As you've no doubt heard by now, in an extraordinary escalation of tension between President Barack Obama and the sitting justices of the Supreme Court during last night's State of the Union address, Justice Samuel Alito gave us this year's "Joe Wilson moment" by shaking his head and mouthing "Not true..." in response to the following statement by the President: 
 
 With all due deference to separation of powers, last week 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. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. 
 
 Conservatives and progressives may argue this morning about whether President Obama should have criticized the Court and about the severity of Justice Alito's breach of protocol, but Justice Alito faces a bigger problem: Obama's comment is true. 
 
 In fact, Obama's carefully-phrased comment to the justices highlights two critical aspects of the majority's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, both of which constitute dangerous and revolutionary shifts in long-settled law: 
 
 The Court ruled that the First Amendment makes no distinction among speakers -- that the identity of a speaker makes no difference for purposes of government regulation of speech. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissenting opinion, this logic leads to some remarkable conclusions: "Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders." Stevens also clearly explained that the majority's logic "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." This is truly an unprecedented reading of the Bill of the Rights that could have consequences that reach even beyond campaign finance law. By eliminating any distinction among speakers, which, as Obama noted, has been recognized for at least a century, the Court hinted that any regulation that distinguishes between corporations and individuals may be problematic -- raising the question of what other rights currently reserved for citizens the Court might soon extend to corporations. As Stevens noted in his dissent, under the majority's logic, "it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech." 
 
 To make matters worse, the Court dramatically redefined the meaning and standard of "corruption," ruling that only the strictest and most direct forms of corruption -- e.g. bribery -- are prohibited, and not, as was previously the standard, any "appearance of undue influence." This critical component of last week's decision redefined the boundaries of what constitutes corruption and made influence by special interests significantly more difficult to prove. More important, the ruling, as Obama precisely indicated and as Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) fervently reiterated this morning on the Senate floor, appears to sweep away vital barriers that were keeping foreign special interests, such as Toyota, from manipulating American elections. If all speakers are treated equally under the First Amendment, and the only corruption Congress can prohibit is direct vote-trading for money, then there is no reason why foreign companies with a U.S.-presence couldn't spend endless amounts of money to influence U.S. elections. Under the logic of the Supreme Court's decision, just as Exxon can now spend millions to oppose a candidate who, for example, supports the climate bill, so, too, could Toyota or other foreign companies. 
 
 If Justice Alito wanted to disclaim any of this, or if he thought that the majority's opinion was not as far-reaching as Justice Stevens' powerful dissenting opinion demonstrated, he should have written a concurring opinion. He should have explained how the logic of the Court's opinion doesn't change course on over a century of campaign finance law that seeks to limit corporate influence in elections and showed us that the Court's formalistic approach to the First Amendment and corporations won't lead to foreign corporate spending in U.S. elections. But muttering at the State of the Union clarifies nothing. ||||| NRO BLOG ROW | THE CORNER | ARCHIVES SEARCH E-MAIL PRINT RSS 
 
 Enter Your E-Mail Address to Sign Up 
 
 
 
 
 
 Obama Misrepresents the Citizens United Decision [Shannen Coffin] 
 
 The Supreme Court is not — and certainly should not — be above criticism. President Bush made it a point not to criticize the Court’s detainee decisions in Hamdan and Rasul — and probably missed a political opportunity. But he apparently considered it unpresidential to attack Court rulings. 
 
 
 
 By contrast, President Obama displayed an utter lack of tact in his criticism of the Court’s decision in Citizens United. Obama preened for political applause while members of the Court had to sit stoically on their hands. That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable — and not simply because he’s from New Jersey, as my South Jersey wife said. In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling. Citizens United is a 57-page opinion that most Americans wouldn’t have a good reason to read – and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t blame them for not reading it. Obama understands that most Americans are susceptible to misleading comments about the decision. In claiming that the Court had opened the floodgates to foreign corporations’ spending without limit in our elections, he sought to take political advantage of that susceptibility. Brad Smith, who has forgotten more about campaign-finance law than I’ll ever know, explained the applicable statutes in his post last night. 
 
 
 
 But you needn’t take Brad’s word for it. The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy expressly stated: “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.” In support of that carve-out, the Court acknowledged the statute Brad discussed, 2 U.S.C. section 441e, which bans contributions and expenditures from foreign nationals. So Obama’s attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation. 
 
 
 
 While I’m on the subject of the speech, Mark Steyn hilariously suggested that its empty rhetorical flourishes were a bit like the lyrics to Sinatra’s swaggering “That’s Life.” The difference, though, is you could buy the swagger from Sinatra. With this president, it comes across as stale and ultimately empty dramatic license. 01/28 10:06 AM Share 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved. 
 
 
 
 Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy ||||| In this Monday, June 25, 2018 photo, people gather at the Supreme Court awaiting a decision in an Illinois union dues case, Janus vs. AFSCME, in Washington. The Supreme Court says government workers... (Associated Press) 
 
 In this Monday, June 25, 2018 photo, people gather at the Supreme Court awaiting a decision in an Illinois union dues case, Janus vs. AFSCME, in Washington. The Supreme Court says government workers... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government workers can't be forced to contribute to labor unions that represent them in collective bargaining, dealing a serious financial blow to organized labor. 
 
 The justices are scrapping a 41-year-old decision that had allowed states to require that public employees pay some fees to unions that represent them, even if the workers choose not to join. 
 
 The 5-4 decision fulfills a longtime wish of conservatives to get rid of the so-called fair share fees that non-members pay to unions in roughly two dozen states. The court ruled that the laws violate the First Amendment by compelling workers to support unions they may disagree with. 
 
 "States and public-sector unions may no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees," Justice Samuel Alito said in his majority opinion for the court's five conservative justices. 
 
 President Donald Trump weighed in minutes after the decision was handed down, while Alito still was reading a summary of it from the bench. 
 
 "Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!" Trump said in a tweet. 
 
 In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote of the big impact of the decision. "There is no sugarcoating today's opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation's law - and its economic life - for over 40 years. As a result, it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance. And it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy." 
 
 The court's three other liberal justices joined the dissent. 
 
 The court split 4-4 the last time it considered the issue in 2016 following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Organized labor is a big supporter of Democratic candidates and interests. Last year, unions strongly opposed Justice Neil Gorsuch's nomination by Trump. Gorsuch was in the majority on Wednesday. 
 
 The unions say the outcome could affect more than 5 million government workers in about two dozen states and the District of Columbia. 
 
 The case involving Illinois state government worker Mark Janus is similar to the one the justices took up in 2016. At that time, the court appeared to be ready to overrule a 1997 high court decision that serves as the legal foundation for the fair share fees. But Scalia's death left the court tied, and a lower court ruling in favor of the fees remained in place. 
 
 The unions argued that so-called fair share fees pay for collective bargaining and other work the union does on behalf of all employees, not just its members. More than half the states already have right-to-work laws banning mandatory fees, but most members of public-employee unions are concentrated in states that don't, including California, New York, and Illinois. 
 
 Labor leaders fear that not only will workers who don't belong to a union stop paying fees, but that some union members might decide to stop paying dues if they could in essence get the union's representation for free. 
 
 A recent study by Frank Manzo of the Illinois Public Policy Institute and Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign estimated that public-sector unions could lose more than 700,000 members over time as a result of the ruling and that unions also could suffer a loss of political influence that could depress wages as well. ||||| Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court was the scene of an unusual disturbance during its public session on Wednesday, when a man interrupted an oral argument. 
 
 The incident occurred near the end of debate between the nine justices on the bench and counsel, in a case over attorney fees in patent disputes. 
 
 A man in a suit and dark tie rose from near the back of the marbled courtroom, and began loudly talking. 
 
 Witnesses said he spoke about the need to keep campaign finance reform laws in place to regulate election spending and contributions. 
 
 "Money is not speech," he reportedly said. "Overturn 'Citizens United!'" referring to a 2010 high court decision loosening a century of federal restrictions on corporate spending by "independent" groups like businesses and unions. 
 
 He was only able say a few words before police escorted him from the courtroom, and did not resist. 
 
 Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg identified the man as Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles. 
 
 Newkirk has been charged with violating federal law that makes it a crime to "harangue" or utter "loud threatening or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building." 
 
 The justices ignored the incident. 
 
 The court's official written transcript of the argument made no mention of the remarks. 
 
 Such outbursts are rare. 
 
 Court officials say the last time it happened was eight years ago, during an oral argument over a federal law restricting a certain type of later-term abortion procedure. 
 
 A similar interruption occurred about two decades ago. 
 
 The courtroom has about 330 seats available to the public. Court security instructs spectators before each public session to remain seated, not to speak, or demonstrate. 
 
 Signs also are not allowed, nor are any electronics or cameras. 
 
 Protester loses appeal in military protest case
– Justice Samuel Alito's critical reaction during last night's State of the Union speech is still making waves: Shannen Coffin, National Review: "That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable. ... In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling" and showed an "utter lack of tact." Glenn Greenwald, Salon: The judge made "a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the court. It has nothing to do with etiquette. ... (The court) must remain apolitical, separate, and detached from partisan wars." Sarah Palin, Fox News: Obama is "embarrassing our Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers. ... I think that this is going to be a huge take-away moment." Doug Kendall, Huffington Post: If Alito feels this way, he should have written a concurring opinion and explained how the ruling "doesn't change course on over a century of campaign finance law ... and showed us that the court's formalistic approach to the First Amendment and corporations won't lead to foreign corporate spending in US elections. But muttering at the State of the Union clarifies nothing."