Conservative media attack Obama's Supreme Court criticism as untruthful
Conservative media are highlighting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito mouthing "not true" during the State of the Union address after President Obama said the court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC would "open the floodgates" for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend in U.S. elections to accuse Obama of "attacking" the First Amendment or not telling the truth. But, in fact, four of the Supreme Court's justices agreed in their opinion that the decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans" to make certain election-related expenditures.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Conservative media: Obama's criticism "just not the truth"; Obama "demagoging"
Palin: Obama's criticism "may not be true," and he was "embarrassing our Supreme Court." In post-speech analysis with Sean Hannity on January 27, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin said in response to Obama's criticism: "This is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more and more disengaged really from what their government is doing, because when we see an issue like this -- words spoken that may not be true coming from our president and embarrassing our Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers -- we have a problem. And that's illustrated there by that justice mouthing those words, 'not true.' Now, one or the other is being disingenuous here -- either our president in what he just claimed, or the Supreme Court justice."
Scarborough: Obama's statement on foreign entities "is just not the truth." On the January 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said, "I hate to be chained to facts, but let's just -- we've got to tell the truth, and that is that what the president said last night is not based in fact, it's not based in law. ... So the president was not served well last night; he went out and said something that just wasn't the truth. And I'm sure that that was very difficult for the Supreme Court to sit there and have the president tell America and the world these jokers on the front row just opened up American campaigns to foreign entities when that in fact is just not the truth."
Gateway Pundit: Obama "attacked the Supreme Court for defending the First Amendment." In a blog post on GatewayPundit.com, Jim Hoft wrote, "Justice Alito responded to Barack Obama tonight by mouthing 'Not True' when the president attacked the Supreme Court for defending the First Amendment."
Hot Air: Obama was "demagoging the First Amendment." In a HotAir.com blog post, blogger Allahpundit wrote of Alito's reaction: "When you hear the president of the United States demagoging the First Amendment, you sit there and you take it, son."
Instapundit: Alito's response will turn Obama's "demagoguery into a negative for him." In response to Allahpundit's post, Glenn Reynolds wrote on the blog Instapuntit: "No, actually, you don't, and Alito didn't. And that will step on Obama's press tonight and tomorrow, turning his demagoguery into a negative for him. That's why Presidents usually act Presidential. Not so much because it's dignified. But because it's smart. That's something that Obama, with his limited experience on the national stage, hasn't figured out yet."
Four justices: Logic of decision would appear to protect "multinational corporations controlled by foreigners"
Stevens: Logic of decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." From Justice John Paul Stevens' opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Citizens United v. FEC -- an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (footnotes omitted):
If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by "Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could " 'enhance the relative voice' " of some ( i.e. , humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante , at 33 (quoting Buckley , 424 U. S., at 49). Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.
Stevens: Decision will "cripple" government's ability to prevent "corporate domination of the electoral process." Stevens also wrote:
The Court's blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.
Other experts say Citizens United decision might lead to campaign money from foreign corporations
Several experts argue that decision opens door to campaign money from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Politico reported: " 'It is a plausible inference from the court's opinion that [foreign] money can't be restricted,' said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor who has backed giving foreigners the right to contribute to U.S. campaigns. 'For me, that's not such a terrible thing.' " Campaign finance reform advocate Fred Wertheimer stated: "Under the Supreme Court decision, foreign countries, such as China (and its Sovereign Wealth Fund, the China Investment Corporation), foreign corporations and foreign individuals are now able to make campaign expenditures to directly support or oppose federal candidates, so long as these expenditures are made through foreign-controlled domestic corporations." A post on the Center for Public Integrity website reported:
Some legal observers fear the ruling would open up the floodgates for any corporation operating in the United States, no matter who owns them. J. Gerald Hebert, executive director and director of litigation at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, told the Center for Public Integrity that the existing prohibition on foreign involvement does not refer to foreign controlled domestic corporations. "With the corporate campaign expenditure ban now being declared unconstitutional, domestic corporations controlled by foreign governments or other foreign entities are free to spend money to elect or defeat federal candidates," he believes.
I'm thinking.... thinking.... give me a minute...
"Now, one or the other is being disingenuous here -- either our president in what he just claimed, or the Supreme Court justice." -Sarah Palin
Woah! I am in awe to someone who can present an analysis with this much depth and clarity!
She's a fast learner so she'll get up to speed. She's already very much aware that the Supreme Court is not a very nice surface where you can play tennis.
She'd be lucky if she can even count to nine.
Second, MMFA and MoveOn.org aren't running for public office.
That's the difference. Make a note of it.
The difference is MMFA isn't running for the Senate.
The core of this issue, which the Supreme Court should have corrected, is an organization, company or union isn't a PERSON. They are legal entities of some type but not a PERSON.
Encarta: person 1. human being: an individual human being.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States...
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States...
See, there is no mention of an organization, company or union being defined as a person.
The same "conscience" that led Wal-Mart to lock employees inside overnight?
The same "conscience" that allowed Big Oil and greedy speculators alike to jack up gas prices in 2008 and thus being partially responsible for the collapse?
The same "conscience" that emboldens Wall Street banks to pay huge bonuses to the fat pigs who are completely responsible for the financial collapse?
Or the same "conscience" that causes health insurance companies to, day after day, deny coverage to folks who are sick, have pre-existing conditions, are too skinny, too fat, or simply have committed the terrible crime of being a woman or a minority?
What's going to stop these pigs?
Shoot, I got a thumbs down yesterday for quoting the Constitution regarding the requirements of the President's report to Congress on the State of the Union. The only opinion I gave was that the Presidents should go back to the original manner of reporting to Congress . . . by letter. Eliminates the phony posturing following the speech by the talking heads on television and hate talk radio.
Mark, is that you? Did you apologize for the "you lie" statement????? You were wrong, you know.
BTW - what about all the money the big liberal companies like birkshire hathoway, progressive, oracle to name a few, used to buy bho and the liberal congress???? what about all the union money spent any way they please during elections... hmmm.... pathetic you'd object to people, owners of corporations, should enjoy freedom of speech...
I gave a thumbs down for an incomplete assessment.
Would you agree that the SEIU is a corporation? Are/were they not part of Obama’s campaign? The left has their corporate sponsors and so does the right.
The only solution would be to stop all. Not going to happen!
Also, a New York Times legal analyst (independent, Pullitzer-prize winning) said Obama's SC comments were "imprecise." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/
POLITIFACT may or may not be non-partisan, but YOU clearly are not.
How can "Barely true" be "closer to false?" That's absurd! "Barely true" is another way of saying "true."
It's like being "almost late." Which is another way of saying ON TIME. Or "Sort of pregnant."
"Barely True" is their way of saying, "we don't agree with the message, or it's implications but we can't find anything wrong with his FACTS or his REASONING."
---------------------------------------------------------------
And common sense says that that the SC decision will in fact allow what Obama says it will. Maybe not THIS YEAR, but the Corporations will abuse this in time. ALITO is the one who wrong here. Not LYING, just WRONG.
Not to be confused with Trulie Bear, which is the character on truthseeker's PJ's...
Truth, in this instance, is a binary principle. Something is eithr true or it's not. But some things can be more false than others.
It's false to say the federal budget deficit is causing unemployment. But that's closer to the truth than saying that federal spending is causing unemployment.
----------------------------------------------------------
Either way, "barely true" is still infinitely more true than, say... Glenn Beck.
-Pants on fire
-False
-Barely True
-Half True
-Mostly True
-True
So let's see. The false rulings go on the left and the True rulings go on the right. Now tell me what you see here: http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings/tom-barelytrue.gif
It's easy to trash some guy named Truthseeker while pretending Politifact didn't just Pwn your favorite politician.
At least at the end of it all they give a slight hat tip to the truth, "That uncertainty could indeed provide a loophole for spending unlimited amounts of money on politics."
The activist judges who handed down this DISASTROUS opinion legislated from the bench and destroyed over a century of settled law. Their reasoning is specious and has absolutely no logic or standing in the law. If you were a truly patriotic American, you would be APPALLED at this decision.
I suggest that you rent a movie called "Idiocracy." It's pretty vulgar in it's language, but the satire was prescient. The main character awakes in the future to a world completely controlled by corporations. He is arrested and the lawyer assigned to represent him is a proud graduate of the University of Costco. If you can understand satire, you will understand EXACTLY how dangerous this decision is to the future of our country.
I'd love to hear you cogently explain how the reasoning of Kennedy, Roberts and Scalia was "specious" and lacking in "logic."
The statute plainly defied the clear terms of the first amendment when it was enacted, and the specific decision that the court overruled was plainly erroneous in the first place. If you were a truly patriotic American, you'd want the Court to do its singular job of applying the constitution.
Begin with reading the first amendment, and then get back to me about the majority's poor reasoning.
That's why I was against the appointment of Bush in 2001. It was an unconstitution decision (making law for one man). Do you agree?
Justices should be apolitical . . . the Majority in this Court, as evidenced by Alito's disgraceful behavior last night, is not. They have legislated from the bench time and again. Just because you AGREE with their activism does not make it less so. These yahoos claim to be "strict constructionists." I've seen NOTHING which bears out that claim. They are partisan political hacks and partisan politics, right or left, have NO PLACE in our courts.
Carry on.
The precedent that should have been overturned was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. The ruling that gave corporations "personhood." It is this ruling that the SCOTUS used to give them rights to the first amemdment.
Corporations ARE NOT persons.
The scant line of cases leading up to this decision were erroneous on their face. Corporations were made legal entities so that may pay taxes and survive the deaths of their creators. They aren't capable of speaking except through their employees and shareholders, and no one is suggesting silencing them.
As bad as this decision is, the public policy it favors is disastrous. The public has been clamoring for decades about the glut of special interest money choking Washington.
Get ready for a tidal wave of it.
Fortunately the 1st amendment supports the supreme court decision to uphold freedom of speech as granted by the constitution. row v wade no one can point out any part of the constitution that supports the decision... hmmm... BUT it's not worth arguing over, it's the law...
Politifact's sole argument actually boils down to them arguing that since no ruling has been passed that will definitively say whether or not foreign companies can contribute, what Obama said was untrue. But UNTIL those foreign companies do contribute, and then UNTIL a case objecting to those contributions makes its way to the USSC, they will be able to contribute!
So the floodgates HAVE BEEN OPENED. Might they get closed in the future? Sure. But until that ruling is made, the contributions can flow freely! Which is what Obama said.
How about you all worry about granting constitutional protections to "nigerian students" aka islamo fascist terrorists that tried to murger Americans and LEGAL residence.... pathetic, get your priorities right dulldolly....
And what bho said was either a lie or less likely a mistake... foreign coroporations like foreign citizens are not allowed.... Just where does it say they are???? hello, anybody in there????
If that's the case then Rush who claims to be 98% correct, would actually be rating a 0% which also includes being incorrect about the 98%.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rush-limbaugh/
... and people actually listen to him.
The Supreme Court did a pretty good job of embarrassing themselves with that moronic ruling....
They quoted 3 'experts' who said that without further court rulings, we couldn't be sure what the decision would be.
Well, duh, what will CAUSE there to be court intervention? Actual contributions from foreign companies? So, Obama was right.
And, again, Politifact interviewed these 3 experts, and said that they weren't sure what the result would be...so, we're supposed to listen to THEIR opinion? What about the opinions of the EXPERTS on the US Supreme Court who disagreed with the majority opinion, Politifact? How can you have MISSED that you had 4 experts who believe that it will cause Obama's fears to come true?
It's sickening.
Politifact said "Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation", but STILL they rated his comment as "Barely True". How does that calculus work - that his claim is a reasonable interpretation, but it's only rated "Barely True"?
Yeah, Politifact has shown us many times that they lean to the right on many issues. Obama has said things that are 100%, undeniably true, yet they have rated those things as barely true or mostly true when they are 100% true. They give passes to things that people like Karl Rove have said, things that are undeniably 100% false, yet they rate them as barely true. I have documented those events here before. They are pretty good, and better than nothing, but they are NOT fully non-partisan.
I have provided the documentation before.
Here's one example of Karl Rove making an undeniably false comment that they ranked as being MOSTLY TRUE. Undeniably false, classified as mostly true? How can something that's undeniably false be classified as mostly true? MMFA' Eric Boehlert covered it one day, but I had mentioned it in a previous thread and sent an email to Politifact which they later published, objecting to the classification.
And they distorted what Obama said. He made a 100% accurate comment, and they called THAT half-true!
How can a 100% false statement get a half-true label and a 100% true statement get a half-true label? Only if you're biased on occasion towards the right, that's how.
I could give you many other examples.
So even if you think Obama's statement should have been rated Mostly True or True, you still get the full story about the CBO's findings. You can disagree with their choice of rating, but the reporting otherwise is top notch.
Yeah, didn't think so, flipping hypocrites.
It limits government's abilty to infringe on rights.
"Congress shall make now law...."
should be
"Congress shall make no law...."
Yeah, didn't thnk so, (future) hypocrites.
duh!
Also, there is also legislation in place that does not allow foreign citizens or corporations to contribute or participate in U.S. elections. I would have thought a "Constitutional Scholar" like Obama would know something like this.
So let's play Fox's Becks version of conenct the dots:
News Corp = FNC = RNC = News Corp = Saudi Prince therfore
Saudi Prince = RNC
Gee, wasn't that fun?
George Soros is an American citizen. Last I checked, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saudi is not.
How can someone say that one prediction is "factual" and another is not "factual?" Facts are things that have happened. So it is incorrect for the RWers to claim that what Pres. Obama said about what he believed would happen (e.g., open the floodgates etc.) was not factual.
What would be acceptable is to criticize someone's prediction or belief about future events as being unlikely to come true, based on current evidence. RWers are entitled to that opinion, but Obama and others could have a very different opinion, and their opinion could be far more persuasive because the evidence may more strongly support them. For example, I could say that the Colts won a Super Bowl several years ago. You can't reasonably dispute that; it happened. I could predict that the Colts will someday win another Super Bowl. You could disagree with me and we could argue about the likelihood given the current evidence, but you can't reasonably say that what I said is inconsistent with the facts.
Did you know that Obama didn't vote to confirm Alito? Did you know that the first bill Obama signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, was a result of a 5-4 decision where the USSC denied a disadvantaged woman the right to sue her employer because she didn't find out for a long time that she was paid less simply because of her gender? And guess who authored that opinion that Obama overturned as quickly as he possibly could? You'd be right if you said Alito.
And did you know that in early January, 2009, before Obama was inaugurated, he was making the rounds of Washington, DC, and he stopped by for a planned visit to the US Supreme Court. There were 8 of 9 justices there. Guess who didn't show up? That's right, Alito. And no explanation was given for his absence, so one can assume it was pure spite.
The guy sounds like a real prize - booby prize, that is. And guess who gave us that booby prize? Yeah, you know, George W Bush.
Each week O will chose a lucky winner and single that person or organization out for criticism. This week SCOTUS was chosen. One branch of Government inviting the sitting Justices to their house and inviting the President to their house to speak. The President speaks and insults the other invited guests. How gauche.
He didn't even read the decision before erroneously criticizing it -- sort of like "they acted stupidly". Open mouth, speak, think. I think he needs to reorder his process. If this is the smarted Democrat in the land, we're in trouble -- BIG TROUBLE.
To say it's truthful or untruthful at this time is silly. We won't know for sure until we see how many Chinese corporations decide to poor millions of their dollars into Democratic candidates during the election.
From Citizens United:
Poor framing of the issue. No amount of corporately financed advertising can force me to vote for a candidate of their choosing. The ultimate decision for who I vote for rests on my shoulders alone. When a populace is properly educated on who the candidates are, this Supreme Court ruling won't make one difference at all. The problem then is how do you properly educate a citizen on the differences between the candidates and be fair about it?
I would like to see a brochure in the voting booth that lists the candidates and their voting records on past issues. Each candidate would be responsible for writing what they want listed with their opponent in charge of fact checking it and approving it. Both sides would have to square away the other's claimed political record.
It doesn't have to work with every voter to undermine the system.