View Full Version : Stevens Agreed With President In His dissent

Gayle in MD
01-28-2010, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The White House says President Barack Obama was accurate when he took on a Supreme Court ruling in the State of the Union address, even though Justice Sam Alito mouthed, “Not true.”

Alito’s protest came when the president said: “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 corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) … And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “[I]t would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at “preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U. S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”

And on page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”

The nonpartisan Citizens for Public Integrity has asked: “Will the Citizens United Ruling Let Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah Buy U.S. Elections? Supreme Court Ruling May Open Door to Foreign State-Owned Corporate Political Spending.” </span>

Conservatives jumped on Obama’s comment. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said on Fox News’s "Hannity" that Obama was “embarrassing our Supreme Court. … [T]his will be the huge take-away moment.”

On National Review’s The Corner, law professor Bradley A. Smith wrote: “The president's statement is false. … This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.”

Conservative Dan Riehl added: “[I]f this becomes the narrative it hurts Obama and distracts from anything he may have wanted to accomplish with the address.”

<span style="color: #000066">typical RW theory, anything and everything, for the wealthy CEO's as if they aren't already running this country into a pit. </span>

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html#ixzz0dvJMRJDD

<span style="color: #000066">I'm not a constitutional expert, but common sense should point to the fact that many of our corporations are multi-national. I'm sure the big guys in their meetings are not going to turn to their foreign owners and CEO's, their BUSINESS PARTNERS, and say, "Ah you don't get to have an opinion about which representative we buy, or threaten into submission, for our selfish, bottome line only, agendas, because you're not one of us.

We know where all of this will go, unfortunately, the RW constitutional experts will say obama is wrong, and the Liberal experts will say his is right, and one or two, who are not partisan, will say what is really so, and they will be the two who are demonized most vigorously on Fox, the two most informed and most admired.

Let's face it, people need to decide if they want a clean earth, without all the medical problems that are proven to cause cancer, and many other diseases, including learning disabilities, obesity, diabetes, chemicals in our food and water and air, ll from corporate waste, and irresponsible growing and farming, hormones, insecticides, filthy growing preceedures, for vegetables and animal food, etc...

Or do people just want to deny all of that, so they can see to it that corporations can have a far louder voice in our democracy, than they already have?

What are they usually lobbying about? Trying to remove the safe gaurds which government applies to protect consumers. Trying to get tax cuts as they outsource more jobs, launch more wars, pollute more of the environment, and bilk more money out of trusting consumers, as they did on Wall Stree, through greedy crokked business dealings.

I am amazed, that among other piss poor decisions of this RW SC, they would have the sheer gall, to decide this case as they did, while we are right in the middle of the worst economy since the great depression, because of what these banks did to our country, and WHILE they are all spending a fortune to lobby against any limits on their future scams....health insurance corporations fighting against their methods being curtailed, dropping their customers because they become ill, while they're racking up unprecedented profits...

When is the American Public going to turn off fox noise long enough to educate themselves on what these multi-national corporations have done to the American Dream.