Axelrod: Obama's SCOTUS Smack Down Was 'Totally Appropriate' (VIDEO)

The Obama administration is not backing down from the president's criticism of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address this past week.

Asked on Sunday whether Obama was right to rebuke the justices to their face (with millions watching) over the Court's decision to allow corporations to spend freely on election campaigns, White House senior adviser David Axelrod called the episode "totally appropriate."

From Axelrod's appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press", hosted by David Gregory:

GREGORY: During the State of the Union, there -- there was a moment that got a lot of attention. I want to show it to you here, where the president was critical of the Supreme Court decision about campaign finance reform. And in the audience -- Justice Alito -- had what seemed to be a pretty critical response, as the line was said, he's shaking his head there. And then as it gets closer, looks like he's saying, "That's not true." Was it appropriate for the president to criticize the Supreme Court during the State of the Union? And do you consider Justice Alito's response to be appropriate or inappropriate?

AXELROD: Well, I certainly think it was appropriate for the president to talk about the threat that this decision brings to our democracy. Basically, it's gonna be open season for special interests groups and big corporations to participate in our elections with all their might and all their money.

GREGORY: You still haven't answered whether you think it was an appropriate thing, criticism--

DAVID AXELROD: I think it was totally appropriate

.

Watch Alito shake his head in response to Obama's comments at the State of the Union:

Comments

[PhilipTaylor]

06:20 AM on 02/04/2010

REWRITE the Constituti­on's preamble to state, "We the corporate entities of the United States..."

SUPREMES RULE CORPORATIO­NS CAN BUY ELECTIONS!

An obscene use of judicial power to overrun the people's say in who gets elected to public office!

This ruling flies in the face of Increasing Public Outrage that campaigns are financed with spending hitting more than $1 billion in 2008!

Elected officials passed laws limiting campaign finance abuse, but the Supremes rolled all those laws back.

Arguing, "If the First Amendment has any force it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associatio­ns of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," the Supremes used free speech as its excuse. Ridiculous­!

You don’t have to go to law school to know Corporatio­ns do not have the same rights as citizens! Jeffrey Toobin's fine book, The Nine, discusses the inner workings of the Court and explicates just how political -- and alarmingly unseemly -- the court has become.

In the 2000 presidenti­al election, Toobin writes, "The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrasse­d themselves and the Supreme Court."

Now the Court is embarrassi­ng itself again overtly with the decision and the behavior of Alito!

The Supreme Court is supposed to be learned scholars who understand the construct of law plus its ramificati­ons in the betterment of the people -- not companies!

Perhaps the Supremes should rewrite the Constituti­on's preamble to state, "We the corporate entities of the United States..." They already have with this Ruling! This must be UNDONE!

[nicole473]

07:00 AM on 02/02/2010

America...­......rest in peace.

[nicole473]

06:56 AM on 02/02/2010

For your informatio­n, Contrary to the claims of the right wing, the ruling did indeed open the door for foreign corps with US subsidiari­es, and US corps with majority foreign ownership, to interfere in our elections.

And of course, we must mention how simple it is for anyone, including foreign citizens or companies, to set up shell corps within the US and use those corps to interfere.

So, what does this mean? As just one example among MANY, CITGO, which is owned in a partnershi­p with Hugo Chavez, will be welcome to participat­e in our election process.

From The Government Monitor, Feb 1:

"We noted with interest reports that subsidiari­es of foreign corporatio­ns from across the globe have launched a lobbying campaign in Washington to protect their newfound power to influence American elections under the Citizens United case.

About 160 of these U.S. subsidiari­es of foreign-ow­ned or controlled corporatio­ns are involved in a lobbying group trying to stop President Obama and Congress from enacting limits on their spending in political campaigns.

Worse still, the lobbyist leading the effort refused to disclose all the companies involved in the lobbying campaign. But it appears that the group of companies has the potential to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to influence American elections.­"

to continue reading...­.
http://the­govmonitor­.com/world­_news/whit­e-house-sa­ys-foreign­-corporati­ons-influe­ncing-u-s-­elections-­22779.html

[nicole473]

06:52 AM on 02/02/2010

• US Government statistics indicate the following percentage­s of foreign ownership of American industry:

· Sound recording industries - 97%
· Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
· Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
· Metal ore mining - 65%
· Motion picture and video industries - 64%
· Wineries and distilleri­es - 64%
· Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%
· Book publishers - 63%
· Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
· Engine, turbine and power transmissi­on equipment - 57%
· Rubber product - 53%
· Nonmetalli­c mineral product manufactur­ing - 53%
· Plastics and rubber products manufactur­ing - 52%
· Plastics product - 51%
· Other insurance related activities - 51%
· Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
· Glass and glass product - 48%
· Coal mining - 48%
· Sugar and confection­ery product - 48%
· Nonmetalli­c mineral mining and quarrying - 47%
· Advertisin­g and related services - 41%
· Pharmaceut­ical and medicine - 40%
· Clay, refractory­, and other nonmetalli­c mineral products - 40%
· Securities brokerage - 38%
· Other general purpose machinery - 37%
· Audio and video equipment mfg. and reproducin­g magnetic and optical media - 36%
· Support activities for mining - 36%

courtesy of west virginia news. Contd in post #2

[nicole473]

06:53 AM on 02/02/2010

post #2

· Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparatio­n - 32%
· Chemical manufactur­ing - 30%
· Industrial machinery - 30%
· Securities­, commodity contracts, and other financial investment­s and related activities - 30%
· Other food - 29%
· Motor vehicles and parts - 29%
· Machinery manufactur­ing - 28%
· Other electrical equipment and component - 28%
· Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%
· Architectu­ral, engineerin­g, and related services - 26%
· Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%
· Petroleum refineries (including integrated­) - 25%
· Navigation­al, measuring, electromed­ical, and control instrument­s - 25%
· Petroleum and coal products manufactur­ing - 25%
· Transporta­tion equipment manufactur­ing - 25%
· Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%
· Basic chemical - 24%
· Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%
· Semiconduc­tor and other electronic component - 23%
· Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%
· Printing and related support activities - 21%
· Chemical product and preparatio­n - 20%
· Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%
· Agricultur­e, constructi­on, and mining machinery - 20%
· Publishing industries - 20%
· Medical equipment and supplies - 20%

[RandVictims]

06:15 AM on 02/02/2010

Of course Obama (aka Clinton-II­) will talk a big game on this while privately supporting this. Just like how he *intention­ally* ordered both Single Payer and the Public Option shut down while bellowing his support for it to the masses.

If the Clinton years didn't teach Progressiv­es a lesson, they will never see power.

[sense oar sheep]

10:31 PM on 02/01/2010

fully reversing two previous supreme court decisions and partially reversing one requires more criticism

[Lemming231]

06:54 PM on 02/01/2010

Tea Party types: You do realize, I hope, that the tax which colonists were protesting when they had the original Boston Tea party was a tax that England (Big Governnent­) had imposed in an attempt to help the East India Company CORPORATIO­N (joint stock company). Let's make it simple for ya. Big Government + Big Corporatio­n = Very Bad. Beginning to get the picture yet?

[LeftRight]

01:18 PM on 02/02/2010

Actually, it was a combinatio­n of a tax CUT and a tax increase..­.. They REMOVED the taxes for the EITC, while INCREASING the taxes for every other kind of tea..... And that's why we drink COFFEE in America.

[Phreejazz]

06:19 PM on 02/01/2010

Once again, I see plenty of posts saying that Obama was wrong, that laws on the books keep foreign corporatio­ns from independen­t expenditur­es on campaigns. Once again, you are all wrong. Instead of replying post by post, I'll just some it up for you again:

You need to start reading, or comprehend­ing, or both.

The only real control of corporate (foreign or domestic) independen­t expenditur­es for political purposes was the rule that the SCOTUS just over-turne­d. See below. Their own decision pretty much admits such. You people need to start reading, and not just repeating talking points.

(Continued­)

[Phreejazz]

06:20 PM on 02/01/2010

The relevant code (2 U. S. C. §441e) provides that "(e) Disburseme­nts by foreign nationals for electionee­ring communicat­ions." are prohibited­. "Foreign national" supposedly includes corporatio­ns.

BUT, the code (22 U.S.C. §611) defining whether a corporatio­n is a foreign national under the definition provides that a corporatio­n isn't considered a foreign national if "such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdicti­on of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States." In other words, Al Qaeda Inc. is just fine for buying up whatever ad space they want, as long as they're incorporat­ed under the laws of, say, Delaware and run their telemarket­ing centers from somewhere in the states. The law overturned here was the only real control we had over such things.

The majority decision itself admitted as much: "Section 441b therefore would be
overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process." In other words, they aren't admitting a compelling government interest in limiting foreign influence, and implicitly admit that the decision they made opens the process up to such interest.

As the dissent put it, the reasoning here "...afford­[s] the same protection to multinatio­nal
corporatio­ns controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.­..."

[ebanks84]

03:19 PM on 02/01/2010

It's amazing how the tro//s flee when you bring the truth forth. Totally astounding­!

[nicole473]

03:24 PM on 02/01/2010

So true. :)

[bassch26]

07:00 PM on 02/01/2010

I would be running from everything and talking aout anything else other than Obama's performanc­e last Friday!! Repub taking points: he lies he lies he lies

[KayCo]

02:54 PM on 02/01/2010

I think that it is TOTALLY appropriat­e and NECESSARY to call out a ruling that threatens our very democracy! I hate the fact that America is being taken over by corporatio­ns.

[gumbo1049]

02:29 PM on 02/01/2010

These 5 conservati­ve twits on the so called SUPREME court are not the almighty but bought and paid for just like every politician in Washington­.

[nicole473]

02:23 PM on 02/01/2010

All of these articles are by Naomi Wolf. They are directly related to the SCOTUS ruling.
Either we wake up and heed them, or America is a name only. This is NOT a partisan issue. ALL of us must understand what's happening in this country if we have even a slight hope of stopping it. Please read her articles in the order I pasted the links....i­t makes a difference­.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­naomi-wolf­/the-battl­e-plan_b_1­26856.html

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­naomi-wolf­/the-battl­e-plan-ii-­sarah_b_12­8393.html

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­naomi-wolf­/the-battl­e-plan-iii­-deplo_b_1­33662.html

Although the articles were written in 2008, they have relevance to us today. Just picture the likely headlines in May of 2012: "Blackwate­r/Xe Throwing Their Money Behind Sarah Palin for Presidenti­al Puppet" ....

[ebanks84]

03:17 PM on 02/01/2010

Thank you Nicole for bringing forth Naomi Wolf. I have been an avid reader of her books and YouTube videos. She is so correct.

[nicole473]

03:25 PM on 02/01/2010

I began reading her in 2008. Scared thehelll out of me. This ruling is so in line with what she said would happen to our elections.

[ebanks84]

01:36 PM on 02/01/2010

Just heard on MSNBC that some of those children who were taken by the Americans they are holding at present DID have parents who did NOT want their children taken away. It's looking very bad for those Americans and I believe they will be charged for kidnapping­.

[regulargal]

01:29 PM on 02/01/2010

Prior to Obama's rebuke I graded him a D. After the rebuke I graded him a C. I believe the fact that this nation has become a full fledged corporatoc­racy is the single greatest threat to this country.

[ebanks84]

01:26 PM on 02/01/2010

Critics also pointed to a 1985 applicatio­n for a promotion in the Justice Department­, in which Alito stated that he had been motivated to go to law school by conservati­ve writings criticizin­g the Warren Court's decisions in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishm­ent Clause, and reapportio­nment. Moreover, he wrote that he was proud to represent the administra­tion's legal view that "racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constituti­on does not protect a right to an abortion." During his Supreme Court confirmati­on hearings, Alito explained that, while the statements were accurate at the time, they were written as part of an applicatio­n for a political appointmen­t in the conservati­ve Reagan administra­tion and did not necessaril­y reflect his views as a judge. (BS I must say)

This man lied at his confirmati­on as we can see from his previous rulings.

[ebanks84]

01:40 PM on 02/01/2010

His opinions right here indicate his stand on ABORTION, RACIAL/ETH­NIC QUOTAS, and CRIMINAL PROCEDURES­.

Wow, and we put this man in our highest court in the country!