Because the guy who wrote the book can’t even get key dates right?
Just imagine if he’d actually done this.
Actually, on Citizens United, it was the SCOTUS that looked really bad.
Aside: why the fuck did the blithering idiot keep the same damn phone? Didn’t they see The Wire?
<sigh>
Okay then, I yield the point. I shall go plant my flag on some other hill.
Actually, it was Obama who looked really bad for calling out the SCOTUS in his state of the union address.
We can disagree on the merits of the decision, but I think we can all agree that the government arguing that they had the power under BCRA to ban books was over the line.
Well, that ad was done by a SuperPAC AFAIK. Admittedly it was run by a former staffer, but coordinating with SuperPACs is purportedly illegal.
Taken in context, which nobody does, it’s innocuous.
As opposed to what it was before the controversy, which was brilliant. When Warren said the same thing, it was supposedly brilliant.
But now that it’s an issue, it’s just banal and innocuous. He meant nothing by it other than the obvious.
Oh. Well, which books did they ban? None? Oh, well, then which books did they threaten to ban? None? Well, OK, then, outside of your imagination, have we any reason to believe that they intend to ban any books?
“It’s an issue” solely because your guys have consistently misrepresented it, as their (and your) refusal to acknowledge context illustrates. What they (and you) accuse Obama of having either said or meant is *not *what he said or meant. By now you should know that.
Now, would you rather discuss the factual content and its actual implications, or just keep looking for cheap points to imagine you’re scoring? :dubious:
I know one big mistake Obama has made…thinking the the Republicans would work with him for the good of the economy and the country.
That was a whopper.
Well ot turns out that working for the good of the country and working with Obama are often mutually exclusive.
“Often”? Well, that means there are exceptions, yes? Which means you can point out a few examples wherein that rule did not apply, yes? No.
It doesn’t matter. The government asserted power under BCRA to do so. That’s a problem. Such powers shouldn’t even exist theoretically.
Cite?
Alito wanted to push Stewart down a slippery slope. Since McCain-Feingold forbade the broadcast of “electronic communications” shortly before elections, this was a case about movies and television commercials. What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?”
from the issue
cartoon bank
e-mail this
Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”
The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?
“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”
“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign.
Kennedy interrupted. He was the swing Justice in many areas of the law, but joined the conservatives in all the campaign-spending cases. Sensing vulnerability on the subject of books, he joined Alito’s assault.
“Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book,” Kennedy said. “Your position is that, under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the sixty- and thirty-day periods?”
Stewart’s answer was a reluctant, qualified yes.
But neither Alito nor Kennedy had Roberts’s instinct for the jugular. The Chief Justice wanted to make Stewart’s position look as ridiculous as possible. Roberts continued on the subject of the government’s censorship of books, leading Stewart into a trap.
“If it has one name, one use of the candidate’s name, it would be covered, correct?” Roberts asked.
“That’s correct,” Stewart said.
“If it’s a five-hundred-page book, and at the end it says, ‘And so vote for X,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.
“Well, if it says ‘vote for X,’ it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the preëxisting Federal Election Campaign Act provisions,” Stewart continued, doubling down on his painfully awkward position.
This is some interesting stuff. Is it a form of haiku?
No, in fact they did not. The cite specifically says that the Justices used a hypothetical slippery slope argument . The govt at no time tried to ban a book, suggested banning a book nor was there a book to be banned.
The Justices argument was that the BCRA-* if taken to hypothetical extremes*- might allow the govt to attempt that. Which is why the Justices (A part of the US Government) ruled as they did.
Note that the Bill is called the McCain–Feingold Act. That is the McCain who was recently the GoP candidate for President. Note that it was signed into law by none other than George W Bush.
Obama had nothing whatsoever to do with the act. He wasn’t even a US Senator when it was passed.
The man who argued the case was part of the Solicitor’s General Office. Steward isn;t a political appointee. Read you won cite “For all that the Solicitor General serves as the public face of the office, and as an important senior political appointee, the career employees act as its principal representatives to the Court. Only two of the twenty-two lawyers in the office are political appointees, so most move seamlessly from one Administration to the next.
By tradition, the S.G. staff operates according to a different standard from that of the hired guns who generally appear before the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General’s lawyers press their arguments in a way that hews strictly to existing precedent. They don’t hide unfavorable facts from the Justices. They are straight shooters. This is why, in many cases, even when the federal government is not a party, the Court issues what’s known as a C.V.S.G.—a call for the views of the Solicitor General. The lawyers in the S.G.’s office are not neutral, but they are more highly respected than other advocates. They dress differently, too, wearing a morning coat, vest, and striped pants when they appear in the Supreme Court.
Malcolm Stewart, the lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office who argued the Citizens United case, embodied the best of the office. A graduate of Princeton and then Yale Law School, he had clerked for Harry Blackmun in the 1989 term. He joined the Solicitor General’s office in 1993, and his career thrived through three Presidencies and more than forty oral arguments. He twice won a John Marshall Award, one of the highest honors in the department. Shortly before the Citizens United argument, Stewart had been named a Deputy Solicitor General, the highest rank for a career lawyer.”
Obama had a duty as President to have the SG office defend the law of the land, as passed by Congress and signed into law by his predessor. If he hadn’t done so, he would have been derelict and would have been castigated by Congress.
Nor did the SG even make the argument that the BCRA could ban books thus they did not “asserted power under BCRA to do so”. In fact, just the opposite. The SG conceded that the law could maybe be hypothetically intrepreted that way, thus dooming the law. But in fact, the law could not do so. Again, read your own cite: “Stewart was wrong. Congress could not ban a book. McCain-Feingold was based on the pervasive influence of television advertising on electoral politics, the idea that commercials are somehow unavoidable in contemporary American life. The influence of books operates in a completely different way. Individuals have to make an affirmative choice to acquire and read a book. Congress would have no reason, and no justification, to ban a book under the First Amendment.
As for Stewart’s performance, his defenders pointed to the unique role of the Solicitor General. A private lawyer could have danced around the implications of the law and avoided making any concession, but Stewart had a special obligation to be straight with the Justices, even if the answers hurt his cause. Stewart’s critics—and there were many—said that he had no obligation to try to answer an absurdly far-fetched hypothetical involving the censorship of books.”
At no time did the Obama adminstration attempt to use McCain–Feingold to ban a book, nor did they even say they had the authority to do so.