In a breach of protocol, Associate Justice Sam Alito was filmed during the State of the Union address last night shaking his head and mouthing “not true” in response to the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits. Ironically, Rep. Joe Wilson promised to restrain himself during this speech and not scream “you lie” again during the President’s speech. For a justice, this breach (shown below) is no less remarkable. It is, in a word, injudicious.
Justices are expected not to express support or opposition to a president during the State of the Union — symbolizing the neutrality of the Court. This demonstration of Alito’s views undermines that principle and makes the Court look partisan and rather petty. Whether or not Obama overstated the holding is completely immaterial — just as immaterial as what Obama was referencing when Wilson screamed “You Lie!’
Justice are expected to speak through their opinions alone. Indeed, the relatively recent trend of justices speaking at conferences and associational meetings have troubled many of us. I have long favored the prior view that justices rarely speak in public — largely confined to graduations, funerals and the like. While Alito clearly experienced an uncontrolled moment, justices are expected to control themselves and act judiciously — particularly at major events like a State of the Union.
Alito should apologize to the President and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States Congress) for the incident. Notably, if a president (or any citizen) goes to a court of law and mouths objections, they risk a contempt warning or sanction from the judge. No one requires a justice to come to the State of the Union. The price of this particular trick is to remain stoic and neutral. As with Wilson, there is limited audience participation. This is not Oprah, it is the State of the Union. When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views. They are present to show the unity of the tripartite system, but also to reaffirm the strict neutrality and apolitical role of the Court.
For commentary on the incident, click here (Glenn Greenwald) and here (Huff) and here (Politico) and here.
“‘agent of a foreign principal” means any person who acts as an agent agent, representative, employee,or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal.”
Why does this not cover subsidiaries acting under the control of a foreign coporation?
Alito’s head-shaking and silent mouthing off were just more sophisticated forms of “You lie!” … was his wife weeping at the injustice of it all?
Conservatives from top to bottom, i.e. Sam Alito to Joe Wilson simply have trouble demonstrating proper respect for the Office of the President of the United States … they can’t help themselves … it’s just the way their uneducated grandmothers raised them … lack of breeding … too much food …
Thank you Mespo.
This is the untrue = false statement made by Mr. Obama to which I appended the name liar to him; “…will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limits in our elections.”
The ruling *itself* does no such thing. The Supreme Court did its job and now it is up to the other 2 branches of government to do their jobs—as I mentioned in the previous article regarding this decision.
Mr. Obama’s comment was grandstanding, hyperbolic (“floodgates”), cheap shot demagoguery directed at a whole branch of our government—a makeup of justices which I do not particularly like.
Mike Appleton, I too was anticipating your reasoned contribution. Thank you.
mespo–
“…but not in a State of the Union address when the justices had to sit mute.”
I agree.
************
The word “base” has both positive and negative connotations. It can be used as a noun, verb, or adjective. I believe there are different roots for the word base–which has two different entries in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
I consider myself part of the progressive base in this country–but I’m not a base individual. I do my best to base my opinions on facts and thoughtful evaluation of issues.
Mike A.
As always–well said. I agree with all three of the points you made in your objection to the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.
FFLeo:
“he is flat-out lying for political gain—given the popular outrage against the decision.”
***********
I wouldn’t call it lying necessarily since a reasonable person could come down against the decision on “good government” or public policy grounds. Obama knows it is a nuanced opinion on a close issue. That kind of “pointy-headed” rhetoric doesn’t play well to his base of progressives, so he threw them a bone of appeasement by putting SCOTUS on the hot seat. There’s lots of reasons they call it “base” you know. It’s as old a political trick as we have to blame the Courts when you don’t like a decision. Roosevelt, Regan, Bush–they all did it, but not in a State of the Union address when the justices had to sit mute.
Wayne–
Read the excerpts of the Politico article included in my comment made at 12:58 pm. Justice Stevens disagrees with your opinion.
Justice Stevens: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
I seem to be coming in on the tail end of discussions recently. My own view is that Pres. Obama’s comment to the Supreme Court and Justice Alito’s response last night was a juvenile exchange. But I also believe that much of the reaction to the decision itself is overwrought. There has never been a pronouncement by the Supreme Court which was not subject to the ameliorative power of the legislative branch. Furthermore, the doctrine of stare decisis is not intended to produce the legal equivalent of bronzing baby shoes. I view the law as a living organism, constantly evolving in response to changes in circumstances and the needs of society. The doctrine of stare decisis operates to slow down the process of change, thus providing for continuity and stability in the law. My objection to the decision is based primarily on three elements: 1. I believe the view that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to fictitious persons such as corporations is simply wrong. 2. The court’s opinion was broader than necessary to address the issue initially presented to it, violating the principle of judicial restraint. 3. The breadth of the decision confirms the belief of many (including me) that the growth and impact of the Federalist Society has created a court majority possessing an openly ideological agenda which it is hell-bent on implementing.
“You will have to justify your assetion that Obama lied.”
(1) Obama told our country that the opinion invites foreign corporations to meddle in our democracy.
(2) The opinion expressly states that it DOES NOT apply to foreign corporations.
(3) Foreign corporations are already banned from campaign contribution.
FF LEO
I’ve been reading/listening to different arguments in regard to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. There are constitutional lawyers whose opinions come down on both sides of the recent decision by the Supreme Court. Four Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the ruling of the majority. You may think our president was lying about the decision. I’m not of the same opinion.
***************
From Politico (1/28/2010)
White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision
Excerpt:
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling.”
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
And on Page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html
Wayne Jarvis
You will have to justify your assetion that Obama lied. As I see it he is 100% correct. If by some horror Alito is correct in his ruling then the Constitution must change or this is the end of our democracy and the formal inauguation of the United Corporation of America. It takes a very cynical, twisted and dangerous view of democracy to arrive at a conclusion that money=speech and that corporations are people (citizens, voters).
The fact that the GOP loves this ruling is proof of it being contrary to the values of democracy. The GOP has no interest in democracy nor the American people as citizens, so an endorsement of this ruling by any conservative is all the proof anyone needs that it does not serve the republic well.
Lest not forget:
Howard Zinn (1922-2010): A Tribute to the Legendary Historian with Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Naomi Klein and Anthony Arnove
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/28/howard_zinn_1922_2010_a_tribute
Mespo,
Thank you for your legal perspective.
_________________________________
What concerns me about Mr. Obama is that he either did not read or understand the Court’s decision or that he is flat-out lying for political gain—given the popular outrage against the decision.
If he is a competent constitutional lawyer, then the only reasonable conclusion is that he is lying and did so to the Nation and the world in a reprehensible rebuking of the members of the Court before him in what should be a hallowed and neutral chamber during the State of the Union address.
“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.”
But it does not say anything about American Corporations that are controlled by Foreign entities.
Mike Spindell said “Start with Strom Thurmond and then look the rest up on your own. you shouldn’t argue history if you don’t know it.”
I asked you to support your statement. I am asking for nothing more than that which I provided and am willing to provide. Please see the link provided with my claim that the Democrats have had much greater control over the years. I am not an independent source, and neither are you. “Go Fish” is the card game of children. Asking for a source to support your claim should not be taken as an insult. It’s just that I don’t think your claim can be supported.
Please stop the little jabs. We don’t need them here.
Mike Spindell said “The[y] said that they would unequivocally support stare decisis.”
I’m not trying to pick on you Mike, it just happened to be that your statements were the ones that I disagreed with.
To support the doctrine and to be bound by the doctrine are two different things. I fully support the doctrine of stare decisis. It provides for continuity in the courts. To bind SCOTUS to the doctrine is to declare that past justices had more wisdom than future justices. The Constitution does not bind SCOTUS to the doctrine, and I think it would be wrong to attempt to bind future justices to the doctrine. In most cases, SCOTUS does follow the rulings of the previous court. That is the intent of the doctrine.
Start with Strom Thurmond and then look the rest up on your own.
you shouldn’t argue history if you don’t know it.
Danimal:
The decision does not open the door to foreign corporations. In fact, the Court specifically said it was not deciding that issue, since the statute was broadly applied to all corporations not merely domestic corporations. The Court did mention Congress’ interest in regulating foreign corporations saying:
“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.”
Read more–Rant less.
Mike Spindell,
They were Democrats nonetheless. Just because the person isn’t Democrat enough for you, that doesn’t mean they can be dismissed as not being Democrats. They did run for election/reelection against Republicans. Didn’t they? They were endorsed by the Democratic Party. Weren’t they?
“In 1968 the game changed and they defected in large numbers to support and become Republican’s.”
Please provide the name of the defector(s) and the date that he changed parties. I apologize for requesting such a large list, but I couldn’t find it. A link to the source would suffice. Thanks.
I found it injudicious as well, but no apology seems necessary. Men and women have a right to express displeasure, and unlike Wilson’s outburst last year, it was not a public challenge to the Office. This case is a close one by most anyone’s standards, but the rhetoric about its impact is way over the top. No one likes to be chastised in a national speech surrounded by cheering throngs of the speaker’s persuasion. This is especially so when the Cannons of Judicial Ethics require you to “sit on your hands.” It’s not a fair fight, and the President, as a member of the bar and the nation’s Chief Magistrate, knew it. Alito’s out of line, but it’s only a venial sin compared to Wilson.