iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Harry Reid Slams Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy For Campaign Finance Decision

Justices

First Posted: 05/10/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:45 PM ET

The president and his aides aren't the only Democrats throwing unusually sharp and public jabs at the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was "so disappointed" with the Court's swing vote -- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- for enabling the court's rightward, corporatist tilt. As for Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority leader castigated him as being out of touch and completely detached from political reality.

"Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?" he said, referring to the role the chief justice played in crafting the court's Citizens United decision.

Insisting that the court was engaged in "activism" for allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on congressional campaigns, the Nevada Democrat insisted that the time had come to stop appointing judges to the bench.

"I think we've had enough of them," he said. "I think what we need are people on that bench who have been legislators, people who are lawyers, people who are academics. You look at our Supreme Court and all these people, all they know is working with people in black robes. We have got to change that."

Reid named names.

"I'll give you an example," he said. "Sandra Day O'Connor. She was a legislator. She was elected to the legislature in Arizona. She would never have let that case go forward. She would not have. She understood how hard it is to run for public office."

On the verge of further ripping "those characters" on the court, Reid paused. "I guess that's enough of that," he said, just as he was about to share his opinion of Justice Samuel Alito, another staunch conservative. The crowd of progressive media begged him to keep going. But he thought better of it and moved on.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
The president and his aides aren't the only Democrats throwing unusually sharp and public jabs at the conservative members of the Supreme Court. On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev...
The president and his aides aren't the only Democrats throwing unusually sharp and public jabs at the conservative members of the Supreme Court. On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,508
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
12:23 AM on 03/12/2010
if harry reid doesn't shut up....

he'll be my next president after madam speaker, dennis kucinich, and ron paul
12:25 AM on 03/12/2010
don't know if i trust ron paul so senator reid moves up
06:33 PM on 03/11/2010
Who cares if dingy reid is mad, he's got 8 months and a wake-up
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
llstudent
Tax churches now!
03:04 PM on 03/11/2010
The supreme court aint supreme anymore. After the 2000 election decision I have absolutely no respect or regard for supreme court, they are one big joke.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:39 PM on 03/11/2010
I agree. I used to hold them in high esteem. Now they strike me as just a bunch of cheap politico's and ambulance chasers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DissedBeliever
03:48 PM on 03/11/2010
I love the discussion going on whether the Prop 8 trial will eventually make its way to SCOTUS and, if so, are the judges prepared to *GASP* be out in front of public opinion on marriage equality.

They're certainly eager to ignore public opinion when it suits them---even when that "opinion" comes in the form of actual votes
photo
HowietheScreamer
Yes yes, I know my Micro bio is still empty
03:02 PM on 03/11/2010
The problem is that the Dems, notably Harry "spineless" Reid, failed to adequately oppose blatantly activist judicial candidates like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts. They allowed the Repubes to scare them into aquiescence to obviously hypocritical, "activist" judges.
01:19 PM on 03/11/2010
The question I have is will the United States lead the world in letting immoral Multinational Corporations use their coffers to subvert the will of the People for their own quarterly gain?

Or we will lead in codifying into the Constitution and International Law once and for all that these monstrosities controlled by shadow CEOs for their own personal profit have NONE of the Rights afforded to the People of this Earth?

Corporations are not People. Their speech is not protected en regards to allowing them to make unlimited contributions to Politicians or to produce Political hit jobs.
12:55 PM on 03/11/2010
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing in this text that gives corporations rights. Corporations are things. They are bought and sold as things. They have no constitutional rights.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:24 PM on 03/11/2010
and so are unions....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RogHol
Unemployed&Proud(again)
06:56 PM on 03/11/2010
HA!
"And so are unions" !!
why not add:
"And so are Martians" ?
Makes equal sense...
12:15 PM on 03/11/2010
The most anti-Christian court. - Pro-money lenders, and pro-very rich, yet anti-poor people, anti-sick people, anti-pregnant mothers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:24 PM on 03/11/2010
and they let people kill babies too!!!

the horror!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:57 PM on 03/11/2010
Do you think that if a woman has an abortion she should be prosecuted for murder?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:24 AM on 03/12/2010
There seems to be no limittodumb. A fetus is not a baby, neither is an embryo, nor a blastocele. A baby is that which is capable of living outside the womb. As a grandparent, I certainly appreciate the value of my babies.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
11:53 AM on 03/11/2010
Cheer up there Senator Reid most Americans are ticked at the Supreme Court to does the year 2000 seem familiar?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
smilodon1
11:03 AM on 03/11/2010
Where was this "courage" until now?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:47 AM on 03/11/2010
Reid is right to be outraged at the courts decision ... because it was a bad one ... and a partisan one.

But to say we need people on the bench who have been legislators is ridiculous ... I don't want politicians on the bench ... I want people who are apolitical.

And using Sandra Day O'Connor as an example of a former legislator on the bench does not strengthen his argument ............ is he forgetting Bush v. Gore?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:36 PM on 03/11/2010
based upon what legal argument? or, is that about how you "feel" about the big bad evil corporations and unions out there?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:52 PM on 03/11/2010
Based on the fact that corporations are not persons.
09:59 AM on 03/11/2010
Why not cut the SC's budget?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
09:15 AM on 03/11/2010
The President and Reid need to expose the ultra right Supreme court what it is- This court would do well in a fascist regime. Keep up the good work Mr President and Leader Reid- and other as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:25 PM on 03/11/2010
ultra right?

that's meant to be a joke right?
09:14 AM on 03/11/2010
Harry is so mad, he may not send Justice Roberts an Easter card.
09:08 AM on 03/11/2010
When the United States gained its independence in 1776, there were 336 corporations in the United States, but most had been chartered by state governments for specific public works projects. The Founding Fathers, still mindful of the crushing power once wielded by the East India Company, severly limited the power of corporations and never would have dreamed of nor allowed the trans-national behemoths we see today. In fact, the original limitations seem laughable when we consider our modern corporations:

1) Corporate charters were granted for fixed periods of time, usually between 10 and 40 years.

2) Corporate charters could be promptly revoked for violations of law or for causing public harm.

3) Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

4) Corporations could not own property that was not essential to the fulfilling of their chartered purpose.

5) Corporations could not own stock in other corporations.

6) The personal assets of corporate shareholders were not protected from the consequences of corporate behavior.

Were they around today, the Founding Fathers would look at our corporate climate and our economic situation, and they would say, “We tried to warn you!”
photo
TheInconvenientTruth
Just Calling Balls and Strikes
11:59 AM on 03/11/2010
Sadly, if they were around today, they'd likely be bought and paid for like the rest of these losers...
09:07 AM on 03/11/2010
Don't worry Harry. Come November, you wont have anything to get mad about.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nancy J Powell
very left liberal
10:05 AM on 03/11/2010
boring post
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:32 PM on 03/11/2010
you got that right