Alito and Obama Face Alleged Breaches of Etiquette

WSJ.com ^ | 1/28/10 | JESS BRAVIN

[Kartographer]

Now we know why the Supreme Court doesn't want cameras in the courtroom.

At Wednesday night's State of the Union address, cameras cut to a reaction shot from the six justices in the audience when President Barack Obama mentioned the court's Jan. 21 decision striking down limits on corporate political spending.

The shot caught Justice Samuel Alito wincing, shaking his head and apparently mouthing "that's not true," as the president contended that the ruling would lead to a flood of special-interest money in elections, including money from foreign corporations.

Justice Alito's reaction departed from the traditional expressionless, stone-like pose the justices take when attending politically tinged events.

[Kartographer]

[Carling]

Justice Alito's reaction departed from the traditional expressionless, stone-like pose the justices take when attending politically tinged events.

President Temper Tantrum's attack on the USSC departed from the traditional poise and intellect the President takes in a SOTU address. Kudos to Alito for not standing for the obvious lie that the Dipstick in Chief uttered against a defenseless Court.

[DJ MacWoW]

Well that was a written piece of excrement.

[Reagan Man]

Breaches of Etiquette? Whatever.

After the last year of nonstop Obama claptrap, Justice Alito and Cong Joe Wilson deserve kudos for facing down the liar and chief.

[freekitty]

Judge Alito has nothing to apologize for. Is this author for real?

[csense]

I watched Obama say it, but missed the reaction by Alito since I was also wincing to myself and saying aloud ‘what the hell is he talking about.’

[truthkeeper]

I have only one thing to say to Justice Alito...BRAVO, sir!

[onyx]

So Othugo ad-libbed “with all due deference to separation of powers” before he lashed out, thus proving he knew he was out of line.

Case closed.

Alito was in the right.

[Jeff Chandler]

He was being personally attacked. Sheesh!

[Jeff Chandler]

I predict that O Bama will never again have to worry about a Supreme Court Justice saying anything in the hall during one of his SOTU speeches.

[gigster]

If someone slaps me in the face like that, you’d better believe that I will react strongly.

[DJ MacWoW]

Alito was absolutely right. The Justices were guests. They didn’t have to be there. He attacked guests and ignored the women from Ft Hood. He also invited his partisan cronies in the room to attack and intimidate by applauding and surrounding the Justices. But we knew Obama is rude and it’s all about him.

[El Cid]

I agree. Judge Alito had a breach of Etiquette.
My tender sensibilities were bruised when the good Judge didn't pull a Wilson and point at the Resident and say 'You Lie!'...

But I'll give him a pass - he was probably a bit surprised by the over the top thuggery. Next year though - I expect him and his fellow good Judges (not the 4 lemons) to bring eggs and tomatoes...

[smoothsailing]

Alito’s reaction was inaudible and dignified, unlike Obama’s blatantly shameless demagoguery of the USSC’s ruling.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Justice Alito's reaction departed from the traditional expressionless, stone-like pose the justices take when attending politically tinged events.

Good for Justice Alito. There's no reason he should be expected to sit there like a potted plant while the President tells outright lies to the American people about a Supreme Court decision. That would be tacitly endorsing the lies, which would be immoral and detrimental to the rule of law in our nation.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I predict that President Obama and his speechwriters will be a heck of lot more careful about their references to the Supreme Court in future SOTU speeches.

[Reagan Man]

That’s if they show up.

[TigersEye]

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] 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."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather 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" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

[VR-21]

BO was petulant in his manner throughout the speech, and downright trashy in his attack on the Court. He is a man of low intellect and character, who would be more at home in a Banana Republic than a Constitutional Republic.

[GovernmentShrinker]

They’ll show up. They have nothing to fear. President Obama, on the other hand, is getting serious backlash for his inappropriate and inaccurate comments. It’s ended up doing his political agenda a lot more harm than good.