Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,986 posts)
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:27 AM May 2012

Justice Stevens: Pres. Obama's SOTU Criticism of the Court's Citizens United Decision Not a 'Lie'


Retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens addresses the American Law Institute's annual meeting at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images / May 21, 2012)


Justice Stevens: Obama right to criticize court ruling on campaign spending

WASHINGTON — President Obama ruffled some feathers two years ago when he lambasted the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision during a State of the Union speech. It was unusual for a president to criticize the justices as they sat before him.

Now, retired Justice John Paul Stevens has taken the equally unusual step of saying the president was right in challenging the court’s opinion.

Obama said the 5-4 ruling freeing corporations to spend unlimited sums on elections “reversed a century of law,” adding it would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

“In that succinct comment, the former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago made three important and accurate observations about the Supreme Court majority’s opinion,” Stevens said in a speech Wednesday evening. “First, it did reverse a century of law; second, it did authorize unlimited election-related expenditures by America’s most powerful interests; and, third, the logic of the opinion extends to money spent by foreign entities.”

Stevens dissented from the 2010 decision, and he said again Wednesday that he could not understand why, if “corporations have no right to vote,” they should have the right to sway elections.

The justice also said he did not see why those with the most money should be permitted to dominate the airwaves during election campaigns. “During the televised debates among the Republican candidates for the presidency, the moderators made an effort to allow each speaker an equal opportunity to express his or her views,” he said, speaking in Little Rock, Ark. If there were six candidates, he said, they were given roughly the same amount of time to speak.

“Both the candidates and the audience would surely have thought the value of the debate to have suffered if the moderator had allocated the time on the basis of the speakers’ wealth, or it they had held an auction allowing the most time to the highest bidder,” Stevens said.


read: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-justice-stevens-obama-right-on-campaign-spending-ruling-20120530,0,7395653.story



President Obama at Medal of Freedom ceremony:


"Even in his final days on the bench, Justice Stevens insisted he was still ‘learning on the job.’ But in the end, we are the ones who have learned from him."

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Justice Stevens: Pres. Obama's SOTU Criticism of the Court's Citizens United Decision Not a 'Lie' (Original Post) bigtree May 2012 OP
For those of you that think President Obama ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2012 #1
you make a good point bigtree May 2012 #2
I think ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2012 #4
Yes! And I remember Gibbs' answer Ship of Fools May 2012 #7
K&R...nt SidDithers May 2012 #3
. bigtree May 2012 #5
John Paul Stevens is one great American. hifiguy May 2012 #6
K & R Scurrilous May 2012 #8
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
1. For those of you that think President Obama ...
Thu May 31, 2012, 10:57 AM
May 2012

is a wimp:

Obama described his “signature style: modest, insightful, well-prepared and razor-sharp … always favoring a pragmatic solution over an ideological one.”


Could he have fired a more direct, but non-offensive, shot across the gang of 5's bow with the looming ACA Decision coming ... a decision that commentators have already said will pit ideology vs. pragmatism ... and oh yeah, case law?

In my view, that takes guts.

bigtree

(85,986 posts)
2. you make a good point
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:16 AM
May 2012

This President is bold enough to make direct assaults on many planks of republican nonsense and abuses using language and political levers which previous Democratic presidents have shied away from. What's interesting is that we haven't yet seen this President 'blow his top' and I think that just leaves almost infinite room for his brand of audaciousness. We ain't seen nothing yet.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
4. I think ...
Thu May 31, 2012, 12:19 PM
May 2012

Many confuse bluster for effective tact. This President says exactly what he means, in a well thought out manner, to express what he wants, even when speaking on his feet.

But that said ... I don't think "WE" will ever see him "blow his top", but I suspect Boehner, cantor, Reed and Pelosi have seen him be VERY forceful and explicit as to his wishes.

Ship of Fools

(1,453 posts)
7. Yes! And I remember Gibbs' answer
Thu May 31, 2012, 04:09 PM
May 2012

to a journalist's question -- does the pres. ever get angry?
Gibbs looked down, had a far-away look in his eyes, and said
"Oh, yeah, he gets angry..."

As pissed off as I get these days and as fretful as I get about what
the pres. sometimes does/doesn't do or say, my husband, who is a
reformed Republican (almost to the left of me), reminds me that
"Obama is EXACTLY who we need leading this country right now."

I don't think I could say it any better. Screw the podium-pounding
blowhards. I'll take pragmatism (along with his wonderful smile
over an off-the-cuff joke) over podium-pounding drama queens
every single time. That's my prez!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Justice Stevens: Pres. Ob...