forgottenliberty.com

I read a column today by progressive columnist E.J. Dionne.  In his column, Dionne describes why the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case was an example of legislating from the bench.  He also defends Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.  His column is a perfect example of (oxymoron alert!) liberal logic.  For instance, he claims that,

The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.

Two things strike me as illogical in this statement.  The first is the issue of precedent.  Progressives love precedent when it supports something they approve of.  They feel if they can get a court ruling in their favor, they have locked in their policies for generations.  The Supreme Court usually defers to precedent, but it is not bound to do so.  The only thing the Court is bound by is the Constitution.  If the Court believes a previous court made a wrong decision, they can choose to correct it.  This has happened many times in our history (usually in favor of Progressive policies), and to act like it never happens, is revisionist history.

The second issue in this statement that defies logic is

During his State of the Union address last night, President Obama did something extremely unusual.  He criticized and insulted the Supreme Court while the justices were sitting directly in front of him.  Then, after insulting them, he called on Congress to “fix” the Court’s “mistake”.  Justice Alito, breaking the tradition of justices not responding to what the President says, made a face, shook his head and mouthed the words “not true”.  This was a new “Joe Wilson” moment.  Even though Justice Alito didn’t loudly accuse the President of lying as Wilson did, it was still shocking.

For those of you who are unaware of what Obama was referring to, it was the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down laws that, in a nut shell, made it illegal for businesses to run political ads during political campaigns.  The Court explained that businesses have a right to free speech just as individuals do, and to bar them from making political statements was a violation of the 1st amendment.  I wrote a post last week where I explained why Obama was going to take on the Supreme Court over this issue.  He sure fired a big shot last night!

I don’t believe any President has ever criticized the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.  The Supreme Court is an important co-branch of government, and for Obama to attack them to their face in front of the entire Congress and nation shows arrogance and disrespect.  He also seems to have a misunderstanding of how things are supposed to work.  He called on Congress to right the supposed wrong done by the Supreme Court.  However, if Congress passes another law barring businesses from having free speech, it will just be struck down again as unconstitutional because the Court has already ruled on it.  The only way to get around it would be a Constitutional amendment.  I think it’s interesting that Obama didn’t call for this.  In my opinion, it means he doesn’t want an all out battle with the Court, he just wants to score some cheap shots.  That seems childish, doesn’t it?

Update

Jake Tapper from ABC is reporting that a Supreme Court historian (who was an enthusiastic Obama supporter) believes the justices may not show up to the next State of the Union address. From Tapper’s blog,

“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”

Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.”

Wow, not only has Obama turned off a majority of the American people, but he may have turned off the Supreme Court.

Here is a video of Obama criticizing the Court during the State of the Union.

Thursday, the Supreme Court struck a victory for the 1st amendment by declaring large portions of the McCain-Feingold finance law unconstitutional.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority said,

…when Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

By striking this down this bad law, large donors (including corporations) will now be able to purchase air time for political ads leading up to an election.  This did not go over well with liberals and I’ll tell you 2 reasons why.

Reason 1

Up until now, corporations had to give money directly to candidates because they could not spend it on advertising.  In the 2008 election, corporations donated significantly more money to Democrat candidates than Republicans.  Here are a few examples.  The percentages may surprise you.

1 Act Blue $3,151,038 100% Dem 0% GOP Solidly Democratic

2 Goldman-Sachs $1,656,954 71% DEM 29% GOP Strongly Democratic

3 Citigroup Inc. $1,582,857 63% Dem 37% GOP Leans Democratic

4 JP Morgan Chase & Co. $1,171,720 68% Dem 32% GOP Strongly Democratic

5 AT&T Inc. $1,094,144 45% Dem 55% GOP On the fence

6 UBS AG $1,068,953 62% Dem 38% GOP Leans Democratic

7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $947,815 98% Dem 2% GOP Solidly Democratic

8 Laborers Union $924,500 91% Dem 9%GOP Solidly Democratic

9 Morgan Stanley $923,850 62% Dem 38%GOP Leans Democratic

Now that these companies can actually purchase ads on TV, they will most likely use their money for flashy 30 second commercials instead of giving directly to politicians.  This means Democrats (and plenty of Republicans) will loose money that they have grown accustomed to receiving.  They don’t like this and now Obama and the rest of them are whining about it.

Reason 2