SOTU 2: Insulting the Supreme Court Justices

There really is a lot of fodder for posting on President Obama's State of the Union address. In a one hour speech that bounced around almost as if it was written in Random Word Generator Plus, the critiques could go on for months. Sadly, there will not be time for that as the focus of the nation moves on to more meaningful things as if actions speak louder than words. That's only fair because speaking about job creation is silly if you don't really resolve the 10% unemployment problem. But right now I want to focus on the President's petulant response to the Supreme Court decision to stand up for free speech. As a liberal he not only disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, he couldn't resist insulting the Supreme Court Justices. He used an inappropriate forum to disagree, he handled the situation poorly, he opposed a proper decision, and he acted like a spoiled child who had his PSP taken away from him. Ever the class act, at least the President did it with his characteristic, superficial, chin held high, I'm better than you and I know it look*.

The Inappropriate Forum, Poor Handling

A President who is using the platform of the State of the Union to cast aspersions upon a separate but no less equal branch of government is using the forum for personal purposes instead of using it to inform Congress on the actual, you know, state of the union. The attack was political, and the purpose of the State of the Union, as outlined in the Constitution, is not politics;

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; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Nevertheless, groups like Media Matters have leapt to the President's defense, claiming his attacks were not unprecedented. But compare Reagan's mention of the Supreme Court to President Obama's. [President Bush meanwhile, commented on activist judges, but not the Supreme Court specifically.]

President Reagan:

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.

He speaks of a denied right being corrected by the passing of a new Constitutional Amendment.

President Obama:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporation, 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. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

He speaks of not a denied right, but a proffered right that had previously been removed. More importantly, he speaks of a specific act of the Supreme Court as 'problems'. It's more forceful, it was distasteful and it also contained some factual errors. In my opinion, if he disagreed with the ruling he should have mentioned the specific problem that needed to be addressed, not the Supreme Court. And when he mentioned passing a bill, he should have offered a specific change he would like to see, not "a bill". But that's the Congressional Democrats' headache to resolve.

A few other observations on the accuracy of the President's statement - foreign corporations are not allowed to bankroll anything. The President, a former law 'professor' should know this. He is either unaware of the legalities which speaks to his skill as a former professor and therefore his credibility as skill as a President, or he is deliberately misleading the viewing public. In either case, qualities unbecoming of a President were on shameful display.

A Proper Decision

The Supreme Court Decision was a proper one. Free speech cannot be restricted to people and and 'special interests' of the President's choosing. If unions, community organizations, churches and political action committees can spend money on elections, then is it fair to exclude corporations? 

George Will provides a masterful summary of why the decision was the correct one. I really encourage you to read it.

Extending the logic of a 1976 decision, the court has now held that the dissemination of political speech requires money, so restricting money restricts speech. Bringing law into conformity with this 1976 precedent, the court has struck down only federal and state laws that forbid independent expenditures (those not made directly to, or coordinated with, candidates' campaigns) by corporations and labor unions. Under the censorship regime the court has overturned, corporations were even forbidden to send political communications to all of their employees.

The New York Times calls the court's decision, which enables political advocacy by (other) corporations, a "blow to democracy." The Times, a corporate entity, can engage in political advocacy because Congress has granted "media corporations" an exemption from limits.

The Washington Post, also exempt, says the court's decision, which overturned a previous ruling upholding restrictions on spending for political speech, shows insufficient "respect for precedent." Does The Post think the court incorrectly overturned precedents that upheld racial segregation and warrantless wiretaps?

Because the President disagrees with the decision does not make him right and the Supreme Court wrong. As a law professor, he spoke merely in populist terms. I have no issue with this approach in general, but he complained of a specific item and did not back it up with specific legal arguments. Special interests, an Obama favorite boogeyman, was the only reproach he offered.

Let me offer a correction to his speech to represent his true concern with the Supreme Court Ruling;

With a mere mention of due deference to separation of powers so I can now blast them, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law upheld a 1976 ruling that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests that don't specifically meet my approval , including foreign corporation, 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. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems for Democrats in future election cycles.

Better - or at least, more open and honest.

*As a quick aside, that Obama gaze is supposed to, I guess, represent Barack Obama staring at the middle distant horizon as if he were seeing the future - a future that only he can see because he's you know, God-like.