Impact of the First Obama State of the Union

[TinCow]

I'm saying doing it during the SOTU address was not classy, not that SCOTUS should be above criticism.

Obama heaped a lot more criticism on Congress during that speech than he did on SCOTUS. Was that wrong too?

SCOTUS...SOTU...POTUS... What is with the recent assault of new acronyms? Like the government doesn't have enough already.

SCOTUS and POTUS are both standard abbreviations in government and legal areas, they're not new. I will admit I'd never seen SOTU until now though.

[Gregoshi]

I figured that might be the case TinCow, but their use here at the Org is recent and growing. I blame Kukri - at least he's was the first use of POTUS several months ago (that I can remember).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama heaped a lot more criticism on Congress during that speech than he did on SCOTUS. Was that wrong too?

No.

SCOTUS and POTUS are both standard abbreviations in government and legal areas, they're not new. I will admit I'd never seen SOTU until now though.

The POTUS PO'D SCOTUS in the SOTU.

CR

[TinCow]

No.

Then please then explain why the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch should be treated differently when it comes to criticism.

[Crazed Rabbit]

He criticized guests of Congress, lied about what law was overturned (didn't he teach about the constitution at one time?), and brought up the old DC specter of 'special interests'. And who can expect Congress to be accountable when there's "special interests" around? Anyway, the judges were guests and he called them out - incorrectly - to stoke his populist appeal.

Like I said, I didn't think it was classy.

CR

[TinCow]

lied about what law was overturned (didn't he teach about the constitution at one time?)

I'm guessing you got this from a sound bite or something? It appears that a lot of people like to comment on these things without actually reading them. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Obama's statement comes directly from Justice Steven's dissent:

The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

(p. 89-90)

So... does that mean Stevens and his fellow dissenters are lying too? Perhaps it would be better to characterize the situation as it actually is... a difference of opinion.

If you want more background on the law, Stevens kindly includes 8 pages of discussion on the legislative history of campaign contribution restrictions since 1907. You can find it on pages 129 through 137.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm guessing you got this from a sound bite or something? It appears that a lot of people like to comment on these things without actually reading them. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Obama's statement comes directly from Justice Steven's dissent:

No, I got it from the NYT article I posted in this thread earlier.

So... does that mean Stevens and his fellow dissenters are lying too? Perhaps it would be better to characterize the situation as it actually is... a difference of opinion.

Stevens wrote that a century of history was rejected, while Obama said a century of law. And I would say that Stevens is wrong about the constitution in his decision anyways.

CR

[TinCow]

Stevens wrote that a century of history was rejected, while Obama said a century of law.

Last I checked, acts of Congress and SCOTUS decisions both qualified as law.