Leahy Slams Alito For 'Under Oath' Testimony To Committee (VIDEO)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lashed into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday morning on the Senate floor, calling out the swing vote who overturned a hundred years of precedent to legalize deep corporate involvement in elections.

Leahy said that, in 36 years in the Senate he had never come to the floor to criticize a court decision, but was moved to do so by the activist nature of last week's 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case.

He personally attacked Alito, noting that his confirmation testimony was under oath, yet was proven false by his brazen and radical dismissal of a century of precedent.

"In his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito -- and I might say, under oath -- testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly, but it has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress," Leahy recalled Alito apparently lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That was then -- when he was seeking confirmation. This is now."

Leahy said that he was speaking on the floor as chair of that committee and there are few historical precedents for such a direct rebuke of the court. "The conservative activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections," said Leahy. "It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."

The party-line decision was the "most partisan" since Bush v. Gore, Leahy said, but it was more damaging because it was an interference by the court in every election, rather than just one.

WATCH:

Comments

[retromega]

11:07 PM on 02/01/2010

I would think that the chairman might want to call the esteemed jurist [sic] back into session with the committee so that he may explain both his answers to the committee's questions and his answers under oath. It may also be a good time to review Judge Alito's financial dealings with the parties to his decisions!

[Ifticar2]

05:00 AM on 01/31/2010

Obama was rude to the SCOTUS. Not a good idea. One of these days the same SCOTUS may be deciding an Obama Birther case.

[roncraw]

11:01 AM on 01/31/2010

Please stay away from the smokes.

[Ifticar2]

02:35 PM on 01/31/2010

Personal attack. You lose.

[lthuedk 1]

11:56 PM on 01/30/2010

I'm curious about Senator Leahy's take on the current exoneration of war criminals and the non-appointment of a Special Prosecutor to handle the torture crimes, including those publically admitted to by Cheney.

[Kassandra]

09:29 PM on 01/30/2010

Inverted totalitarianism: what we’re up against
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/27230

Truth seekers unite!

[ipastor01]

07:05 PM on 01/30/2010

Unbelievable. In this day and age, two hundred thirty some years after the formation of the USA, a US Senator must make the argument, on the Senate floor, that corporations are NOT American People.

[NeoLiberal]

04:37 PM on 01/30/2010

Has the Justice violated his oath and made himself subject to removal from his post, under the terms set forth in our Constitution?

Should he go the way of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804? Impeachment?

Anyone, anyone. What's your take?

[Kassandra]

09:33 PM on 01/30/2010

Both he AND Roberts. Just because Roberts didn't SAY anything at SOTU doesn't mean he didn't lie under oath. I clearly remember his pledge to uphold stare decisis ( settled law).
Bush was an illegitimate president anyway. His whole government should be invalidate, every law and every appointment. Instead, most of Obama's administration is still filled with Bush moles. It's like he's just a place holder for the next, worse, Republican tool
But this is just more smoke and mirrors, like when they were pretending they weren't going to confirm Bernanke. Don't get your hopes up from THIS bunch...too heartbreaking

[capitalismisevil]

10:38 PM on 01/30/2010

So at no point should a long standing precedent be overturned?

[capitalismisevil]

10:38 PM on 01/30/2010

How did he violate his oath? None of the Justices did. Period.

[vandegrasse]

03:27 PM on 01/30/2010

This is the final tear in the fabric of our Democracy! What's up with these f a s c ist Italians like Scalia and Alito?

[shella2177]

04:25 PM on 01/30/2010

Ahh, free speech? A tear?
Bossie said Ted Olson was 'singularly responsible for our winning this case.' Olson transformed the case from a narrow one about McCain-Feingold to an assault on the law's constitutionality, helping crystallize the issue for the justices. When the Supreme Court first heard the case in March, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart, representing the FEC --" this is Obama's lawyer "-- was pulled into a discussion of an issue that took him down a slippery slope: If the movie were a book, would the government ban publishing the book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election timeframe?" And this guy representing the FEC said, yes, the government would ban the book, and the justices shot up, stood up and said what the hell are you talking about. 'That's pretty incredible,' Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said. Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle. 'If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked. 'That's correct,' Stewart replied. 'It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?' Roberts asked."

[capitalismisevil]

10:54 PM on 01/30/2010

Do not forget the ACLU, the ACLU submitted an amicus brief supporting Citizens in this case.

Go look up amicus brief and come back to discuss further.

[vandegrasse]

03:25 PM on 01/30/2010

I used to remember when conservatives were concerned about individual rights and quite suspect of corporations especially foreign corporations having any control or say-so in our electoral process. What happened to the good old-fahsioned Barry Goldwater conservative who had some degree or patriotism and sense of the Constitution in his bones?

[shella2177]

04:22 PM on 01/30/2010

In his majority opinion in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically wrote that the opinion did not address the question of foreign companies. “We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,” he wrote. The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates. Some analysts or observers have warned that the principle could open the door to foreign corporations as well. President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections. But he’s too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which already prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies.

[reasonshouldrule]

11:34 PM on 01/30/2010

It isn't as simple as you have said. Many corporations that originated in another country have re-incorporated in the U.S. In that case, the question becomes whether or not they are American or foreign. What constitutes "foreign" these days is often complex, and some attorneys will tell you there are loopholes everywhere.

[vandegrasse]

03:22 PM on 01/30/2010

Impeach the S O B. That's what they did to Clinton for allegedly lying!

[capitalismisevil]

10:42 PM on 01/30/2010

Um, no allegedly about it. He as disbarred for it as well as being impeached.

[reasonshouldrule]

11:29 PM on 01/30/2010

Clinton was impeached but not convicted, that is, removed from office because the impeachment didn't have enough votes. Clinton was NOT disbarred.

[MESGAIN26]

03:00 PM on 01/30/2010

corporate whores all of them damn them

[MESGAIN26]

02:52 PM on 01/30/2010

move your money get rid of your credit cards , first they out source our infinstructure then our port then our jobs , now our votes ,all for greed

[jazzman]

11:00 AM on 01/30/2010

Corporations are an association of people but on the investor end those people are changing daily and have no consistent voice. A pension fund that owns stock in a company today can sell it tomorrow and not be in the association so in such a changing market place how can those associations speak. Inside the company the association of people are a bunch of employees under the thumb of a dictatorial management then can write up an employee and have them out the door if they don't do what management wants when management wants it.

This whole notion of a corporation being a person is total nonsense and was only done to allow corporate executives to go beyond their individual contribution and send millions of dollars to the candidate they want to see win.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is not just partisan but dangerous.

[CanadianBeef]

11:25 AM on 01/30/2010

Exactly.
Now that the Court has affirmed that corporate "free speech" has no limits, I'm free to call my boss an a$$-h0le to his face, right? Ah, but it turns out the First Amendment does not bind corporations to respect MY free speech, according to Lewis Maltby, author of Can They Do That?

"Lynn Gobbell was fired because her boss didn’t like the bumper sticker on her car. During the 2004 presidential election, Gobbell put a “Kerry for President” sticker on her bumper. When her boss saw it, he ordered her to the sticker off. When she refused, he fired her.
Most people think that what happened to Gobbell was illegal, but they’re wrong. What her boss did was wrong, but it wasn’t illegal.
What about the Constitution? Doesn’t the First Amendment protect our right to freedom of speech? The answer is yes, but only where the government is concerned. Unlike millions of people in other countries, Americans can openly criticize the government or advocate for positions that are controversial or even offensive without fear of retribution.
But the first amendment applies only to the government. A private corporation, no matter how large or powerful, can legally ignore the first amendment. Too many employees have learned this the hard way, when their boss fires them for something they say on their personal blog or MySpace page."

Ah, free speech: absolute for corporations, relative for their employees. Where is Alito on this kind of censorship?

[capitalismisevil]

10:45 PM on 01/30/2010

That is absolutely correct. And free speech is not absolute for corporations either. Slander and libel are not protected speech for an individual or a corp.

[Jason Quackenbush]

09:45 PM on 02/06/2010

that sounds like a really good law suit. it may not be unconstitutional, but most states have laws against employers dismissing even at will employees for such reasons.

[MESGAIN26]

02:55 PM on 01/30/2010

its unconstitutional this country is for and by he people , not coporations

[Bude]

10:59 AM on 01/30/2010

Have the AG prosecute him for perjury!

[vandegrasse]

03:21 PM on 01/30/2010

They're too busy chasing phantom terrorists while ignoring the domestic threat we have at home.

[capitalismisevil]

10:50 PM on 01/30/2010

I thought perjury was not a big deal, at least not one to reach the level to remove from office?

[Paulo1]

09:52 AM on 01/30/2010

As much as I loath the actions of the SCOTUS and I applaud Senator Leahy for taking to the floor to denounce the reasoning, impact and even sanity of the ruling. He is in error on a major detail.

I watch Confirmation hearings. Its me and CSPAN and rather geeky of me but I do. Alito, like all the other Justices went in and did the usual song and dance. He absolutely refused to give anything but the most general answers to questions. Which is rather appropriate considering his job is to protect the image that he is neutral and does not prejudge cases. Leahy makes the mistake of taking the answers and spinning them through what he wanted to hear rather than what was actually said. A common mistake especially when you are hoping you are not sending a right wing troglodyte to a lifetime appointment to oversee our rights and liberties.

That said I am sending the Devil a check for the extra heating bills when Alito gets there some day.

[capitalismisevil]

10:47 PM on 01/30/2010

Did he refuse to answer questions like Ginsburg did? Only I remember watching too, and SHOCKINGLY, Biden defended Justice Ginsburg's right to refuse to answer any question, and even more SHOCKINGLY, Biden did not do the same defense for Justices Alito and Roberts.

So a lifetime appointment for a left wing Justice is ok?

[capitalismisevil]

10:52 PM on 01/30/2010

I am a geek too, I enjoy watching the confirmation hearings.

[capitalismisevil]

07:27 AM on 01/30/2010

Of course leahy has no credibility when discussing people lying under oath:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/199902/990211.html

[Mum]

08:02 AM on 01/30/2010

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that Senator Leahy lied under oath? Or are you trying to beat the dead horse that is the Clinton impeachment?

My guess is the latter, and that really has nothing to do with the subject at hand, does it?

[capitalismisevil]

09:15 AM on 01/30/2010

Yes, lying under oath is only ok when it is a dem, silly me.

And the Justices did not lie under oath.

[reasonshouldrule]

12:06 AM on 01/31/2010

Why not? I thought your reference reading here was interesting and Leahy compelling. You have a lot of intelligent posts on this site, but you appear to have a blind spot when it comes to Clinton.