OBAMA, ET AL vs. ALITO

I have waited awhile to comment on President Obama’s complete lack of decorum and the blatant partisanship displayed when he publicly chastised the Supreme Court on their recent campaign finance ruling. The president has a way of sounding knowledgeable about history and government but I questioned the substance of his knowledge. As an aside, I have seen no media questioning the President's decorum but a great deal of commentary about the judge's. Obviously, no one expects decorum from that office.

On closer review, which took less than an hour’s time on the internet, it seems that the accusation of setting aside one hundred years of precedent spouted by Obama, Schumer, and all the liberal press was patently untrue. The 1907 Tillman Act banning direct corporate and union contributions was left untouched. In fact, when Judge Alito shook his head and mouthed “Not true,” he was silently commenting on Obama’s uninformed reference to that very act. The cases ruled upon, however, were Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), and McConnell v. FEC, (2003). I don’t know about you, but simple subtraction tells me the ruling affected no more than 20 years—max. To be fair, however, there is a possibility it might affect the 1947 ruling. As to corporations whose holdings extend to foreign countries, the ruling did not address that subject. I'd expect that issue to become another case.

The one-sided publicity about the recent Supreme Court decision has unleashed hundreds of “judicial activism” charges against the justices in the majority of this ruling. Again, I believe those making such charges have a twisted sense of what this term means. It is obvious to most thinking people that “judicial activism” is the upholding or striking down of existing laws based on personal opinion or personal preference (the Roosevelt Court, the Warren Court, et al). But a huge band of liberal politicians, so-called nonprofit organizations, media, and the uninformed are using that term to describe a decision based on upholding the Constitution, to be more specific—the Bill of Rights (free speech). Sadly, a label like that seems to stick—forget the truth!

Has any major media outlet reported Alito’s side of his understandable body language expressed during the president’s tirade? You know the answer to that one.