Navigation | Archive » 2010 » January
PARIS — The allegations read like a potboiler: treachery and high jinks in the gilded salons of Paris politics. But in a trial that riveted France, the charges were brought for real in a paneled courtroom beside the Seine by a very serious prosecutor and endorsed by a bitter President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Filed by admin at January 28th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
You’re all wrong. And I mean those of you who claim that Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s “not true” during the State of the Union Wednesday night constitutes a “Joe Wilson moment.” And I’m also talking about those of you who argue that the president was out of line with his in-your-face (almost literally) criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision last week that wiped away long-standing prohibitions against certain types of corporate political expenditures. Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald is the most off-base when he argues that Alito’s behavior is worse — that’s right, worse — than the “you lie” outburst of South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress last year. Wilson’s shocking breach of decorum interrupted the president mid-sentence and was clearly heard by most people in the chamber and watching on TV. Remember the death-ray glare shot by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Contrast that with Alito’s head shake and his mouthing of what appeared to be “not true” when Obama asserted that the Supreme Court had wiped away “a century of law” that “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” No one except those sitting immediately behind Alito likely would have been aware of the justice’s response had TV cameras not focused on him at that moment. (So much for cameras in the courtroom!) Greenwald gives Wilson some slack because he’s a politician and is expected to engage in the rough and tumble world of politics; by “flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner,” Greenwald says, Alito has damaged his credibility and that of the court. Should Alito have refrained from even this modest display? Yes. Should he have been savvy enough to know that cameras would turn to the justices when the president addressed the recent decision? Absolutely. But does this lapse, as Greenwald argues, amount to “a serious and substantive breach of protocol” and prove that Alito is a “politicized and intemperate Republican” partisan? Of course not — except in the eyes of those so hopelessly stuck in their partisanship that a sneeze would have been interpreted as “blowing off” the president. I don’t know which part of the president’s explanation Alito was objecting to, but as Linda Greenhouse rightly notes in The New York Times, the president was less than precise in his description the decision. It did not, as the president asserted, throw out a century’s worth of precedent, and it did not disturb a law on the books since the early 1900’s that prohibits corporations from directly contributing to a candidate’s coffers. It’s at least plausible — I’d say probable — that Alito wasn’t expressing partisan rancor as much as intellectual disagreement with how the president characterized the opinion. Nevertheless, the president was well within his rights to refer to and slam a decision he believes — and I agree — could further corrode and corrupt politics by giving more opportunity to corporate and union behemoths. I’m sure it wasn’t the most pleasant moment for the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down the campaign finance regulations, but I strongly disagree with Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett — with whom I often agree — when he writes that the president engaged in a “truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order.” An apology? I don’t think so. Obama expressed disagreement and outrage with the decision when it was issued. What the justices and the country heard on Wednesday night was nothing new. I also did not hear the president call for Congress or the states to disregard the case; I heard him challenging his base to come up with other legislative approaches to address concerns about the corrupting influence of big money in the political system. And guess what? The justices would ultimately have the last word on whether this new plan would pass constitutional muster.
Filed by admin at January 28th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito didn’t like hearing President Barack Obama publicly criticize the high court’s ruling removing corporate campaign spending limits - and he didn’t try to hide it.
Filed by admin at January 28th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
Your Browser DoesNot Support IFrames. By Robert Barnes Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama’s criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words “not true.” Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court’s precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates. It proved to be a striking State of the Union moment: With six justices seated in their black robes directly in front of him in the House chamber, Obama 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.” As Democrats applauded, cameras showed the justices sitting expressionless. Except for Alito. “Not true,
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
WASHINGTON — The man in the House chamber openly disagreeing with President Barack Obama as he spoke to Congress wasn’t an over-the-top Republican or a seething Democrat. He was a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito.
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama’s criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words “not true.”
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
— Today is Thursday, Jan. 28, the 28th day of 2010. There are 337 days left in the year.
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
The Jan. 22 editorial “Judicial Activism Inc.,” which criticized the Supreme Court’s decision on corporate campaign finance, generated a Jan. 23 letter to the editor from John S. Mason Jr. of Alexandria, who asked what The Post’s editorial board did not understand about the First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama’s criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words “not true.”
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet
It was as cold as a meat locker in the House chamber Wednesday night as lawmakers filed in to hear President Obama’’s State of the Union address. Several lawmakers donned overcoats. Two lawmakers wrapped themselves in blankets.
Filed by admin at January 27th, 2010 under News
No comments on this post yet