Media conservatives falsely claim Obama's Supreme Court criticism was "unprecedented"
Right-wing media are attacking President Obama for his criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC during the State of the Union, calling it "unprecedented" and accusing the president of "intimidation." In fact, Obama's comments were not "unprecedented"; Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have previously used the State of the Union to criticize judicial actions, including those of the Supreme Court.
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.
Right-wing media accuse Obama of "intimidation" in "unprecedented" Supreme Court criticism
Drudge: "INTIMIDATION: Obama directly condemns Supreme Court; Dems cheer." On January 27, the Drudge Report linked to a CBSNews.com video clip of the State of the Union speech with the following headline:
Napolitano: Obama's "attempt to intimidate" the Supreme Court has "never happened before." On the January 29 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano said that the president's comments regarding the Supreme Court decision had "never happened before" and that he had "insulted them to their faces." He claimed that the Supreme Court justices were "guests" at the State of the Union and that "in that environment, [Obama] attacks them in a position where they cannot respond, and then attempts to intimidate them by inducing members of Congress to stand up and applaud, suggesting that he's right and they're wrong."
Krauthammer: Obama's comment "I believe is unprecedented." On the January 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "President Obama attacked the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address, which I believe is unprecedented." He called the comments "a direct attack" and "a breach of etiquette which shouldn't have happened."
In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court
Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting "this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment."
Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer:
And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.
Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:
And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?
[...]
During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.
Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
James Madison would be rolling over in his grave.
----------------------------------------------------
IMHO
We know you would be, Mark. You are, after all, the same person who did not know that any programs instituted by FDR are still in use today. So, forgive us if we do not want to take the time to explain basic American history or civics to you.
Justice Alito is the one who ought to be ashamed of himself.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bong hits for Jesus, dude!
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
I assume from some of the language that Murray Hill, Inc actually opposes the Supreme Court ruling and wants to point out the absurdity of corporate personhood and perhaps prompt a lawsuit to stop this but maybe they just have balls. 'Huge brass ones' as Stephen Colbert would say.
I'm not saying we SHOULD, but I can see lifting restrictions on individual donations LONG before I could see deregulating corporate "speech." The SC decision her is baffling to me. Predictable, by still baffling.
------------------------------------------------
Just a thought.
I think I have a very principled reason why corporations shouldn't be given the same right to "speech" as private citizens.
Kind of changes the whole point. Sorry about any confusion!
-------------------------------------
F7
Amen! He's just one of 5 corporate owned judges that are selling our democracy to the highest bidder.
Please forgive me if I ignore the opinion of the CORPORATIONS that are rallying this attack on our President using their media whores. For everyone that supports Alito's disrespect, there's a corporate master behind them.
You lie!
Lobbyist
Here's a clue for you. THEY ALL LIE!!!!!
I agree. That was a whopper.
And that changes Fox's lies how??????
Gitmo is still in service. He claimed to be bipartisan and yet he can't even get partisan support.
If I were a true believer like you, I would be more upset than the repubs. Just because he is giving the mid-terms to them without getting any leftist agenda bills passed into law.
Obama = continuation of Bush agenda for 4 more years.
-------------------------------
Good luck.
Article II, Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
First, it's not only allowed that the president would give his views on the 3rd branch's ruling, it is a constitutional requirement, if he feels it needs consideration by Congress.
Second, Obama is absolutely correct that, regardless of how you stand on the court's ruling, it is an important ruling and unarguably merits consideration by congress.
Third, the SCOTUS is a guest at the SOTU. They are there by courtesy. The constitution clearly states that the business of the communication is between second and first branches.
Nice, you guys at MMFA couldn't resist lumping Bush into this, even though he had nothing to do with the criticizing the SC. You have Harding and Reagan, and even Ronnie addressed them 11 years later, not two days, and never mentioned them by name.
Even thought this wasn't, we need more unprecedented-isms in Washington anyway, I say bring 'em on.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/thom-hartmann-interviews-corporation-now-run
"Of course since I can create 100 or 1000 corporations with a few strokes of the pen, and each one should be able to vote in an election.... who needs to run for Congress? Corporate voting alone should solve so many problems." - Mike2
That decision had nothing to do with abortion.
And according to the story I heard yesterday, he has a chip on his shoulder about Obama.
Obama voted against Alito because, as Obama said at the time,
"(W)hen you look at his record - when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights.
If there is a case involving an employer and an employee and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, he'll rule in favor of the employer. If there's a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he'll rule in favor of the state. He's rejected countless claims of employer discrimination, even refusing to give some plaintiffs a hearing for their case. He's refused to hold corporations accountable numerous times for dumping toxic chemicals into water supplies, even against the decisions of the EPA. He's overturned a jury verdict that found a company liable for being a monopoly when it had over 90% of the market share at the time.
It's not just his decisions in these individual cases that give me pause - it's that decisions like these are the rule for Samuel Alito, not the exception."
So Obama voted against Alito.
And then when Obama was visting DC in early January as President-elect, he went to the Supreme Court. He was met by 8 justices. Guess who snubbed him by not being there? Alito.
And then, when Obama first got into office, what was his first act? To sign the Lilly Ledbetter Act, to counter the USSC ruling that Alito had authored.
Alito is a spiteful little man.
My advice to everyone is have yourselves officially labeled as a corporation.
Then your rights shall remain unencumbered by the idiocy of the Toxic Twins, Altio and Roberts.
Randy
So, I expect every frigging consevative to shut the hell up about Roe v Wade and "accept their opinions / expertise in the Constitution..." Otherwise they can all shut the hell up about Obama criticizing the Sitizens United ruling.