# Obama "Turns Up Heat" Over Ruling on Campaign Spending **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 25, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325 "2010-01-25T04:26:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/41 "2010-01-28T07:16:05Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Really? I can recall a few things along the lines of “we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision but of course we will abide by its ruling” but nothing akin to this high profile declaration that “we think the court was wrong to decide this and we’re going to do everything in our power to get around it.” Eh, the latter years of the Bush Administration basically played this out multiple times, with the court striking down various aspects of the Administrations detainment of Terror suspects, and Bush saying he disagreed and would go to Congress to try and alter the law so that it would pass the Courts review (eventually leading to the detainee treatment act IIRC). Which is the same thing Obama is doing (or saying he’ll do). And that’s just the most recent example I can think of, it’s not that rare a situation for Presidents to find themselves in. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/42 "2010-01-28T11:21:41Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Plus there’s at least some value of making the Repubs oppose it, since standing up for corporations right to give you money doesn’t really look very good, even if they manage to defeat the bill. My prediction is that the Republican response will hit buzzwords _ **hard** _ by relying on the specifics of the case. “I agree with the SUPREME COURT ruling in CITIZENS UNITED, because the FIRST AMENDMENT does mean that HILLARY: THE MOVIE can be aired. The remedy to FREE SPEECH is more FREE SPEECH! So, yes to TRANSPARENCY about sponsors of advertisements, and yes to banning direct contributions from corporations OR UNIONS – but yes to SUPREME COURT and CITIZENS UNITED and FIRST AMENDMENT and broadcasting a MOVIE is FREE SPEECH plus HILLARY CLINTON and UNIONS something something DARK SIDE something something COMPLETE.” ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/43 "2010-01-28T11:30:35Z")
I forget which one, but I know that one of the amendments to the Constitution says that only Conservatives get to criticize the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/44 "2010-01-28T11:57:54Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Really? I can recall a few things along the lines of “we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision but of course we will abide by its ruling” but nothing akin to this high profile declaration that “we think the court was wrong to decide this and we’re going to do everything in our power to get around it.” Really? Have you not read [FDR’s speech](http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/) where he pimp slaps the court? A few choice quotes: [QUOTE=FDR] But when, almost two years later, it came before the Supreme Court its constitutionality was upheld only by a five-to-four vote. The change of one vote would have thrown all the affairs of this great nation back into hopeless chaos. In effect, four justices ruled that the right under a private contract to exact a pound of flesh was more sacred than the main objectives of the Constitution to establish an enduring nation. [/quote] [QUOTE=FDR] For nearly twenty years there was no conflict between the Congress and the Court. Then in 1803 Congress passed a statute which the Court said violated an express provision of the Constitution. The Court claimed the power to declare it unconstitutional and did so declare it. But a little later the Court itself admitted that it was an extraordinary power to exercise and through Mr. Justice Washington laid down this limitation upon it: he said, “It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.” But since the rise of the modern movement for social and economic progress through legislation, the Court has more and more often and more and more boldly asserted a power to veto laws passed by the Congress and by state legislatures in complete disregard of this original limitation which I have just read. [/quote] [QUOTE=FDR] In the face of these dissenting opinions, there is no basis for the claim made by some members of the Court that something in the Constitution has compelled them regretfully to thwart the will of the people. In the face of such dissenting opinions, it is perfectly clear that, as Chief Justice Hughes has said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/45 "2010-01-28T12:02:23Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Really? I can recall a few things along the lines of “we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision but of course we will abide by its ruling” but nothing akin to this high profile declaration that “we think the court was wrong to decide this and we’re going to do everything in our power to get around it.” Really? > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON, July 1 /U.S. Newswire/ – House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today said the Supreme Court’s eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut will go down in history as a travesty as the House of Representatives voted 365-33 to condemn the decision. The resolution, which was sponsored by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), is the first step taken by the House toward restoring basic private property rights after the Kelo ruling. > > "By a narrow 5-4 decision, our high Court essentially set aside the most basic, fundamental tenet of the social contract ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/46 "2010-01-28T12:46:48Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Really? Have you not read [FDR’s speech](http://www.hpol.org/fdr/chat/) where he pimp slaps the court? A few choice quotes: Which is why I mentioned _since FDR_ upthread. And IIRC old Franklin’s attempt to pack the court didn’t go over so well . . . **DanBlather** , unless I missed something, I don’t think Tom DeLay was president or part of any administration. But sadly, I guess **Simplicio** is right – the latter part of the Bush years seems to have started a sorry nouveau tradition that Obama seems to have found convenient to pick up and carry further. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/47 "2010-01-28T15:06:49Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > Really? I can recall a few things along the lines of “we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision but of course we will abide by its ruling” but nothing akin to this high profile declaration that “we think the court was wrong to decide this and we’re going to do everything in our power to get around it.” You haven’t been paying attention, then. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/48 "2010-01-28T15:17:44Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Really? “Kelo v. City of New London” was my first thought as well. As I recall, along with the Congressional reaction, Bush also signed an executive order in response to the ruling stating that the government was to only use eminent domain for the “public good” and not for the economic benefit of private organizations. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/49 "2010-01-28T15:21:28Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > But sadly, I guess **Simplicio** is right – the latter part of the Bush years seems to have started a sorry nouveau tradition that Obama seems to have found convenient to pick up and carry further. Again, Bush is just the most recent example that springs to mind, I don’t think it “started with him” in any respect. I know Nixion was constantly squabbling with the SCOTUS, for example. It’s a pretty natural dynamic, the whole principle of Judicial Review more or less means the Prez (and Congress) are going to end up on opposite sides of issues like these semi-frequently, and while they shouldn’t try and circumvent the rulings they disagree with (a la Prez Jackson), expecting them to meekly bow their heads and remain silent on the matter is silly. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/50 "2010-01-28T15:42:59Z")
> [@Koxinga](#): > > **DanBlather** , unless I missed something, I don’t think Tom DeLay was president or part of any administration. No, he was just House Majority Leader :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325/51 "2010-01-28T16:21:47Z")
By what right is the SC and their decision immune from criticism here? CJ Roberts, Scalia, et al, have repeatedly said they’re in favor of not legislating from the bench, and then when they decide it would benefit their friends to do so they go ahead and do it with gusto. They ought to be blasted for this decision and the POTUS is entirely justified in doing the blasting. Obama called for the decision, which he views as wrongful and harmful, to be legislatively overruled, as is his right and as is Congress’ right. If the SC didn’t want to be criticized to their face, they should’ve waited until after the State of the Union speech to announce their decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-turns-up-heat-over-ruling-on-campaign-spending/526325.md?page=2)