The blogosphere is awash with comments on President Obama's unprecedented scolding of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address. Also about Justice Alito's unprecedented, even if silent, reaction--shaking his head in dismay. And suddenly half the television audience became lip readers who are sure the justice also lip synced "Not true."
Their behaviors have all but made the President's assessment of the state of the union irrelevant. Their actions suggest the most important condition may lie in what the behavior of politicians says about the state of our union.
Forget who is to blame or who should apologize to whom. Our president campaigned and entered office as a unifier and conciliator saying his job was to heal the nation. A welcome goal even if one doubted his ability or the possibility itself.
Last night the President chose to attack a group that could not then or later defend itself, and he invited partisans to mock the highest judges in our land. Even judges who voted for the decision the President dislikes, may think their decision will have unfortunate results, but they did their job and decided the law struck down did not comply with the Constitution.
Anyone who has read the decision and opinions understands the justices faced conflicting precedents on the question of whether government can or cannot ban corporate 
speech. Agree or disagree, the essence of the decision was not flimsy or frivolous.
Both liberals and conservatives can understand that this is a rational view even if they don't like the consequences or might have ruled differently. President Obama, Harvard law graduate and one-time professor of Constitutional law understands this.
Even though our President once taught Constitutional law, let's chalk up his boorish behavior to naivete and inexperience--like bowing to emperors and sheikhs, like calling Connecticut police stupid before hearing their version of an arrest, like declaring even before trial that an accused criminal guilty and will be executed.
We knew Barack Obama would have to learn on the job. He knew it. The American electorate said, "Well, he's a nice young fellow. McCain's nice enough but a bit old and confused, so let's give this new fellow a chance to change things since the Republicans didn't do what they promised. This Obama fellow is young, but bright, and he can learn." They are now entitled to ask the big questions: Is he learning? Can he learn? Does he want to?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr. Vanessa Neumann
McGarrett50
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
Salon.com
Comments
The 1st amendment right to free speech is, like the others, subject to some restraints. In our Founder's time, when the 1st was written and ratified, corporations were forbidden any participation in politics. No funding campaigns, period. It remained that way for a long time.
We've gone from the Founder's ban to the Roberts' court removing all restraint.
So, as to the question of the constitutionality of banning or limiting corporate political speech, I'll side with Obama, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Washington.
You and the devil can take the opinion of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy...for what it's worth.
The majority recognized two conflicting precedents and gave their rationale for their decision. If the results of the decision are bad (and they might be), the intelligent response is not to attack the Court but to propose a legal remedy.
The President did not propose anything. He even made a silly mistake about saying the decision overturned a century of law. It did not overturn the ban on corporate campaign contributions. It overturned part of the recent McCain-Feingold law limiting free expression.
Yes, the Constitution and courts have recognized limits on free expression, but very narrow ones, and not limits on a particular group.
The question of corporations registered in the US but owned largely by foreigners is a serious question that should be addressed, and I hope it will be.
Unfortunately we have a president who seldom proposes any practical programs on his own, seldom takes a leadership position on a controversial issue, and understands and knows little of history.
All this we knew before he was elected. He has a record of eloquence in public with a script but being a follower rather than a leader.