Regarding last week's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, he said,
With all due deference to separation of powers [spoken with unmistakable contempt], last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. (...) I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
The Justices sat serenely, with the exception of Samuel Alito, who shook his head and appeared to mutter "that's not true."
Apparently, this was a scripted moment that was planned in advance. I'd think one of his gaggle of advisors would have warned him against such a thing during revisions. This was an unnecessary distraction and a vulgar bit of pettiness in a speech that decried exactly such things.
Pragmatism is not his strong suit...
ReplyDelete-Gene
The Blog of Legal Times points out that this is the first time a President has ever scolded, or even openly criticized, the Supreme Court in the State of the Union. Not even FDR did so at the height of his clash with the Hughes Court.
ReplyDeleteThis is thrown into even sharper relief by the fact that it is purely political. The President is resentful that his favorite targets for political potshots (some of which he castigated in last night's speech) will now have greater latitude to fund political advertisements.
His concern that elections would be bankrolled by "foreign entities" are completely unfounded, considering that 2 USC § 441e already reads as follows:
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) 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;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Furthermore, had he read the Court's decision, he would have found this bit from the Majority opinion:
We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. pp. 46-47