Alito Appears To Mouth 'Definitely Not True' After Obama Criticizes Court Decision (VIDEO)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to scotack

I am no lip reader, but I concur. It looked like, "No way, not true."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cath

January 27, 2010 11:29 PM in reply to scotack

Agree. Though not a lip reader, it looked like "No way. Not true." It's interesting that he reacted that way -- something akin to a chastized teenager.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tchamp77

January 27, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to Cath

Alito's wife probably broke into tears at home on the couch...poor Sam being attacked again.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to tchamp77

Remember that incident. The thugs went crazy blaming the dems for all of it. If the bitch couldn't take the heat, she shouldn't have been there. That's was she gets for marrying that scum bag.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ilovebacon

January 28, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to lousgirl84

You said it!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to ilovebacon

I am fed up with these slime. The MSM had all the repigs on TV this morning and every single one of them lied through their teeth without so much as a callout to any of them.

There is no journalism in this country. There hasn't been for a long time. Dan Rather was the last of them and you see what they did to him. This is what they do - they demonize anyone who disagrees. The idea that there is a liberal media is preposterous. Murdoch was brilliant. Fox was spawned because they couldn't stand to hear the truth about their party so they started their own network during the Clinton years just for the purpose of destroying him and they almost did. Our MSM got caught with their pants down and now they want to vie for the ratings with Fox and are becoming more like them every day, save a very very few.

I hate to say this but the internet is getting as bad. All these newbie reporters trying to make a name for themselves and posting stories from unnamed sources, or close aids just to get a headline. TPM is one of them and it irks me to no end. Just look at Huffpo - it has become the whore of the internet.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ilovebacon

January 29, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to lousgirl84

Agh! Huffpo. The WORST. TPM's headlines are getting disturbingly similar. I used to visit DailyKos, but too much op-eds and not enough reporting. I don't even know where to go for news w/o opinion...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

BHC

January 28, 2010 12:30 AM in reply to Cath

I think he reacted that way out of shock. What Obama was saying really wasn't true. Read my post or one of the others from someone who has actually researched the decision. It doesn't apply to foreign corporations at all. At least Bush didn't know if Iraq had WMDs. Obama knew he was lying.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

January 28, 2010 1:09 AM in reply to BHC

What, pray say, is a "foreign" corporation? Is it determined by ownership, in terms of shares? By nation of incorporation? By ownership of other corporations that are foreign owned or located in foreign countries?

I'd almost be inclined to like it if it kept Dubai-incorporated KBR from spending any money to influence our elections. And if it kept KBR's corporate parent from spending money in US elections BECAUSE it owned KBR.

Time for some Congressional nit-picking.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:23 AM in reply to BHC

Actually, it is you who are lying.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 9:54 AM in reply to farnsworth

BHC is a troll and a new one. It's here to help stupid sailormarlowe who is close to idiot status.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dredd

January 28, 2010 7:11 AM in reply to BHC

Corporations are creatures of state law. Under state law a "foreign" corporation is a corporation of another state. An "alien" corporation is a corporation from another country.

The gist of the problem is that now multinational corporations can partake of the process until litigation of section 441e is "reached". They specifically said they were not reaching it, leaving it for another case.

They multinationals with their cadre of lawyers will find a way to influence the next two elections, because it takes a long time to litigate all the way up to the Supremes.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hologram5

January 28, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to Dredd

Corporations USED to be creatures of state law, that was back in the 1800's. No more are they that. That changed when the corps were granted "Personhood". Do your research.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hologram5

January 28, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to hologram5

Here is a link to help you understand:
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to BHC

Another troll who's lost. We can help you get back to your freeper site where they really care what you have to say.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

January 28, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to BHC

We will not take your word for it, bub.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Sailormarlowe

January 27, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to scotack

Believe Alito said: "Up yours". Obama doesn't like government with an independent judiciary. Who they think they is?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jesus H. Christ

January 27, 2010 11:47 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe

I ask you: do your words make sense?. These words baffle me

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 12:06 AM in reply to Jesus H. Christ

That's OK, not much of what he says makes sense and his obvious racist ebonics speak pretty much to the core of what a douch nozzle this pogue is. He likes right wingers legislating from the bench. Why do you hate your country so much Marlowe that you would have foreign countries pumping money into an American election? He just hates the USA....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

January 28, 2010 1:14 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

You're either kidding or a stone-cold racist. Ebonics? This is the most well-spoken and articulate President we've had since ... FDR? I think he surpasses Reagan on content alone, but on rhetoric as well. Reagan always seemed a bit fluffy and Pollyanna to me.

You really need to stop watching so much Faux News.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

January 28, 2010 1:18 AM in reply to Cal Gal

So sorry. I see upon another reading that perhaps Jesus H. Christ is the 'he' to whih your were referring.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:27 AM in reply to Cal Gal

It is sailorboy to whom he is referring. Dunno about your critical reading or thinking skills. It was obvious to me what he was saying. He even called him "Marlowe." (Calling him Marlowe is giving him more respect than he deserves.)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 6:56 AM in reply to Cal Gal

Easy now...Im referring to sailormarlowe....if you would see what he said speaking for POTUS....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

He's a pathetic steamin pile of crap just like the rest of the repiglicans. Obama exposed their butts and today they are all crying saying how could he say we won't work with him? These people believe their own lies.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hologram5

January 28, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to lousgirl84

Aint that the truth. It is amazing the level of narcissism in that party.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drlongballs

January 28, 2010 2:32 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe

I thought we weren't supposed to have chief justices who legislated from the bench? Or is that only when they're legislating against your opinion?

Oh yeah, you're a massive tool. You have no concept of how damaging this ruling is to EVERYONE. It's not like Republicans are the only people who own corporations...you short-sighted, simpleton.

January 27, 2010 11:01 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

traitorjoe

I think Alito said "I will vote the way my masters in the corporate-ocracy tell me to vote."

January 27, 2010 11:01 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Duck Stab

I thought he said "You lie!"

January 27, 2010 11:04 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mc mark

Ah...a Joe Wilson moment!

January 27, 2010 11:05 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Alex39

Graceless, and revealing.

January 27, 2010 11:08 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cawleybo

Where were Scalia and Thomas?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jesus H. Christ

January 27, 2010 11:49 PM in reply to cawleybo

What is it for one man to lie with another?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dougom

January 28, 2010 12:49 AM in reply to cawleybo

Yes, I've looked closely for both of them, and can't see *either*. It's not possible that they skipped a SOTU speech is it? I mean, that would be a pretty serious protocol breech, yes?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tonigo

January 28, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to dougom

I think perhaps it was a matter of protocol - maybe 2 justices are supposed to be away from the SOTU in case the Capitol gets hit with a bomb or something? I know they keep at least one cabinet member away (Hillary this year) for just such a scenario.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

January 28, 2010 1:23 AM in reply to cawleybo

Boycotting? Afraid to show their faces?

At the movies?

Cleaning out their gutters?

SCOTUS is the poorest excuse for a branch of government I've ever seen.

And that includes the Adminstration of Bush the Lesser.

Of course if you count the entire Bush Crime Family, they are pretty much the authors of this Left Behind chronicle.

Wish I were religious so I could pray for the survival of our country.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Schmed

January 28, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to Cal Gal

You don't need to be religious to pray, just spiritual.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to cawleybo

There was only need one for one racist italian judge there last night.

January 27, 2010 11:08 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

frankenheimer

I thought the funniest part was Schumer's reaction. You can see his head track right as Alito mutters, and his expression is priceless, then followed up with some trash-talking applause.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 27, 2010 11:08 PM

He said, "Rosebud!"

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

That was good Marinus. I ike your style.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to lousgirl84

quid pro quo...which is why I like yours.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

XXX 000

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

XXX 000

January 27, 2010 11:09 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

adoptedmainer

I don't imagine it could be construed as a high crime or misdemeanor (the decisions are that), but could it nonetheless be a ground for requiring recusal of Alito from any decision involving the US Gov?

January 27, 2010 11:11 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Felix Holt

Just after Alito makes that face, Chuck Schumer, who is seated just behind him, gives him what looks to be a pretty serious fuck-you look. Funny.

January 27, 2010 11:14 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hey norm

And you could barely see Scalia's lips move or his arm up his puppets arse.

January 27, 2010 11:16 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SS247

Wasn't the United Citizens decision justified using the First Amendment? But when the President exercises his First Amendment right, Alito gets pissed?

January 27, 2010 11:17 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DG

Alito is a disgrace. His conduct was totally inappropriate for a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

BHC

January 28, 2010 12:34 AM in reply to DG

And completely fabricating parts of an accusation is not a disgrace? Read the actual decision. It specifically stops short of overturning the ban on foreign donations. Obama lied, and Alito was shocked.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:29 AM in reply to BHC

There you go, lying again.

Look, save yourself the embarrassment. Just admit that you don't get it, and shut up already.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to farnsworth

BHC is here to troll and lie and cause trouble. Ignore his stupid ass and send him packing.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rambler american

January 28, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to farnsworth

Please don't feed the trolls. They'll just breed and never go away.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chabuka

January 28, 2010 4:27 AM in reply to BHC

That so...? how many of the Corporations are "International Corporations"..with "headquarters" (on Wall Street) or some where in the U.S...? Halliburton...? Xe (Black Water)..? Exxon-Mobile...? DOW Chemical...? Dole...? Boeing...? Bank of American...? Goldman Sachs...? AIG...? The list is endless...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chabuka

January 28, 2010 4:27 AM in reply to BHC

That so...? how many of the Corporations are "International Corporations"..with "headquarters" (on Wall Street) or some where in the U.S...? Halliburton...? Xe (Black Water)..? Exxon-Mobile...? DOW Chemical...? Dole...? Boeing...? Bank of American...? Goldman Sachs...? AIG...? The list is endless...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

davcbr

January 28, 2010 8:14 AM in reply to Chabuka

I agree.
It does bear repeating when dealing with idiots.

January 27, 2010 11:22 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Colorado Thistle

I agree with DG. I was shocked when I saw it live. Where was his judicial temperament? It is totally unacceptable.

January 27, 2010 11:25 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

KevinCT

Judicial temperament went out with the dinosaurs. It is actually worse with the Article 3 crowd than the state courts. Very typical of the coarse "civil" politics we get to enjoy from or government these days.

January 27, 2010 11:34 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hey norm

Not Alito...but the scotus appointed a president...and now you think their behavior is inappropriate? Hello...

January 27, 2010 11:44 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jman

What a pinhead

January 27, 2010 11:52 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hrh

"Simply untrue", I think. I get that this is probably inappropriate, but I can't get riled up about it. This was no Joe Wilson moment. Douchey, yes. Some sort of affront to SOTU decorum? Who cares? Looked like an under-his-breath editorial to himself, a sin I'd have committed about 1000 times if I had to sit through any of Bush's speeches. Civility these days is a dead bird anyway.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

davcbr

January 28, 2010 8:16 AM in reply to hrh

Schumer heard it obviously, so it was not "under his breath" exactly

January 27, 2010 11:52 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

merlot

Alito is a right wing whore... why should he be surprised when his whoring-ways are challenged?

January 28, 2010 12:08 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ertdfg

Odd.

Oh, and what Obama said? Not true.

When 2 U.S.C. Section 441a was struck down, 2 U.S.C. Section 441e is still there; and it restricts foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations 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"

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877

But don't tell him; he's a Constitutional Law scholar so I'm sure he already knows. Which does make it odd that he completely misrepresented the SCOTUS decision in his speech.

I wonder why he did that? Does he actually not know better, or did he misrepresent the ruling on purpose?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:33 AM in reply to Ertdfg

Another person who doesn't get it.

What defines a "foreign" corporation? If people who live outside this country are part of a corporation that is "legally" spending unlimited cash on a campaign, that fits exactly with what Obama said.

Or maybe you do get it, and are just a liar. Guilty dog barks kind of thing.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ertdfg

January 28, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to farnsworth

I did provide a link to the law as it still stands for foreign nationals being prohibited from this activity...

Directly, or indirectly (like through a company) foreign nationals are prohibited from contributions of any kind, or any expenses for electioneering communications.

What exactly would a new law to "fix" this say differently?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

blkblt

January 28, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to Ertdfg

I think the ruling is about independent spending, not making contributions.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

January 28, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to blkblt

that, too.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ertdfg

January 28, 2010 7:56 PM in reply to blkblt

Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make... an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication

From the link I provided; independent spending is prohibited and covered under existing law.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

blkblt

February 12, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to Ertdfg

But what is a foreign national? Is a US incorporated arm of a foreign owned company a foreign national?

January 28, 2010 12:08 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LarsThorwald

I am a lawyer. I love the Law. I love the Law as much as I love my family. True.

I watched every moment of the Alito hearings (and every other hearing since Thomas).

And after several; days of testimony by Alito in front of the Senate -- carefully scripted, very deferential and non-controversial testimony -- I can say without fail or doubt that what we saw tonight in four seconds of video tells us more than the hours of testimony he gave before the Senate.

that, my friends, is an activist, partisan Justice. And we know that because we all saw him viscerally and angrily 9as any man in his position at that moment can be) react.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Damage

January 28, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to LarsThorwald

Noticed, and well-said. He and Roberts were parked there for there youth and fealty to UChicago policy, not for temperment, knowledge or ability.

January 28, 2010 12:27 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

BHC

The reason Alito is shaking his head and mumbling is because Obama incorrectly paraphrased the ruling. The decision has NO IMPACT on foreign corporations, who are still prohibited from donating directly to a campaign. There are people out there who believe the court’s ruling could be extended to include foreign corporations, but that goes far beyond the scope of the court’s actual decision. Alito had every right to shake his head. Obama was lying to his face (oops I mean stretching the truth), and 99.99% of America will never read the actual decision to find out about it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FlownOver

January 28, 2010 1:07 AM in reply to BHC

As usual, an Anti foams at the mouth over the accuracy of something that wasn't said – or are you unable to discern the difference between "spend without limit in our elections" and donating directly to a campaign?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:34 AM in reply to FlownOver

He is just a liar.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

VictorLH

January 28, 2010 9:49 AM in reply to BHC

Your a dumbass liar and right wing whore.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

blkblt

January 28, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to BHC

It's not about donating to a campaign. it's about independent spending.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Damage

January 28, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to BHC

One more time: the ruling had NOTHING to do with contributions to campaigns. It said specifically that corporations, by dint of personhood and their 1st Amdmt rights, can mount their own, uncoordinated advertising effort against a candidate.
It did NOT restrict this right to any specific corprations, so any corporation that legally operates in the United States is now in the political market, too. Who will Kia and Honda want in the next cycle? Where will Nokia's efforts be?

This is NOT allowed now, which is what Citizens United, an "independent" corporation objected to, as it prevented their "independent" effort against Hillary Clinton, uncoordinated with the McCain or Obama campaigns..

January 28, 2010 12:28 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Obama Progressive 69

"Graceless, and revealing."
You are so right Alex, Obama was both.

The question is what part of "Congress shall make no law" doesn't Obama or the rest of the group thinking mental midgets that populate this site do not understand?

Priceless that people call Alito classless for shaking his head and mouthing words after a lowbrow attack by the President using his bully pulpit. If Bush had done this the whining from the crowd here would have been deafening.

I know you guys hate free speech but deal with it, EVERYBODY has the right, not just left wing flamers like yourself.

UPHOLDING the constitution is not being ACTIVIST nor partisan. Only in the twisted world of the far left can this view have any credibility.

What hypocrites you are!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 2:35 AM in reply to Obama Progressive 69

Shut up liar.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

davcbr

January 28, 2010 8:31 AM in reply to Obama Progressive 69

Please. I have to know. What is it about criticism of the propriety af a person's remarks that constitutes taking away freedom of speech? Are your souls so precious and sensitive that they cannot withstand the blow and this is enough to establish a cohersive environment for you such that it takes away your freedom. Liberals like you make me sick.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 10:20 AM in reply to davcbr

Notice all the new trolls today. Ignore the mf'ers. They are getting paid to come here and the more we respond the more they get paid. Kick the bumbs out of here. The stench is getting too much to bear.

January 28, 2010 12:33 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sean

Alito should have dragged along the Mrs. to sob on cue and distract the cameras...

January 28, 2010 12:39 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Perm Dude

With the ruling, the Supreme Court opened up a very easy loophole to 2 U.S.C. Section 441e. Open up a US office and you've already got half a foot in the door. Alito might be of the belief that 441e backs up the ruling, but it would take a half a day for a company to get around it now.

Foreign governments might be another matter, but foreign companies (particularly ones that already do business here in the States) would merely have to weigh the potential tax liability in opening the office against the perceived gains in limitless campaign donations (which, if I recall correctly, can be business expenses and are therefore deductible).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

here

January 28, 2010 12:48 AM in reply to Perm Dude

It's almost like if a Muslim from Kenya went to HI to have a baby which would then be an American citizen and eligible to run for high office. GASP! WHERE IS THIS CORPORATION's BIRTH CERTIFICATE!?

You can basically manufacture new individuals wrt campaign donations.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Gal

January 28, 2010 1:02 AM

Next on the Supreme Court docket, what makes a corporation "foreign."

As a former lawyer, I'm fascinated with this. Did they not at all consider the question of whether "foreigners" have free speech rights in US elections?

Bill Lee, call your lawyer!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Gordon Sewer

January 28, 2010 1:20 AM

Those who are saying that the ruling doesn't permit foreign donations are looking past the point. Obama didn't say that. Here's what he said, verbatim: "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. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Spending without limit and bankrolling elections are possible under the new ruling because corporations are no longer restricted from taking out their own ads prior to an election. A US-based subsidiary of a foreign corporation can now buy ad time and promote or attack whichever candidate they please. This is a new option made possible by the ruling. Obama isn't misrepresenting the issue because he never claimed that there were no restrictions on what could be done by foreigners; he only said that they could spend without limit, which is essentially bankrolling the election.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Skylep

January 28, 2010 1:47 AM

What so many of the decision apologists here are claiming that the law stops just short of allowing foreign corporations to "donate directly" to campaigns. What part of the term American Subsidiary are you not aware of? There are more than a 1000 American Subsidiaries of foreign corporations publicly trading on our exchanges. Each and every on of these has the right(and has always had) the right to donate directly to political campaigns. The only thing the SCOTUS decision changes is HOW MUCH. That right there is the issue. Who's to stop a foreign corporation from pouring money into its subsidiary now that the limits are off. And don't tell me that accounting regulations and other laws will stop it. Please, nobody ever really knows what a corporation is worth or how much of its capital is pure cash or assets. How do think things like Enron happen? The banking crisis? Don't be so naive. Other countries are far more more restrictive. why do you think that is? Use your head. Countries with higher standards of living than ours have incredibly strict campaign finance laws. The more loose the regulations, the closer to dictatorship the country will be. Look at any third world country.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Social Abortion

January 28, 2010 2:10 AM

I hate that the case was a 1st amendment issue. It should have been cut, clean and dry. Corporations are not people, and the case was not restricting individual American's freedom of speech. Corporations do not equal individuals, and thus they should not have the same rights as individuals.

Good for Obama. The 5 justices who wrote the decision should be shamed and Obama was too kind to them in the SOTU.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Gilead

January 28, 2010 2:25 AM

It appeared to me that Alito said, “I am not the most corrupt justice on this kangaroo court, no way.”

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Gilead

January 28, 2010 2:29 AM

I wonder if Scalia was dining with Cheney and Rummy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chard

January 28, 2010 3:55 AM

I can't make out what Alito was saying, but it is signifigant that he lacked the maturity to maintain decorum.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chabuka

January 28, 2010 4:07 AM

Even the smartest of Republicans (SCOTUS) don't seem to get it...the first amendment protects free speech..not "purchased" speech...a case might be made on that distinction

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Chabuka

January 28, 2010 4:14 AM

If President Obama would just "move further to the right"...like drop his his affiliation with the Democratic party and register as a Republican...(maybe do something about that hair and skin color)..the Republicans might consider working with him...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Nerdrage

January 28, 2010 7:31 AM

I find it funny that Alito would have such a reaction given that he subscribes to the theory of the Unitary Executive.

Perhaps he realizes that if he were to hold true to believing in the theory that Obama can issue an executive order essentially saying as president I interperet the ruling in such and such manner and as such it is my perogative to ignore SCOTUS.

Alito's belief coming back to bite him in the butt - love it!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Sailormarlowe

January 28, 2010 8:00 AM

If it weren't for those old mean activist Supreme Court judges, what would little O'Bammy be doing today? Railway porter? Butler? Yardman? What a pompous, silly fraud he is.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

davcbr

January 28, 2010 8:22 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe

Do the rest of the clients know what your doing on the house computer when you hog it all the time?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hominine

January 28, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe

It must be said that it is hard to get much more racist than that. How proud your parents must be..

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Gilead

January 28, 2010 8:38 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe

What's the matter, no dogs to kick?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Africanlivedit

January 28, 2010 8:33 AM

Goes to show that when/if Obama gets another chance of nominated a Supreme Court Justice, we need a Scalia type liberal! Really do.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

MrD

January 28, 2010 9:20 AM

Funny, but all those people arguing for Corporate free speech rights were arguing against free speech for unions a few years back.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JohnDoe

January 28, 2010 9:23 AM

That would have been a perfect moment for Sotomayor to smack him in the back of the head, much like my mother would do when I misbehaved in church.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

davcbr

January 28, 2010 10:22 AM in reply to JohnDoe

Excellent.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

VictorLH

January 28, 2010 9:43 AM

Alito would have felt comfortable serving under Mussolini. His behavior is unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice and is certainly surely a sign of contempt for the President. He should resign or be impeached.

January 28, 2010 10:03 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

What a terrifying thought that that bunch of clowns is an entire co-equal branch of our Government.

January 28, 2010 10:04 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hidden Oak

"Scalito" and Roberts are just two of the the flaming bags of shit left behind by George Bush.

January 28, 2010 10:51 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GTFOOH

The only thing not true, was Alito's asseration during his confirmation that he would respect precedent and settled law. Alito is the worse kind of Conservative, much like Thomas, just an unthinking idiological follower who can't hold an intellectual candle to Sotomayor!

January 28, 2010 10:55 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ilovebacon

Scalito sounds like the name of a hairy, fanged arachnoid.

January 28, 2010 11:11 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sbv

i truly think, the gang of politically motivated five, in their rush to codify corporations as individuals guaranteed with the right to free speech, did not even consider this possibility. i for one will take the word of the constitutional scholar and professor on this. the courts true motivation was laid bare for all to see.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cal Damage

January 28, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to sbv

SCROTUS: Supreme Court Republicans of the United States

January 28, 2010 12:34 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

biff diggerence

Shorter Sammy:

"This niggah didn't vote for me."

January 28, 2010 12:47 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Apphouse50

This is one bitter, angry man.

I recall during his confirmation hearings, looking at his wife and thinkin, "She looks terrified of this guy." Nothing I've seen of him makes me think I got that one wrong.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 28, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to Apphouse50

I doubt it, but anything is possible. I see him as mamaloni (slang for an italian boy raised by doting italian mother who wiped his ass until he left the house). I can speak to that issue (being a first generation myself).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

covered1

January 28, 2010 3:44 PM

I expected the President to inform the non-political junkies of this country that an activist right-wing Court abandoned precedent and rendered one of, if not the worst, decisions in the past 100 years. It was his duty. He also had the floor. Oddly enough, even the most belligerent wingnuts that I know in real life are not too happy about this ruling, either.

January 29, 2010 10:43 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

duanes

saddest of the whole thing is that we have allowed the supreme court to make laws for the land,,, not ment to be, now thanks to the gop and a stacked conservative deck it really doesnt matter what congress does the court will over turn it and make it the way the gop wants,,,,,, sad,,, i think our country and how it is run needs a overhaul,, the founding fathers never thought it would be manipulated and twisted by people that just wanted to use it instead of protect it,,,,,the supreme court cant justify the idea that business is not a human and therefore has not the rights of a individual,,,, but then again they are bought and paid for by the political parties,

January 29, 2010 11:50 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

croupier01

No wonder Obama voted AGAINST Alito the Fish's nomination to the Supreme Court. This guy is a disgrace to the bench and does not represent justice. The ruling last week was a real overreach in its authority in respect to the case it heard. The case did not necessitate setting a dangerous precedent in regards to removing limits on corporation's campaign contributions. Individuals can not compete with multi billion dollar corporations. I agree with Barack this opens the door to foreign corporate manipulation of our elections. Foreign corporations can easily find loop holes in the existing system. Next thing we know, China will be electing our Presidents and Congressmen. They already own the United States thanks to Bush charging up his war debt and tax cuts for the filthy rich to China. I believe at last count our debt to China stood at around a trillion bucks give or take a few billion dollars. Or was it more like 3 trillion bucks? I've lost track! This should be a wake up call for Congress to pass immediate legislation removing personhood status from corporations. For many reasons, corporations can NOT be considered persons. Corporations were NEVER intended to be persons in the first place. It was a clerical error that occurred in the late 1880's that allowed for this egregious mistake to happen. It must be rectified before a corporate fascist state completely replaces any shred of democracy we have left. An excellent documentary now available on DVD that covers just how psychopathically corporations operate is called, THE CORPORATION. Corporatism and fascism are essentially the same social evil totalitarian cancer.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

halfpintblonde9

January 29, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to croupier01

It looked to me like he said, "Simply not true" the night of the speech and looking at it now I believe that is what he said. It's hard to tell exactly what he said before "not true" but it looks like "simply".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

halfpintblonde9

January 29, 2010 1:41 PM

And I agree with all of those who said he is a disgrace to the bench. I pray Obama has the opportunity to replace at least two justices during his term. I read this morning that Stevens was so incensed by the ruling that he didn't attend the speech and was said to be considering retiring. This just put him right over the edge apparently. His closest friends say he is ashamed to be a member of a court who could make such a ruling. He said he had believed that Bush v. Gore would be the greatest shame on the court but this one topped even that. Signaling a grave danger to our republic. God bless him!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mary Alice

January 29, 2010 1:50 PM

There once was a judge named Alito....He thought dissing the Prez would be neat-o....Such a judicial breach, The Law schools all teach,....Is defined as a decorum no-no.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mary Alice

January 29, 2010 1:54 PM

There once was a judge named Alito.......
Who thought dissing the Prez would be neat-o.......This judicial breach, The law schools all teach..... Is defined as a decorum no-no.