The one President Obama misrepresented in his State of the Union
address, to the dismay of Justice Alito (which the media focused on
more than on the misrepresentation of it)…..
It’s getting some attention now. Especially on what it may mean for free speech.
“From the commentary in the mainstream media, I thought there had been a coup d’etat in Washington.
“The New York Times said what happened “strikes at the heart of democracy.”
“The Washington Post quoted an authority who warned it “threatens to
undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”
“No, not the Scott Brown victory. The media were upset because the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forbidding corporations and labor unions
to spend money on political speech before elections is
unconstitutional. A horrendous section of the abomination known as
McCain-Feingold campaign-finance “reform” had bitten the dust. It was
So, let’s clarify what the justices deliberated over and how they ruled:
“The 5-4 majority consisted of the four conservative justices and
the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the main opinion. He
couldn’t have been more clear: “When Government seeks to use its full
power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get
his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not
hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. … The
First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
“He also said, “Because speech is an essential mechanism of
democracy — it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people
— political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it.”
“And, “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of
political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain
Interesting, how the liberal backlash over this decision complains that it overturns precedent. What they’re really worried about is the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, which itself overturned what had been settled law.
“Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights, in an
interview with Politico, said, “Yesterday’s Roberts court decision,
which exhibited a stunning disregard for settled law of decades’
standing, is terrifying to those of us who care deeply about the
constitutional protections the court put in place for women’s access to
The justices care deeply about jurisprudence in applying constitutional protections.
“Where they disagree with the precedent and they think it’s wrong
constitutionally, they’re not afraid to say it,” Jay Sekulow, an
attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, told Politico.
“Where they think the court got it wrong, they’re trying to correct
that, and from my perspective that’s a good thing.”
“The Court correctly concluded that judges should stop playing
semantics with our Constitution and read the text as it is written,”
commented Penny Young Nance, CEO for Concerned Women for America (CWA),
on the day of the ruling. “The government should not be limiting
political speech because someone is rich or poor, or because they
disagree with a particular point of view. Americans are the real