Root research on F.E.C. trial and BO’s Stink-up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/bhosotu/index
Justice Clarence Thomas Hits NYT and WAPO in Defending Recent Free Speech Decision - Audio
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2444140/posts
LAMBRO: Roberts For The Defense [B0’s swipe at the Free Speech Ruling During State of Disunion]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470029/posts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/14/roberts-for-the-defense/
LAMBRO: Roberts For The Defense [B0’s swipe at the Free Speech Ruling During State of Disunion]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470029/posts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/14/roberts-for-the-defense/
[During State of Disunion] ....
But Mr. Obama went further in his remarks on the case to milk every political drop he could from the issue. The ruling, he said, “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections” (a point Mr. Gibbs noticeably chose not to repeat).
[When Alito mouthed: “Not true.”] ... because it isn’t. In fact, the court stated in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that it did not deal with election spending by foreign corporations because the law the justices overturned did not differentiate between U.S. and foreign companies.
Indeed, The Washington Post’s Supreme Court reporter, Robert Barnes, further pointed out, “There are restrictions on foreign participation in U.S. elections that were not part of this case,” facts that the president’s speechwriters should have known or, maybe, just chose to leave out.
The president was treading on thin ice when he attacked the court’s freedom-of-speech decision by saying, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests.” What part of the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech” doesn’t he understand?
Mr. Obama and his well-connected corporate bundlers, who raised more money for him than anyone else in U.S. history, know a thing or two about opening the floodgates of campaign money. They raked in three-fourths of a billion dollars for his 2008 presidential campaign. Much of it came from those same special interests he was talking about.
Like wealthy trial lawyers who win huge sums of money from medical liability lawsuits. The checks they collected for his campaign were worth every million they gave him. His health care reform plan dutifully left out any mention of tort reform to rein in jury awards that have sent medical costs through the roof.
Meantime, we may not be seeing any justices at Mr. Obama’s future State of the Union addresses - or at least not the ones whose votes displease him. “To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there,” Justice Roberts said.
Donald Lambro is a nationally syndicated columnist.
This is Clarence Thomas’s dissent on Kelo:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429187/posts
[Just a tiny exerpt — full dissent in address]
I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1—2, 8—13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.
The Fifth Amendment provides:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, *** OR PROPERTY ***, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (Emphasis added.)