortunately, appears to be the case with at least five of the current justices. They deserved a lot more than a dressing down: they deserve impeachment.

Posted by: Byrd3 | January 28, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

thieving dago

Posted by: SofaKingCool2009 | January 28, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito was just registering his dissent with President Obama's opinion.

Posted by: Puller58 | January 28, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Justice Alito was polite when he probably would have preferred to do the Joe Wilson
thing.

Justice Alito represents at least half the country who do not buy what Obama is selling.

Posted by: Concerned14 | January 28, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse


The "conservative" Supreme Court's decision to give for-profit Wall Street corporations the same "rights" as living breathing American citizens will go down in history as a major step in the destruction of America's democracy.

..

Posted by: DEFJAX | January 28, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

The judge lied. The problem with some of these old justices and republicans is they still think that Americans are going to believe any "lie" they decide they will want us to swallow.

I want this stupid political bickering to stop with these hard headed hard nosed republicans who's' first agenda is their POCKETBOOK at the expense of mine. And for the dems to grow some backbone. Watching these republicans sit there and mouth silently their complete disregard for this country and the people of this country and to be sure they will do all they can against this administration and the people of this country as we work 2 jobs if we can get them while they go golfing is absolutely despicable low life human beings that need to get out of DC.

This president cannot wipe out the past mistakes nor expect the American people to sit down and forget it when we have lived and suffered and still are from them and will continue to do so while they enjoy the high life on my tax money.

Posted by: mac7 | January 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama bust them out! About time the supereme court got called out.

I see the Repukes are at it again (we want all the money and power).

Money grubbing LOBBIEST!

Posted by: shamken | January 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

The conservatives are WRONG on their interpretation of the First Amendment. It guarantees the citizen's right to speak and express freely in public. It DOES NOT guarantee the right to make sure you are heard by a wider audience than your competing voices. The channels through which expressions are delivered to the public should NOT be reserved to those who have more money!

Posted by: neolib | January 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a thug. He has no respect for the Constitution nor for the Supreme Court. His Democratic Congress is in bed with him, vote them all out.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

A little thin-skinned, Judge Alito?

Posted by: Gatsby10


Perhaps you should remember the manchild you elected as POTUS!

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

SOMEBODY TELL ME just WHO is going to police these corporations against foreign interests endorsing a political candidate? Does the FDA keep our foods and drugs safe? Does the TSA keep people with bombs off from airplanes? Does the secret service keep party crashers out of the White House? Did not federal investigators get fooled by Bernie Madhoff? Who is going to watch THIS ???

Posted by: Brensarg | January 28, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

A little thin-skinned, Judge Alito?

Posted by: Gatsby10 | January 28, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

The president showed an embarrassing lack of dignity on several occasions. This was the worst.

Posted by: ACTIONBIAS | January 28, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

I really thought this a ruling that would bring conservatives and liberals together in opposition. That the 'rights of man' encoded in the Constitution are now extended to entities that are the creation of the govt seems obviously wrong and certainly not justifiable by any definition of 'original intent' I have every seen.

It will very likely result in greater concentration of power in Washington as corporations influence federal law to override state law where it serves their interests (and corporations are appropriately all about economic interests). Now states will be restricted from the top in environmental, labor, and potentially economic development areas. Just ask yourself what serves the interests of large corporations: restrictions on the growth of small competitors, anti-pollution laws, fair labor laws.

The recent bank crisis should serve as a 'fire bell in the night' as to where this will lead. We saw Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle exposed as on the payroll of the national and investment banks weakening regulation and the entities charged with oversight. Expect more of the same.

Posted by: mgferrebee | January 28, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

The problem is not just that corporations will buy more air time for even stupider and more misleading ads; it's that corporations will buy even more votes on legislation, influence behind the scenes, appointments to important posts. Democracy has always been vulnerable to financial influence. The Supremes just put it on the market, "Highest bidders rule."

Posted by: frodot | January 28, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

It is odd indeed that the president would so rudely call out the Supreme Court in his speech to Congress. Just like he did in another Congressional speech where he called Republicans liars and then was shocked that a Republican responded in kind. Some posters on this site seem to believe that it is right and proper for the president to lie and accuse from the podium but that those whom he has accused are out of line when they shake their heads in dismay. The Supreme Court case he refers to did not deal with foreign contributions. BTW over $1,000,000 in contributions to Obama's campaign came from out of the country using prepaid credit cards. Odd, isn't it that Obama is opposed to giving corporations free speech rights but he enthusiastically endorses giving foreign terrorists the right of U S citizens when they attempt to destroy our nation. Obama is not one of us and needs to seek mental help.

Posted by: lavistabb | January 28, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who takes their voting instructions from TV is just too stupid to vote to begin with.

---------------------------------------------

There is a reasons corporations spend so much on advertisement....It persuades people to do things they would not ordinarily do. Plus, it seems that a good portion of our electorate does vote based on instructions of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.....a clear example of people voting against their own interests!

Posted by: WPL22 | January 28, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Hell...all Osama bin Laden needs to do now is form a corporation in Delaware and start buying elections! Thanks Alito!

Posted by: WPL22 | January 28, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

No Judge Alito lied - during the hearings before he was confirmed. He is a stalwart judge for the multinational corporations - a loyal member of the Bush Supreme Court.

Posted by: MNUSA | January 28, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Most of this discussion is meaningless. Let the corporations waste their money on frivolous ads as they do on insipid commercials. Anyone who takes their voting instructions from TV is just too stupid to vote to begin with.

Posted by: jpost1 | January 28, 2010 7:14 AM
+++++++++++++++++++
Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: LeeHinAlexandria | January 28, 2010 7:29 AM | Report abuse

Citizens United supported last week's Supreme court ruling but said: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."
--------------------------------------------

Is Mr. Citizen United for real? I am not aware of laws prohibiting foreign persons from forming corporations in the United States, nor of laws prohibiting foreign corporations of forming a subsidiary in the U.S. No, all Vladimir Putin or the House of Saud needs to do is set up a U.S. corporation and start funneling money into our elections. Same goes for the Chinese corporation that wants to ensure no anti-sweatshop legislation is past...just start a U.S. subsidiary and funnel the money in. Just great!

Posted by: WPL22 | January 28, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

"It sounds to me like, for a couple hundred bucks, any foreigner can buy an American shell corporation on the internet, and then funnel unlimited campaign donations to any US candidate through that "citizen."
Posted by: member8 | January 28, 2010 6:16 AM | Report abuse"

this case involved media ads not donations...
if they want to spend millions on ads, let them, the American people know better than to believe whats on tv...

Posted by: DwightCollins | January 28, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a piece of subhuman trash that isn't fit to shine my shoes. This vermin, this treasonous snake, think's it is perfectly okay to allow China an India to fund and control our electoral process, laundering their money through multinational corporations. This piece of filth doesn't just deserve to be impeached, he needs to tossed in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 28, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

No. Judge Alito lied on the stand during his hearings. I listened to all of them and was not convinced he's ever rule on the side of average citizens and against corporate America. The Dems who caved and voted for him should be totally ashamed of themselves. The Repubs are blinded by their own loyalties. He is a stalwart member of the Bush Supreme Court.

Posted by: MNUSA | January 28, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse


You know what?

Alito is as excellent an actor as Buster Keaton. But the poor hack doesn't know it. That's why he holds the job in the Supreme Court. A dunce can do what ever you tell him to. Give the suckers the feeling that you're saying something, without uttering anythyng comprehensible. And let them gues, and comment about it.

A great artist, losing his time at the Court instead of making a killing in Vegas or Sunset bd.

Posted by: foxblues | January 28, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Most of this discussion is meaningless. Let the corporations waste their money on frivolous ads as they do on insipid commercials. Anyone who takes their voting instructions from TV is just too stupid to vote to begin with.

Posted by: jpost1 | January 28, 2010 7:14 AM
+++++++++++++++++++
Amen. COuldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: LeeHinAlexandria | January 28, 2010 7:25 AM | Report abuse

"With all due deference to separation of powers"......A lot classier than Joe Wilson


pofinpa wrote:
obozo criticizing the supremes.not very PC for dofus. does this mean that his bosses in the unions can also put the pols on the pad?

If you were smarter than a fifth grader, you would know this unleashes unions too. Obama is right on this one. The Founders would be aghast that the court gave "virtual" entities full civil rights as if they were human beings.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | January 28, 2010 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Attacking the Supreme court publicly because he doesn't like one of their decicisons......just like Hugo Chavez.

Posted by: Realist20 | January 28, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

Now corporations can buy as many politicians as they can afford! Whoopee - the best government money can buy!!!!

Supreme Court (oxymoron) - no wonder so many have low opinions of our judicial system. Talk about activist judges - we have perfect examples in the five on the SC who ramrodded this decision.

Posted by: Utahreb | January 28, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

President said the Supreme Court 'reversed a century of law' on corporate expenditures. The President ignores the fact that the ban, stemming from the Tilman Act in 1907, on direct donations from corporations to campaigns still exists. So, like Joe Wilson, Judge Alito was right.

Posted by: LeeHinAlexandria | January 28, 2010 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a pig, just like all the other republitard court appointees. May he get cancer of the dik, and suffer a long, painful and debilitating demise. May he drool his way into oblivion along with the rest of the coksukking activist conservative skumbags.

There now you conservative aszholes. Stick that up your azzez.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | January 28, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Hey libs, I'm sure you also would like to see Barack Hussein Obama release his campaign donor information and the amount each donated, no? LMAO!!

"VOTE DEMOCRAT, IT'S EASIER THAN WORKING"

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Who cares! I'm no Alito fan, but lets face it, the Supreme Court is full of a bunch of lawyer politicians who have views like the rest of us and reach decisions based on those decisions time after time after time (hence the conservative/liberal split) They are only human, so who cares if they applaud or shake their heads in disagreement. I'm not falling for their being above the rest of the politicians in the room, because they are as bad as the rest of them. Hell, they ought to mix them up along with the R's and D's in the seating so that they don't all sit together. This might make them look less like herds of cows.

Posted by: rocotten | January 28, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Alito is an embarrassment. A fine lawyer advocate, he demonstrated once again that he lacks judicial temperament. I wish him no bad luck; but I sure wish he would retire and go back to lawyering, where he belongs.

Posted by: auntywbush | January 28, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a right-wing ideologue first and an adherent of the law only as it fits his twisted view of the world. He has proved that repeatedly with his decisions throughout his entire career as a federal judge.

Alito and all other judges of his ilk should resign based on their biased decisions alone. If not, they should face impeachment and removed from the bench in disgrace with loss of all pensions, something they continual force on the American workers.

Posted by: BigTrees


How about some cheese for your WHINE?


LIBERALS....AMERICA'S WEAKEST LINK!

Posted by: cschotta1 | January 28, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse


Alito is an embarrassment. A fine lawyer advocate, he demonstrated once again that he lacks judicial temperament. I wish him no bad luck; but I sure wish he would retire and go back to lawyering, where he belongs.

Posted by: auntywbush | January 28, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Most of this discussion is meaningless. Let the corporations waste their money on frivolous ads as they do on insipid commercials. Anyone who takes their voting instructions from TV is just too stupid to vote to begin with.

Posted by: jpost1 | January 28, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

Alito is a right-wing ideologue first and an adherent of the law only as it fits his twisted view of the world. He has proved that repeatedly with his decisions throughout his entire career as a federal judge.

Alito and all other judges of his ilk should resign based on their biased decisions alone. If not, they should face impeachment and removed from the bench in disgrace with loss of all pensions, something they continual force on the American workers.

Posted by: BigTrees | January 28, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

I see it as a very dumb alienating moment by Obama. It would be like if Bush had used the SOTU to directly accuse the Dem majority leaders of Congress of being more concerned about advancing unions than national security. There is a time and a place for institutional attacks - when you have nation's leaders sitting there and ready to hear what the President says, respectfully, it is not the time for that.

He could have made a case on his concerns about the Citizens United decision at a news conference - but the One has not had one in a few months.
It just adds the Court to another American group or institution Obama has deliberately antagonized.

Even the Justices who were in the minority did not agree with Obama's U of Chicago hack lecturer spin, in lecturing them that "a century of law" was reversed.

The Court went away thinking Obama is arrogant, ignorant, and presumptuous. Joining the bitter people, the people too stupid not to believe global warming and healthcare legislation is more important than jobs, dissed cops, evil high earners, the national security apparatus now subserviant to the whims of Eric Holder.

Not a good thing. Perhaps Obama thinks his dwindling coalition is all he needs.

I don't think it is.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | January 28, 2010 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
28 January 2010

Judging by his body language, reacting to President Obama's criticism [in his State of the Union Address last Wednesday] of a Supreme Court 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is thin-skinned.

He obviously cannot take criticism as a justice of the Supreme Court, let alone criticism coming from the President of these United States. He must take himelf and his conservative colleagues on the Court to be "holy cows!"

And why should not President Obama criticize a decision which can only open the floodgates to more corruption of American legislators by U.S. and possibly even foreign corporations?

Mariano Patalinjug

Posted by: MPatalinjug | January 28, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse


Every time Obama opens up his mouth---
HE LIES!!!!!

...He thinks everyone is just going to forget the last year and believe him!!

He's a MORON!!!!

Posted by: charko825 | January 28, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

pofinpa wrote:
"obozo criticizing the supremes.not very PC for dofus. does this mean that his bosses in the unions can also put the pols on the pad?that would be bribe for all that do not understand"

DC Sage 1 wrote: I don't understand what you are trying to write. It doesn't make sense. Just garbled nonsense. By the way, the President's name is Obama.

Posted by: DCSage1 | January 28, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

From the NY Times:

The president appeared to have mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political commercials by suggesting that the decision invited political advertisements by foreign companies, too.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said.

“Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the majority in that decision, broke with the justices’ usual decorum to openly dissent. He shook his head no and mouthed the words “not true.”

The majority opinion in the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, specifically disavowed a verdict on the question of foreign companies’ political spending.

“We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates. Some analysts or observers have warned that the principle could open the door to foreign corporations as well.

President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections. But he is too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies.

Posted by: bff4261 | January 28, 2010 6:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama wants no part of campaign finance reform - it would curb his 2 main contributor special interests: unions and trial lawyers. Any guess as to why he never touched tort reform??
Posted by: birvin9999
==============================================
"Not true". He called for tort reform in January.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 28, 2010 6:58 AM | Report abuse

How long will it be before foreign corps. freely bankroll candidates because of it's US citizen shareholders? Could be the next court decision. They already bankroll advocacy groups freely, conservatives will say liar. While many applaud the Vatican bankrolling pro-life groups, they are a foreign corporation. A fine line exists between freedom of religion and advocacy of religious viewpoints by bankrolled politicians.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 28, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama wants no part of campaign finance reform - it would curb his 2 main contributor special interests: unions and trial lawyers. Any guess as to why he never touched tort reform??

Posted by: birvin9999 | January 28, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

The decline into insults and platitudinous language like "free speech" and "defending the constitution" appears to me a cover for what are at heart vacuous arguments in support of this ruling.

Whether or not this ruling was constitutional, and whether or not the abstract entities we call corporations deserve "free speech" rights, is really beside the point. We have just made it legal for people to bribe our elected representatives with unlimited amounts of money. Anyone, who cannot admit that this at least might have disastrous implications for future generations strikes me as profoundly corrupt. It will eventually backfire on rank and fie Republicans, as they lose control of the party to corporate interests. The short-sightedness is just astounding here.

It is all well and good to hate the President and to hate the opposition party. It seems to me, that many of the supporters of this decision hate democracy, though. One has to wonder if you are really as comfortable as you act with the possibility that voices may be nullified by a flood of money into our system that will make all of our heads spin.

Of course, opponents of this decision could be wrong. Corporations may be maxed out. But what a risk w are taking...

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | January 28, 2010 6:52 AM | Report abuse

It is nice that with the separation of powers our President and Supreme Court can disagree. Isn't that the way it should work?
As for the peeved Repub's, didn't I see ALL the Republicans stand up and applaud? Were they congratulating the Supreme Court for the Bonus the will now receive from special interest groups? Or were they in agreement with our president?
Makes you wonder.....

Posted by: try2livwl | January 28, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Gee, I guess Alito thinks he's ABOVE the law or something. Obama never mentioned the Supreme Court in his speech. What gives Alito the right to disagree with the President, out loud in front of room and millions of viewers. Aren't Supreme Court Justices suppose to interpret the law, not call the President a liar? Alito, Roberts, Bush, Cheney...part of the American mafia no doubt.

Posted by: kubrickstan | January 28, 2010 6:46 AM | Report abuse

One could perceive a right-wing agenda that would bring on Great Depression II in which the public yearns for government leadership that will put people back to work. Some fascist tea-bagger comes along, with a Hitler mustache, and we are on our way to a fourth reich. Imagine the flexibility that would afford the 400 wealthiest families in America. Best of all, America could fix all the world's problems with wars in the four corners of the Earth. Most of the munitions would come from China, but the rest would be made right here in the good ol' USA. The FBI would become The New Gestapo. Some out group or other (Hispanics?) could be slated for extermination. Every phone and computer would be tapped. Heaven on Earth for right-wingers.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | January 28, 2010 6:45 AM | Report abuse

The founders were still pretty aware of the idea of foreign corporate & business interests. I'm more surprised that Justice Alito felt the need to react to this at all. It also doesn't seem particularly odd to me that the specific area dealing with non-US entities would need some legislative rebuilding. I'd rather have the President say something to everyone about it before it becomes any more of a pitfall for legislative members than it already is.

It's inarguably been a bipartisan problem in the past decades, so it's not an issue that's well served by the court's decision on something that has to be treated differently domestically.

Posted by: Nymous | January 28, 2010 6:38 AM | Report abuse

Thomas is a lightweight, read his opinions. Roberts is a genius, Alito smart but so ideological he would not support the idea of a right to privacy being against Roe. He never should have been confirmed because of that position (privacy not Roe).

Posted by: jameschirico | January 28, 2010 6:26 AM | Report abuse

There have been to many five four decesion on this court. An this court has gotten to the point that it is so right leaning that it is about to tople over as a results of the previous admin's appointment. now a days this court is bought an paid for by the coporate speceial instrest an they have strip the people of this country of their constitutional rights civil right an human rights particulaly within the workforce of this country. this workforce is just barely short of nazisim rule. with the exception of the four more enlighten members of the court . there need to be a bill passed in the house & senate to overturn the latest damages that this court has done to indivsual workers right with the passage of this latest bill that give the special instrest an the coporate instrest sway over the american elections thank you

Posted by: pbjbeach@yahoo.com | January 28, 2010 6:24 AM | Report abuse


Obama is a moron....The State of the Union just proved once again to many Americans that he is indeed a JERK.

Alito has every right to do what he did.

Obama does not hold ANY POWER OVER THE SUPREME COURT!!

Obama needs a lesson in separation of powers! He's a total jerk!


Posted by: charko825 | January 28, 2010 6:19 AM | Report abuse

I zoomed in on his face. He said "Our decisions can change, but you will always have Dumbo ears."

Posted by: BaracksTeleprompter | January 28, 2010 6:16 AM | Report abuse

It sounds to me like, for a couple hundred bucks, any foreigner can buy an American shell corporation on the internet, and then funnel unlimited campaign donations to any US candidate through that "citizen."

Posted by: member8 | January 28, 2010 6:16 AM | Report abuse

The SCOTUS deserves to be shamed, along with the Republicans. They have lost all credibility, and it all started with Gore V Bush, when they cast aside all judicial restraint, and became another political branch of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, we're stuck with them for the duration. Just, another disaster in the long list of shameful Bush legacies.

Posted by: ggwalt | January 28, 2010 6:14 AM | Report abuse

Ombudsman1 wrote: "If he really were such an expert (he's not), he would not be suggesting and doing so many things to trample the constitution."
==============================
Isn't that what Socialists do best, well, leastwise it's one of their traits.

Posted by: cnicholsjr | January 28, 2010 6:13 AM | Report abuse

Great job Mr. President the justices appointed by the robber baron Republicans are trying to make our congress even easier to buy which is a Republican strong suit. Corporations are not people period and you were write to call them out tho their face. Loved the speech and the obvious fire in your belly. the only folks who should be running for the hills are the NO birds who don't want to lead as you said you are responsible for governing. that side of the aisle will get even smaller in November no matter how much hubris they have now. The response stage was a joke. Obamanos!

Posted by: jbento | January 28, 2010 6:12 AM | Report abuse

this statement to SCOTUS in the SOTU was really a shot accross the bow about this decision and Chief Justice Jon Roberts comments about "stare decisis". read ROE V WADE here.

Posted by: dem4evr | January 28, 2010 6:11 AM | Report abuse

It is wonderful to see Altio has the ability to move his mouth independently.

Posted by: BillKeller | January 28, 2010 6:10 AM | Report abuse

Alito was wrong! He should have yelled "you lie"!

Posted by: jamespmarion | January 28, 2010 6:05 AM | Report abuse

Chicago (or should I say Soviet) politics all the way. Obama saying that American elections should be about "the people" deciding their leaders is prevarication at its worst. He knows that it has been many years since any election of any importance was not inundated with money from PACs (read: corporate shills) and Unions (read: unafordable benefits gone amuck). I don't care if a corporation can now do their pushing out in the open. Might be better that way, if there will be a requirement that any advertisement should say in large letters at the bottom just who is paying for the ad. When you see one of those ads,you will know what politician has been making backroom deals and trades with them.

Posted by: Georgetowner1 | January 28, 2010 6:00 AM | Report abuse

Despite what the people worshipers are suggesting here, the ground where the Supreme Court sits, in this nation, is NOT hallowed ground.

Their decisions are challenged and criticized EVERY DAY!!! If you EVER suggested to a citizen who criticizes Roe vs. Wade that it is "inappropriate" to do so before the steps of the Supreme Court, you may find yourself being strung up by the statue of "blind justice".

President's are not restricted from criticizing the legislature or the courts. I think it is perfectly FINE for Alito to express his disagreement with the President. He, too, is an American and should be able to do so without feeling hamstrung by protocol.

Alito is very naive if he believes that, in effect, they didn't just open up the flood gates for special interests to "purchase" elected officials. The people will not longer have the dominating leverage.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | January 28, 2010 5:59 AM | Report abuse

At what point does a domestic corporation become a foreign one? And why shouldn't the companies from which we buy most of our cars, have as much say in the political process as Ford and General Motors? The fact is that the Supreme Court has just endorsed the borderless New World Order.

Posted by: RossPhx | January 28, 2010 5:58 AM | Report abuse

pofinpa wrote:
"obozo criticizing the supremes.not very PC for dofus. does this mean that his bosses in the unions can also put the pols on the pad?that would be bribe for all that do not understand"

DC Sage 1 wrote: Your high school English teacher should be drawn and quartered for unleashing such ignorance on the world.

Posted by: DCSage1 | January 28, 2010 5:57 AM | Report abuse

obozo criticizing the supremes.not very PC for dofus. does this mean that his bosses in the unions can also put the pols on the pad?that would be bribe for all that do not understand

Posted by: pofinpa | January 28, 2010 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Once again POTUS shows his true contempt and disdain for the constitution. If the Democrats go after Alito it will have an even greater negative impact for them at the polls in November.

Posted by: JohnLongIsland | January 28, 2010 5:47 AM | Report abuse

schrew that whop

Posted by: SofaKingCool2009 | January 28, 2010 5:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: HughBriss

Watch the video again.

Soon after Alito's silent protest, you can see Clarence Thomas breathe a visible sigh of relief that he will now be considered only the second doofiest member of the Supreme Court.
----------------------------
Is this tongue-in-cheek or do you have some magical wide-angle shot that the rest of the world is missing?

Posted by: 1ofamillion | January 28, 2010 5:29 AM | Report abuse

Good for Alito.

The press needs to follow up on this story, and figure out whether Obama and everyone who vetted the SOTU speech are (1) woefully ignorant about campaign finance law (a worrisome thought!) or (2) deliberately landed a below the belt punch on the conservative Supreme Court Justices.

Posted by: junomoneta88 | January 28, 2010 5:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: LEOMARQUES

I doubt, I mean I seriously doubt, that Thomas Jefferson or John Adams ever envisioned a 19th century legal entity, called a corporation, whose sole purpose was to limit liability and raise large amounts of Capital, was to be considered a person, an individual citizen with the 1st. amendment right of free speech, with billions of dollars to lobby, advertise, and as Obama raised the point "foreign" dollars to promote a candidate for their interest wether it is for the public good or not.

-----------------------------

You're probably right; TJ and Johnny were around WAY before the East India Trading Company and was incorporated with an express grant of limited liability. Wait, TJ and Johnny were hanging state-side before 1600, right??


Posted by: 1ofamillion | January 28, 2010 5:23 AM | Report abuse

I thought the comment was appropriate and accurate. The supreme court has, once again, sided with the corporatocracy and betrayed the american people.

Alito was a 100% ideological appointment to the court. Of course he shook his head at the comments.

Posted by: mtnmanvt | January 28, 2010 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Five conservative justices just made it possible for corporate executives to use unlimited shareholder money, that they were not authorized by shareholders to use, for causes that may be anathema to the employees who make up the real identity of the corporation, so as to drown out the voices of the rest of us, and to control the political debate they already dominate.

Only an idiot would believe this has anything to do with free speech. For the speech of shareholders will be distorted and the rest of us lost in the racket of corporate advertising, diverting attention from the real issues that threaten their interests.

The problem with all too many Republicans is that they believe if they repeat something enough times it will be true. This is free speech for no one. Rather it provides what are usually very wealthy organizations to have even greater access to a system most of us have been shut out of. Justice Alito, along with the other 4 justices who joined him, will go down in shame for destroying our democracy. He deserved a public flogging tonight.

Posted by: ReframeAmerica | January 28, 2010 5:18 AM | Report abuse

When Did This President Start Being Concerned About "Seperation Of Powers?He And Fellow Democrats;That Is->The President,The Senate,And The House That's Why We All Love Liberal Lying Liars, Called "Jackass Democrats"!!

Posted by: sdavis4 | January 28, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse

But Obama is ok with eminent domain if it takes from citizens and gives him more tax money for Obama to spend.

Using the SOTU speech to beat up the Supreme Court???

It's much better to be handing out special tax privileges to Unions.

January 2013 - we are rid of this guy.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 28, 2010 5:10 AM | Report abuse

Anything that does not go Obama's way, he has to gripe about it. One day Obama will have an understanding of American Democracy as opposed to Chicago Democracy.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 28, 2010 5:06 AM | Report abuse

But Obama is ok with eminent domain if it takes from citizens to put more tax money for Obama to spend.

Obama is a buffoon and a disgrace to the White House.

Posted by: hz9604 | January 28, 2010 5:02 AM | Report abuse

fury60,

there is really nothing to say to you besides: you are a liar.

Posted by: comeonpeople | January 28, 2010 4:57 AM | Report abuse

Wow, fury60, you just described G. W. Bush.

Posted by: bobbarnes | January 28, 2010 4:57 AM | Report abuse

"Obama didn't seem too concerned about legal precedent when he screwed GM bondholders. Good for Justice Alito.

Posted by: Chippewa | January 28, 2010 4:45 AM |"


Are you serious? I think GM's bondholders were screwed by GM's management and their inability to sell cars that people wanted to buy. Its amazing how some people can look at a fact and twist it to fit their own personal belief. GM was about to collapse. Do you understand that?

As for the people saying Obama breeched decorum, how many of you defended Joe "YOU LIE" Wilson for his outburst last time? Come on, be honest.

Posted by: comeonpeople | January 28, 2010 4:56 AM | Report abuse

Unlike any other president in history, this president is truly a pathological liar.

Obama exhibits the following behaviors:
- Lies to control and get his own way
- Often change stories
- Exaggerate, lying about almost everything, but tell the truth about major ones
- Not value truth
- Lives in his own reality most of the time
- Behaves defensively when questioned or challenged
- Lies for sympathy
- Doesn't admit he lies
- Contradicts what he says because he doesn't remember his lies, although there are exceptions

Posted by: fury60 | January 28, 2010 4:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm a liberal, but I don't think Alito deserves criticism for an under-the-breath remark after the president directly bashed him and his four colleagues that tens of millions of Americans were watching.

Posted by: jonesey1 | January 28, 2010 4:53 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jmdziuban1
"Yes Alito is an unqualified lightweight, as are Thomas and Roberts,"

Maybe, maybe, you can get away with Alito and still keep the blinds down, but calling Roberts an "unqualified lightweight" throws open the blinds on the fact that you are indeed clueless.

Posted by: 1ofamillion | January 28, 2010 4:53 AM | Report abuse

The CEO of Citizens United is hilarious. Is anyone paying attention:

"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American CITIZENS," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.

But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American CITIZEN to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."

Ok, ok, ok, so we have to buy into this garbage about corporate personhood. But does that make a corporation a CITIZEN? I want to see some birth certificates!!! Long form, of course.

Posted by: comeonpeople | January 28, 2010 4:51 AM | Report abuse

I agree with blert, "... rich corporate interests have been greasing the wheels in politics for a very, very long time. ..."

The real discussion here should be what to do about the incompetents Bush appointed. There are several options:

(1) President Obama can just appoint two more justices--yes he can, there is no limit on the # of SC justices written into the Constitution.

(2) Congress can pass one or more Constitutional amendments, to be circulated to the states for ratification:

(a) Limit donors to campaigns and PACs to US registered voters (real people!) and prohibit for-profit and non-profit organizations from being active in politics except through formation of a PAC. Limit the AMOUNT of the donation to one week's gross salary at the minimum wage (currently about $300), and the AMOUNT candidates can donate or loan to their own campaign to 10 times that amount (all per election cycle). Limit on the total amount any one registered voter can donate, perhaps 100 times one week's gross salary at the minimum wage. (Otherwise there will just be a proliferation of PACs.)

(b) Give the House of Representatives the option to vote to retire two of the SC justices (EXCLUDING the two most recent appointees) each time the presidency changes hands and also parties. (This might encourage older justices to retire sooner.)

(c) Term limits, say 12 years, for all SC justices.


Let's get proactive, people.

Posted by: dotellen | January 28, 2010 4:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama's comments were in poor taste and Alito's response was not out of order. And for those of you who drape Obama with the dubious title of "constitutional scholar" need to understand that he hardly stands in the shadow of those justices. He also forgets that if his administration were to ever investigate, it would undoubtably find that no president before him had ever been elected without the help of more foreign money than what he received. Plus he forgets that his (legal) profession, over the last ten years has poured over a cool billion--yes, that's billion with a "B"--dollars into congressional campaign coffers with 3/4 of it going to his own party. He's just mad because the Republicans now have more level playing field. McCain-Feingold was a stupid law and this will correct some of it's defficiencies.

Posted by: grundoon | January 28, 2010 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama didn't seem too concerned about legal precedent when he screwed GM bondholders. Good for Justice Alito.

Posted by: Chippewa | January 28, 2010 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Take a closer look as Obama starts this dubious attack (due to untouched constraints on foreign corps.), and you will see even Ginsburg shooting lasers at the President. This breach of decorum is likely to push the court to view this administration's policies with even greater suspicion. I wonder if it was worth it for a line that didn't even bring all of his own caucus to their feet?

Posted by: UncomfortableTruths | January 28, 2010 4:43 AM | Report abuse

"The President of the United States, a first-rate Constitutional scholar and expert, is exactly correct"

If he really were such an expert (he's not), he would not be suggesting and doing so many things to trample the constitution.

If the president is going to stand in front of the cameras with the supreme court there and say "you guys made a dumb choice", then expect the guys who are *actual experts* to disagree.

Once again, this lightweight president doesn't know s*** from Shinola when it comes to something substantive.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | January 28, 2010 4:38 AM | Report abuse

Even the supreme court knows he lies.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | January 28, 2010 4:33 AM | Report abuse

"there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."
Oh, really? Well, then the question should be raised who OWNS all those "US" corporations? Their stocks are openly traded all around the world! The insignificant fact that an enterprise is registered in Delaware doesn't necessarily make it a US business. Who knows in how many of allegedly "American" companies foreign investors hold the majority?

Face the ugly fact, when you allow corporations to be active players in the political process, you can't keep foreign interests out! So,the Supreme Court decision stupidly and unnecessarily opened a floodgate that may drown any attempts to keep international big money influence out of US politics.

Posted by: Gray62 | January 28, 2010 4:27 AM | Report abuse

Has opposition to Roe v. Wade ever been mentioned by a president during the SOTU address? OK, so enough of the opinion that the president cannot talk of SC rulings. Yes Alito is an unqualified lightweight, as are Thomas and Roberts, but does this now qualify Alito as an activist judge, or is he just an unruly child?

Posted by: jmdziuban1 | January 28, 2010 3:58 AM | Report abuse

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

Posted by: easttxisfreaky
_________________________________

If you're going to quote Bradley Smith, you should also disclose that he's against campaign finance reform. Personally, I'd prefer to hear from a neutral interpreter.

Posted by: 1fasthoo | January 28, 2010 3:58 AM | Report abuse

Well, suppose Exxon-Mobil wants America to foment more war in the Middle East and not mess with Exxon-Mobil's arrangements in the Middle East. Is Exxon-Mobil going to trash opponents of continued dependence on foreign oil? Of course they are. Is Exxon-Mobil advertising the deciding factor in elections? Only if the American people are so dumb that they vote according to what they see in advertisements on television. People that dumb deserve the politicians they elect. And the Supreme Court justices those politicians appoint and confirm.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | January 28, 2010 3:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a stone cold liar. It's as natural as breathing to him..

Posted by: wewintheylose | January 28, 2010 3:45 AM | Report abuse

Alito said something? I thought he was to busy blowing corporations to speak? Geez, give the man credit, he took time off from his favorite passtime to say a word.

Posted by: rodneythecat | January 28, 2010 3:37 AM | Report abuse

Justice Samuel Alito violated established rules of decorum and expectation for Supreme Court Justices. Of course, he should never have been elevated to this position and his public conduct is proof. While I wish that he would resign, his ilk never have self editing ability, I don't think he should be impeached. Perhaps the appropriate bar association will at least offer public discussion about his behavior and at least humiliate his wife since he hasn't a scintilla of self observation.

Posted by: jimc3 | January 28, 2010 3:35 AM | Report abuse

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued.

I couldn't agree more Mr. President. We don't want powerful interests like union leaders and investment companies writing legislation to benefit and exempt them from certain law. We don't want people like Soros funding campaigns to influence foreign policy in his favor. We don't want monster companies like GE holding the strings to the Oval Office.
We don't want Goldman Sachs holding job fairs outside the West Wing and filling your cabinet with their representatives.

Posted by: menopausequeen | January 28, 2010 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Watch the video again.

Soon after Alito's silent protest, you can see Clarence Thomas breathe a visible sigh of relief that he will now be considered only the second doofiest member of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: HughBriss | January 28, 2010 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Like Joe Wilson before him, Justice Samuel Alito has proven himself to be emotionally too immature to hold such a high office in our land. To not be able to sit there, silently and emotionless (like the other justices), reveals a lack of emotional stability and reserve. How these people get nominated to such a high office is curious in the first place.

President Obama did take a swipe at the majority opinion Wednesday night, but the justices themselves have plenty of time to render their opinions, uninterrupted, where no one can offer rebuttals in real time. To put a spotlight on their unusual powers of opinion should not necessarily evoke an immediate response from people with emotional maturity.

Posted by: sthomas1957 | January 28, 2010 3:07 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court justices like Alito should be ashamed of themselves. They have politicized their court and degraded their integrity.

Toyota doesn't have to fix its quality problems. Why not spend the money instead to throw cash at politicians?

Thank you, Alito and the politicized supreme court.

Posted by: somerseten | January 28, 2010 3:03 AM | Report abuse

"Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication...."
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School"
Posted by: easttxisfreaky | January 28, 2010 2:10 AM
==
The President of the United States, a first-rate Constitutional scholar and expert, is exactly correct.
If a bunch of foreigners come to this country to work and they form a corporation and incorporate that corporation in one of these United States, no one asks them for their nationality upon incorporation.
The company they form is, once incorporated in this country, an American corporation and thus free to be active in U.S. elections, with no one the wiser.
If foreign nationals come to this country and invest heavily in American corporations, or hire and fund Americans to work with them and front them in creating a new American corporation, their company is perfectly free to exercise their right to be active and to donate during American election campaigns.
That's not to count the large corporations, initially founded in the U.S., which have become multi-national corporations because they outsourced and off-shored production, etc.
Does no one remember the South Korean lobbyist who bundled large donations in the past election, later caught and eventually prosecuted.
The prosecution did not void the election in which he was active.
easttx, get your facts straight and put away your partisanship.

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | January 28, 2010 2:58 AM | Report abuse

How ridiculous it has gotten that a person must sit with not just rapturous attention but complete agreement when Obama speaks in order not to be called by the media as a blaspheming dissenter. Than you Judge Alito for providing a living example of the first amendment and the value of a botox free face and life.

Posted by: spado | January 28, 2010 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Yes. Really. Alito is a total lightweight and hack. He makes Thomas look like John Marshall or Oliver Wendell Holmes. I KNOW ALITO.

Posted by: mnjam

---------------------------

Well, at least Thomas is finally getting some respect then.

Posted by: blert | January 28, 2010 2:29 AM | Report abuse


It was an inappropriate comment in a SOTU. Is Alito not supposed to react to a direct attack in his face in a public event?

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 28, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse
-----------------------------------------
HE SHOULD KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT.

IT IS NOT A COURTROOM WHERE HE HOLDS SWAY.

IT IS A SPEECH IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VENUE BY SOMEONE ELSE TO WHICH HE WAS INVITED (THOUGH HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN )

Posted by: mnjam | January 28, 2010 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Probably the worst appointment in one hundred years.

Posted by: mnjam

-----------------------

Really? That's a pretty sweeping statement to make about someone who's only been on the court a short few years.

And I thought that liberals were in universal agreement that Clarence Thomas was the worst appointment in all of history?

Posted by: blert | January 28, 2010 2:11 AM | Report abuse
----------------------------
Yes. Really. Alito is a total lightweight and hack. He makes Thomas look like John Marshall or Oliver Wendell Holmes. I KNOW ALITO.

Posted by: mnjam | January 28, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Are US and foreign corporations "American citizens"? If IBM, for example, is a US citizen, can it vote and bear arms?

Posted by: Matthew_DC | January 28, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

I had no problem with Alito reacting. It's refreshing actually, from the usual smug silence and legalese encrypted decisions we usually get from these people.
I think the point Obama was making, which I agree with, is that when the boat is sinking, we should patch and bail -- not bash out a bigger hole.

Posted by: ThePoliticalStraycom | January 28, 2010 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Conservative judicial activism.

Posted by: tmaffolter | January 28, 2010 2:20 AM | Report abuse

These new "republicans" have made the US silly, stupid and heading towards irrelevancy - enough money and you can buy yourself any position in the States now, it seems, Alito and his crew have seen to that now - it's all up for the right amount of moolah. Talk about lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator. Very sad - it used to be such a fine country back before Reaganomics and those other intellectual lightweights weakened it.

Posted by: 10emlet | January 28, 2010 2:19 AM | Report abuse

Barry the incompetent boob Obama is a lying weasel. Glad to see somebody high up in government caught him on it.

Posted by: screwjob2 | January 28, 2010 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Probably the worst appointment in one hundred years.

Posted by: mnjam

-----------------------

Really? That's a pretty sweeping statement to make about someone who's only been on the court a short few years.

And I thought that liberals were in universal agreement that Clarence Thomas was the worst appointment in all of history?

Posted by: blert | January 28, 2010 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Please, do not be so harsh on Alito, for the next thing he'll do is trot his wife out in front of the media to bawl her eyes out again ad nauseam about just how cruel and unfair the public and media are with her beloved wing nut, "Sammy."

Posted by: cisconwa | January 28, 2010 2:10 AM | Report abuse

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]
Tonight the president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections . Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication...."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

Posted by: easttxisfreaky | January 28, 2010 2:10 AM | Report abuse


It was an inappropriate comment in a SOTU. Is Alito not supposed to react to a direct attack in his face in a public event?

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 28, 2010 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Since 1947 the law has recognized that a "corporation" or a "trade union" can exert undue influence on the election process so it made it illegal for a corporate entity or a trade union to endorse or oppose a candidate. The purpose was to make an election of a politician to a political office a process that represented the will of the people. I am certain, beyond a doubt, that Thomas Jefferson, John Addams, or for that matter any of the signers of the Constitution in 1776 ever envisioned that in the 19th century a Legally created entity called a "corporation" designed to limit liability and raise large amounts of capital was for the sake of government by the people and for the people, should in all due respects be considered a "person" an "individual" with the right to free speech insofar as financialy endorsing a political candidate for a political Office. When Alito said what he said during the State of The Union address by Obama I suddenly realized the truth to what people had said that the lasting legacy Of the Bush Administration, other than the shambles he left the country in, was going to be his appointments to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: LEOMARQUES | January 28, 2010 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Alito didn't shout out, so this was hardly a Joe Wilson moment. That chamber was full of people nodding their heads variously in agreement and disagreement at many of the president's comments, and it is perfectly normal to do so. Had this been a different president chiding the Court's liberal majority in, oh, let's say, the eminent domain case in which the justices allowed a person's home to be seized for a private company to build a shopping complex, I wonder if the reaction would be the same. I'm guessing not, which means that people complaining about Alito are just making knee-jerk reactions at nothing because it is Alito.

Besides, Obama's comment was a pretty dumb one. That decision opens the floodgates for rich, corporate interests to control elections? Ummm...I don't know what planet Obama is from, but rich corporate interests have been greasing the wheels in politics for a very, very long time. This Court decision just upholds the Constitution and strips away some of the pretense that campaign reform actually cut down on the corporate and electoral corruption. Considering that campaign spending skyrocketed since the passage of McCain-Feingold, doubling in 2004 over 2000 levels, and then almost doubling again in 2008, I think it's plain that the law was doing nothing to control these special interests.

I mean, Goldman Sachs employees were one of Obama's top contributors, whereas Merrill Lynch employees supported McCain much more heavily. Why the split? Who knows. But what is clear is that Merrill Lynch was pawned off on Bank of America in what can only be described as a shotgun marriage while Goldman Sachs made millions thanks to bailout money and bets against their own clients' investments.

Posted by: blert | January 28, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Alito was a total lackey for large corporations as a judge on the Third Circuit. He is an even bigger lackey as a Supreme Court justice. Probably the worst appointment in one hundred years.

Posted by: mnjam | January 28, 2010 1:51 AM | Report abuse

It is traditionally the prerogative of the president to weigh in on Supreme Court decisions. Obama's criticism was nothing like the classic Andrew Jackson "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it" stuff we've seen in the past. Obama isn't running against the Court, as Republican presidents have done since Nixon.

The president is expected to be passionate and to advocate. The Supreme Court is expected to be dispassionate and to evaluate. For Alito to react was a breach of decorum and tradition in a way that Obama's remark simply was not.

Posted by: jeffwacker | January 28, 2010 1:45 AM | Report abuse

Alito just proved he can't figure out the OBVIOUS consequences of his actions. How very embarrassing.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | January 28, 2010 1:43 AM | Report abuse

The President had already made his feelings clear on the decision to the American people in the strongest possible way, but felt the need to go further in his State of the Union (with the Supreme Court present)to publicly berate the Court. If a Republican President had done this to the court after they made a decision (let's say imminent domain), the media would be all over this.

Alito obviously lost his composure being singled out in such a fashion, but the President was also showed poor taste by what he did.

I wonder if the media is going to investigate to see if what the President did has precedent-probably not. From what I'm seeing, the only thing they are commenting on is Alito's reaction for being publicly berated in a public square while being forced to sit stony faced.

Posted by: moebius22 | January 28, 2010 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: gripper
moebius, pretty low, huh? I imagine Joe Wilson s your hero. go figure.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This is the kind of stupid comment I have come to expect from partisans around here.

Both acts showed poor taste.

Posted by: moebius22 | January 28, 2010 1:31 AM | Report abuse

So...when do people get to be corporations, with tax breaks, incentives, depletion allowances, etc?

It's only fair that, if corporations are individuals, that individuals can be corporations.

Posted by: AlanGoldberg54 | January 28, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Judge Alito was wrong, and behaved in a manner unfitting a Supreme Court Justice. His behavior was more outrageous than Wilson's shouting out because of his position as a Supreme Court Justice. If he cannot control himself he needs to stay home or resign from the court as lacking in the solemnity of the court.

Posted by: merrylees | January 28, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

The incident made Alito look like a partisan, with a partisan agenda, rather than a judge.

The viewpoint opposite his is legitimate, especially as four other justices disagreed with him, and judges the past 100 years disagreed with him.

Even Sandra Day O'Connor disagrees with him.

Posted by: AlanGoldberg54 | January 28, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

Alito revealed that he is a right wing elitist that doesn't have a clue.

Arab and Chinese and Russian owned American Corporations can now buy candidates. Perhaps they will do away with the court.

The man shoulkd never have been on the Supreme court and he showed it tonight.

Posted by: COWENS99 | January 28, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

moebius, pretty low, huh? I imagine Joe Wilson s your hero. go figure.

Posted by: gripper | January 28, 2010 1:25 AM | Report abuse

Since 1947 the law has restricted political money on the behalf corporate interests to endorse or oppose political candidate and this includes trade unions as well. It attempted to level the playing field so that government is run by the people and for the people. If you were to go back to the thinking of the founing fathers I doubt, I mean I seriously doubt, that Thomas Jefferson or John Adams ever envisioned a 19th century legal entity, called a corporation, whose sole purpose was to limit liability and raise large amounts of Capital, was to be considered a person, an individual citizen with the 1st. amendment right of free speech, with billions of dollars to lobby, advertise, and as Obama raised the point "foreign" dollars to promote a candidate for their interest wether it is for the public good or not. Even the, bipartisan McCain(R Arizona)-Feingold(D. Wisconsin) Act, just six years old,and a further refinement of the 1947 law, has been wiped out. It has been said while Bus was in office that the most destructive legacy he would leave was his appointments to the Supreme Court

Posted by: LEOMARQUES | January 28, 2010 1:25 AM | Report abuse

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]
"Tonight the president engaged in demagoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections . Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication...."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind."

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

Posted by: easttxisfreaky | January 28, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

That was pretty low to berate the court in a public square like that. I doubt the media will hold the President accountable though.

Posted by: moebius22 | January 28, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

the funny thing is that there is no inherent conflict between the supreme court's decision and obama's call for a congressional reaction. essentially obama took something where there should (or at least could) be common ground and intentionally distorted it to make it look like there was no common ground.

something about false choices comes to mind here.

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 1:17 AM | Report abuse

"by mouthing off at the president"?

I really respect the Justices and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs for being able to sit still there for that long. It takes work to remain expressionless, especially when you are being directly insulted like that.

Posted by: reston75 | January 28, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Americans will give their speech in November 2010 and 2012...

Posted by: LaDVna | January 28, 2010 1:15 AM | Report abuse

the loser here is alito.lost his composure not good for a judge especially afederal or supreme justice .loser big time this will live with guy for a very time.roberts and the other justices will have a talk with him that is a given.this relly larger than o one day news cycle.

Posted by: donaldtucker | January 28, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

"need to get the Lobbyist out of our Government"

Most agree with this - but know that Obama and Dems work with special interests
... or are insurance companies, Unions, big legal orgs and bankers not "special interest (same as) lobbyists"

What independents and middle American want is for give and take - until now Dems have been nasty, personal, insulting at each opportunity and dismissive of all obvious "idiots" who may have a different view or philosophy...

Since "dignity" is a word Obama likes, I wonder if he really thinks anyone outside the few PC minorities he favors (blacks, muslims, native Americans, gays, Latinos...) - not the multiple other minorities that ALSO exist in this country deserves dignity?

He really can't control that snide side of his personality!

Posted by: sally62 | January 28, 2010 1:09 AM | Report abuse

If corporations are people - why are corporations allowed to donate more than $2300?

And since the LARGEST shareholder of Fox News, outside the Murdoch family, is a Muslim Saudi prince - it's obvious why Republicans and Fox News pundits erroneously declare global warming is a hoax.

Posted by: angie12106 | January 28, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

What about corporations with a lot of foreign ownership? This is not unusual in this day and age. Saudis, Kuwaitis, Venezuelans, and many other nationalities own substantial portions of American corporations.

This is one good reason why a corporation should not be seen as an individual.

Posted by: AlanGoldberg54 | January 28, 2010 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Should Alito resign or be impeached?

Posted by: jdmca | January 28, 2010 1:05 AM | Report abuse

someone doesnt agree with obama? who said the supreme court isnt full of regular people?

Posted by: dummypants | January 28, 2010 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Obama is a politician and it's part of his job description to take political shots.

Justices are supposedly apolitical, and Altio demeans that role by mouthing off at the president.

Shows that justice in this court is not blind ("to special interests").

How are you going to feel as an attorney appearing before Alito on a campaign finance case, for example?

Perceptually,Alito moved the Supreme Court in the direction of it being a Congressional committee.

It's laughable that Democratic appointments are judicial activists. The Roberts court reached out for the Citizens United case and in a rush to overturn precedent made up a new law, in effect. They could have waited for it to work its way through the court. The timing is curious. Changes in Congress will make it harder for Obama to appoint a justice not to the liking of Republicans. Could it be they wanted this done before the midterm elections?

Things have soured in Washington to the point where the Supreme Court has become part of the day-to-day political maelstrom--throwing its lot in with the Republican Party.

Posted by: latichever | January 28, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

cornell,mike and sally,please let me have some of that stuff you all have been smoking!the president did not disrespect the supreme court,they disrespected the american elections process,and really took the actual vote from american citizens by opening this thing up,but,it,like everything else in politics,will be cicumvented

Posted by: billydee123 | January 28, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

All corporations are foreign.

They are owned by shareholders, who can be citizens of any nation.

Their decisions are made based on loyalty to profit, not to nation.

They are required by law to act so as to realize more profit in this quarter than in the last.

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2010/01/major-disaster-for-democracy.html


Posted by: chabot744 | January 28, 2010 12:57 AM | Report abuse

if corporations are people, how come the moment they are formed they become fullfledged "citizens"; Where is their childhood and puberty? Even people have to wait until they are 18 to vote.

These idiots in the black robe are devoid of any common sense. I have always wondered if they wear anything under that robe of theirs. Now I know I should have been wondering instead if they have anything upstairs.

Posted by: kblgca | January 28, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Next the "conservative" Supreme Court majority will find that the Second Amendment gives corporations the right of armed self-defense against other corporations.

Posted by: dpclark | January 28, 2010 12:46 AM | Report abuse

Did people not notice that there was bi-partisan clapping during that bit?

Posted by: Pupster | January 28, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Any 12th grade American History student knows that the standard run around the Supreme Court is to draft and pass and sign new legislation that supersedes the previous/recent decision.

It's time the Democrats united and gave the Republicans a taste of their own bitter medicine.

Whoops. I mean it's time we practiced good old fashioned democracy. Yup. That's what I mean.

Posted by: jato11 | January 28, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I see FOOL's in here speak about Obama supporter, well where were these People when Bush & Cheney robbed this Country of Money, American Soldiers, and the TRUTH! Obama made some VALID points tonight, and we do need to get the Lobbyist out of our Government! Anyone who believes otherwise is truly not acting on the BEST INTEREST of the American PEOPLE!

Posted by: ifordc | January 28, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Profit-making corporations are "people" all right. They "are" the top corporate executives who have autocratic control over corporate treasuries. These big bosses can spend as much of their own personal income as they want to promote their personal interests, but they now can also can now take as much out of the corporate treasuries as they want to promote their own personal interests. This is what "created equal" in the D of I has come to mean? I wonder which of the Founders who wrote the Constitution can be quoted to endorse this idea.

Posted by: twm1 | January 28, 2010 12:36 AM | Report abuse

it is possible, if there are indeed prohibitions against "foreign owned" corporations from spending, how complex it will get. Does minority ownership count? How about a subsidiary of a foreign company? How about if a foreign corporation that is wholly owned by a nation (china) buys an American company, does it have that "freedom of speech" to support candidates who work against American defense?

Once you make corporations "people" you open up a huge can of worms. It is amazing thepeople wanting them to have that alleged right to spend based, one has to assume, on short sighted goals, thought these things through.

it is obvious the supreme court did not.

Posted by: summicron1 | January 28, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Corporations aren't people, cannot vote, and cannot - by themselves - do anything.

Only the fatcats that run them can.

So I guess it depends on what your definition of "people" is. Just define the word "people" and "voters" to exclude corporations.

Posted by: Heerman532 | January 28, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

The lack of respect shown to the US Supreme Court was disgraceful. Allowing the democrat senators to stand up around them and applaud Obama's misinterpretation of the decision made the democrats look like bullies on a playground.

It was totally unacceptable for a president to act like that to a judge. If that were a courtroom, he would have been found in contempt. I guess it is no news those from Chicago don't like Judges.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | January 28, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was disgusting, and totally uncalled for. It shows his disdain for the constitution, and for our way of law. And he clearly demonstrated that he believes that everything should go exactly as he wants, and that no other way will be tolerated. Just like Hugo Chavez.

He should be censured for that remark just like Congressman Nelson was censured for calling Obama a liar.

Posted by: mike85 | January 28, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Who can possibly believe Obama wants non partisanship when on several occasions, including this direct attack on the court, he kept to his usual "this is not my fault yet I know the answers, you follow me blindly" broken record? More "well delivered words".

Using a venue where others cannot respond to direct and personal attacks is not dignified nor appreciated by most Americans - it's cowardly. (no matter who uses the technique, BTW)

Posted by: sally62 | January 28, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

$100 Alito apologizes by weeks end. He violated the Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1 and Canon 5. I hope his state bar admonishes his conduct.

Posted by: anarcho-liberal-tarian | January 28, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Those 5 justices want it both ways. They want to legislate from the bench without taking the political heat for their legislation. As they discovered tonight, that ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: BuddyK | January 28, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

Obama wants to keep union and special interest donations flooding into his coffers.

But, anything that'll promote independence and prosperity is a "setback."

A "setback" for who?

That's why we have a separation of powers.

Can you imagine if only groups that supported Obama, Pelosi and Reid could make large campaign donations?

Obama can. And he loves the thought.

Posted by: bob59 | January 28, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

First of all the law says corporations have no limit, Alito said to Obama isn't telling the truth. The supreme court did rule there is no limit on speech by corporations. There is no law that dictates what constitutes a foreign or domestic corporation, on a detailed level, if 49% of an American company is foreign owned is it american or how about 5%. I saw this article on this issue that details the nasty and why obama may be right

http://wendygdphillips.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/citizens-united-v-fec-%E2%80%93-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

Posted by: republicanblack | January 28, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Last speech a Republican shouted "you lie," and it turned out that there was some truth in the shout.

Now an Supreme Court justice will be hammered for respectfully disagreeing with the President.

Obama's supporters never seem to question him, but always question anyone who disagrees with him. Props him up, makes him believe that he is infallible, and adds fuel to the fires of people who don't agree with him. Elections are coming.

Posted by: annetta3 | January 28, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Corporations are not citizens and are not subject to the same protections of citizens. Even the Founders recognized that. It was a bad decision that will rank as one of the worst decisions ever issued by the court.

Posted by: tlandfried | January 28, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Our Roman Catholic Supreme Court apparently thinks they can sell us down the river without anyone pointing out their fascist reasoning. Guess what, Alito, many of us have contempt for your decision. If you want to live in Franco's Spain, you need to look into time travel.

Posted by: rusty3 | January 28, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

Was it not wrong for Justice Scalia to not recuse himself for having gone duck hunting with Dick Cheney when there was a case pending before him -involving Cheney? Should he not be removed for this?

Posted by: abelito | January 28, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

If you don't want people pointing out Oboobma's lies, tell him to stop lying.

Posted by: thebump | January 28, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Bossie's comments only make sense if you think corporations are actually people.

Posted by: mainer2 | January 28, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company