Last night, after I got home, I watched the clip of the President Obama using the bully pulpit of the State of the Union Speech to criticize and browbeat the Supreme Court for its ruling last week, and like most people not feverish with partisan frenzy and Keith Olberdrama/Howard Fineman hyperboles and falsehoods screaming in my head about the OUTRAGE!!!11!!1 that the SCOTUS would actually decide that the First Amendment actually means what it says, I was stricken by the brazenness of the action.
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. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.
My initial reaction was one of snark; The “Constitutional Scholar” threatens to again have Congress pass a law that is unconstitutional, so he can show the SCOTUS who is boss.
However, upon reflection, I realize that it was also wrong for other reasons.
To start with, the members of the Court were present as a co-equal branch of government. Their presence signified a respect for their peers in the other two branches of government, and a respect for the traditions of the Office of the President. Unlike the opposition party in Congress, they were not afforded time to respond to the uncouth and undignified attack upon their decision, nor would it be in keeping with the nature of the work that they have been appointed to do. Their role is to apply the law to facts presented and decide what the proper outcome is. While it would be impossible for them to be with a generic political leaning, there is good reason why they limit their role to the matters presented to them, that being the fact that they are appointed, not elected, for lifetime tenure. For them to opine into any open microphone on the various matters of the day, whether those matters were before the Court or not, would damage the dignity of the work that they do, and forever damage the sense of integrity that is vital to maintaining the perception of impartiality and the rule of law. President Obama, as an attorney, is fully aware of this, and still decided to insult his guests in front of the country, knowing full well that their professionalism would prevent them from making anything other than the tamest of responses. It is the mark of a bully at best, and an extremely immature personality at worst. But that is not the end.
President Obama is also an honorary member of the Illinois State Bar Association.
As a member, he is subject to the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules exist because the practice of law is a profession, and as such has a sacred trust, as recognized in the preamble to these rules:
The practice of law is a public trust. Lawyers are the trustees of the system by which citizens resolve disputes among themselves, punish and deter crime, and determine their relative rights and responsibilities toward each other and their government. Lawyers therefore are responsible for the character, competence and integrity of the persons whom they assist in joining their profession; for assuring access to that system through the availability of competent legal counsel; for maintaining public confidence in the system of justice by acting competently and with loyalty to the best interests of their clients; by working to improve that system to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing society; and by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it.
Why is this important? Because of IRPC 8.2, which states:
Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicative officer, public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. [Emp. Mine]
(b) A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall refrain from conduct which, if the lawyer were a judge, would be a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
These rules do not have a commentary to aid in the interpretation of them, but they happen to mirror the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which do. The Commentary states:
[1] Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. [Emp. Mine]
[2] When a lawyer seeks judicial office, the lawyer should be bound by applicable limitations on political activity.
[3] To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.[Emp. Mine]
Why does this matter? Because what the President said was not true, and all he needed to do to know it was read the the Supreme Court Decision, and look up a section of the United States Code for himself, or have a staffer do it.
The Lies: “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.”
The Truth: The law at stake was 2 U.S.C. Section 441(b). I won’t bore you with the details, if you want to know more, I suggest you click on the link and then read the decision. However, the decision correctly pointed out that another subsection of the applicable chapter already addresses expenditures by foreign nationals in our campaigns.
“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. Cf. 2 U.S.C. section 441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]“).”
-Page 46-47 of the decision.
2 U.S.C. section 441e states:
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for – (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make – (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (b) “Foreign national” defined As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means – (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8
(b) The term “foreign principal” includes -
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
He’s an arrogant, fragile little man. He was slapping at people he knew won’t slap back. He did the same thing with ‘Wall Street’ after Brown was elected because he has to show that he’s the President.
Obama’s comments were purposely false. He’s had all the education necessary to become a lawyer. A constitutional lawyer, no less, and knows full well what sort of minutiae goes into lawyering. The glaring oddities you point out suggest he’s perfectly useless as any sort of lawyer.
I despised him a little bit for being a feckless nit-wit, but I despise him a lot for being a duplicitous, self-serving bully.
But, but, but, but he doesn’t write his own speeches!
“Yeah, I know. I’m not holding my breath either.”
Sheesh I hope not.
Can we get him banned as a “Community Organizer” too?
“…by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it.”
Pardon me, but I really have to laugh. Isn’t everything about the law done for the purpose of winning by whatever means possible, without any regard for the truth? Where is there any integrity in that? It is the same old trial by battle, except that our gladiators don’t die, but rather they pocket large sums of money instead.
Back to The Won. He is a pathological liar, one for whom lying comes far more naturally than telling the truth. He can say with great sincerity whatever is convenient at the moment, without actual sincerity at all. He is a total fraud as a person.
Pardon me, but I really have to laugh. Isn’t everything about the law done for the purpose of winning by whatever means possible, without any regard for the truth?
No, it isn’t, at least when you are dealing with honest practioners. The courts exist to provide a stability and predictabilty of result for commerce, and to provide a forum for the resolution of conflict for individuals that does not involve bloodshed. While there are some attorneys who make victory at all costs a goal, in my experience, they are the exception and not the rule, and since attorneys, like everyone else, get reputations over time in their respective communities, judges soon learn who these people are, and act accordingly when they are dealing with them.
Almost every judge I have encountered in 16 years of practice or other legal work and schooling has displayed a high level of professional integrity in the way they conduct the business of the Court, and they demand a level of integrity from the members of the bar that practice before them as well.
It is the same old trial by battle, except that our gladiators don’t die, but rather they pocket large sums of money instead.
Actually, real trial work requires much more mental preparation and rhetorical skill that combat, and when practiced by experienced attorneys, resembles chess much more than checkers. However, many attorneys rarely, if ever go to Court. Instead, much of their professional career is spent advising people and entities how to conduct their affairs to avoid court or reduce their chances of being summoned there. As for the cost, we don’t sell hamburgers. We sell our time, and the training and experience we have will affect the amount you pay us for our time. And many of us also donate a portion of our time (and experience and training) to assist individuals and causes of our choosing, and while many of my collegues would like to spend even more time annually on the pro bono cases of our choosing, it is a business, and we have our own bills to pay maintaining and upgrading our training and licensing.
As for Teh Won™, I think he has been telling lies so long that he has started to believe them.
Obama, just as those who support him, is a fucking idiot, wannabe dictator. Fuck him, them, and all the horses they rode in on.
In the TV version of “The Paper Chase”, professor Kingsfield says:
There are times, BiW that for all your training and practice, I see “mush”.
Obama’s statement was sweeping in scope and therefore exaggeration but by no means a lie. The instance that is cited repeatedly is that of CITGO, an American company that is a subsidiary of a Venezuelan company. The Court’s decision allows CITGO to spend its discretionary funds to produce films, commercials and other free expressions of speech regarding a political candidate. Why is it a stretch to say that Venezuela now has the opportunity to interject its opinion and money into our political system? And does this not go for every other American company with foreign shareholders?
Again, Obama’s statement was too broad but it was no lie.
As to your other point, Rule 8.2 as you’ve quoted it, speaks to besmirching a judge’s qualifications. Obama did no such thing. He didn’t say “Roberts and Alito should not be on the bench”.
The only thing I will agree with from your post is the “bullying” part. I do agree, that Obama, knowing that decorum dictates no reaction from the Court, basically punched them with their hands tied behind their back.
And, let me repeat, when all things are considered, I AGREE with the Court’s opinion on this.
Obama’s statement was sweeping in scope and therefore exaggeration but by no means a lie.
Yes it was a lie…two actually. Let’s dispense with the easy one first, shall we?
“Overturned a century of law”
It did no such thing. As I stated above, the only case overturned was the Austin which was decided in 1990, which was 20 years ago. The chapter of the US Code ruled unconstitutional, 2 U.S.C. 441(b), was first enacted in 1976.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+11234+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%282%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28441b%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
Both are a far cry from “Over a century”.
2. Now for the part where you might have to think a little bit to understand why the Chicago Messiah lied and was wrong.
a) As I pointed out above, such “gaming” of the system already occurred with “527″ groups like the ones funded by George Soros, who is not a citizen. The Court was also aware of this when they authored the decision, both in the syllabus:
“As already explained, Austin was not well reasoned. It is also undermined by experience since its an-nouncement. Political speech is so ingrained in this country’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.”-pg 6
and more in-depth in the body of the decision itself:
“We need not reach the question whether the Govern-
ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantly by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreigninfluence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413
U. S., at 615.”
I highlighted that second part because if you agree that the Court did decide the case correctly, as you claim, then you must understand that the arguement you try to make, the same one as the Chicago Messiah, simply doesn’t work. The Court has the authority to overturn a law on the basis that it is overbroad, or that it doesn’t just prohibit conduct that might be constitutionally prohibited, but that it also prohibits conduct that is constitutionally protected. Contrary to what silly liberals, especially ones who believe wise latina women can make better decisions than old white dudes, it is not for the Court to write or fix legislation, and in the case of overbroad laws, their role is to overturn them.
Now for the part that addresses your CITGO strawman:
2 U.S.C. 441(e) states:
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
For CITGO’s Venezualian masters to pour billions “to produce films, commercials and other free expressions of speech regarding a political candidate.” they would have to show how such spending did not originate from foreign hands. I realize that you probably have never seen a corporate tax return, especially one for a Foreign-owned US subsidiary, so I’ll make this easy for you: The IRS monitors the flow of money into the country in these corporations as well as the flow out. If these indirect contributions were being made, the Treasury Department would know, and would alert the FEC.
However, if that particular canard smasher isn’t enough for you, there is also 2 U.S.C. 441(f), which states:
No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.
As corporations and other business entities have been conferred personhood for legal purposes, this means that CITGO cannot make such expenditures of money funneled from its foreign parent without violating both sections.
Strawman. And either the Chicago Messiah knew it or should have known it.