Now, as this idiot is given a second chance of putting a lifetime liberal on the Supreme Court it’s interesting to look back at this case and something that really stuck out.
In the course of the argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, argued that a 1990 precedent, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, gave the government the power to limit any political communication funded by a corporation, even a nonprofit such as Citizens United. Justice Samuel Alito asked Stewart if that power would extend to censoring political books published by corporations. Stewart responded -- consistent with the government's position at all stages of the case -- that yes, it would. There was an audible hush -- if such a thing is possible -- in the court. Then Justice Alito, appearing to speak for the room, merely said, "I find that pretty incredible."
Incredible or not, that was, and had been for many years, the position of the U.S. government. But until that moment, it seemed to have never quite sunken in with the justices. Americans are willing to accept far more abridgements of free speech than we sometimes like to believe, but the idea of banning books strikes an emotional chord that something described simply as "prohibitions and limits on campaign spending" does not. Americans may not always live up to the Bill of Rights, but Americans do not ban books. A stunned Court eventually asked the parties to reargue the case, to consider whether Austin should be overruled.
In other words Barry Obama et all thinks they should control speech prior to an election. Now what is really interesting…the woman who had the job fixing Mr. Stewart’s screw up (he said what liberals really think….we can’t let that be heard) was Solicitor General Elena Kagan. For those who don’t know, the Solicitor General’s job is to present’s the government’s (read Executive Branch’s or President’s) opinion in a case being argued. What did she do in the case?
On reargument last September, Solicitor General Elena Kagan tried to control the damage, arguing that the government never actually had tried to censor books, even as she reaffirmed its claimed authority to do just that. She also stated that "pamphlets," unlike books, were clearly fair game for government censorship. (Former Federal Election Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky has noted that in fact the FEC has conducted lengthy investigations into whether certain books violated campaign finance laws, though it has not yet held that a book publisher violated the law through publication. And the FEC has attempted to penalize publishers of magazines and financial newsletters, only to be frustrated by the courts.) With the endgame of "campaign finance reform" finally laid out plainly, the Supreme Court's decision seemed a foregone conclusion. Sure enough, in January, the Court ruled that corporations, as associations of natural persons, have a right to spend funds from their general treasuries to support or oppose political candidates and causes -- including through the publication or distribution of books and movies.
I think this is something to look at as Ms. Kegan will probably be nominated for a Supreme Court position this week.
People wonder why I really disagree with Obama and what he stands for. Saying with a straight face he can regulate speech in an election is as blatantly unconstitutional as you can get. He believes that. Even more scary is four of nine justices believe that. And this woman who will likely be joining them soon believes that.