Justice Alito Objected to Obama's Lie

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Feb 6, 2010.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    ...................."With all due deference to the separation of powers," Obama said, "the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

    It seems clear from Alito's questioning when the court heard argument in the case that he was taking issue with the president's assertion that the court reversed 100 years of law, rather than with Obama's reference to foreign influence, which also has generated some legal debate.

    At the September argument, Alito suggested to attorney Seth Waxman that 20 years was the appropriate time frame, encompassing two high court decisions that upheld limits on corporate spending in campaigns.

    "Mr. Waxman, all of this talk about 100 years and 50 years is perplexing," Alito said then. "It sounds like the sort of sound bites that you hear on TV. The fact of the matter is that the only cases that are being, that may possibly be reconsidered, are McConnell and Austin. And they don't go back 50 years, and they don't go back 100 years."

    In the end, the court left untouched a 1907 law that bans contributions by corporations to candidates. But in overruling those two decisions, the court did strike down limits on corporations in a law that had been in place since 1947.

    News organizations attempting to convey the sweep of the ruling without ignoring these distinctions said the court's opinion represented a sharp turn away from the a century-long trend toward greater regulation of corporate contributions.


    More Here
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the original court case that established the "personhood" of corporations was a lie based on the notes of a court clerk. The Supreme Court decided that a corporation was NOT a "person." google it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...