Feingold: Alito's Behavior 'Inappropriate'

Russ Feingold is scolding Justice Samuel Alito for "inappropriate" behavior during Obama's State of the Union address last evening.

How screwy is that?

From Politico:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sharply criticized Samuel Alito's reaction to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, calling the conservative Supreme Court justice’s behavior “inappropriate.”

During last night's address, Obama took aim at the Supreme Court's decision to gut campaign finance restrictions for corporations and labor unions. While Supreme Court justices typically maintain stoic dispositions during State of the Union addresses, Alito, who joined the 5-4 opinion, appeared to mouth the words “not true” as Obama spoke.

"That's not very judicial of him," Feingold told POLITICO. "Apparently, he thinks he gets to make the law. He should maintain his judicial demeanor, and that was inappropriate."

That is so Feingold!

Hey, Russ! Are you listening?

It wasn't very presidential of Obama to slam the U.S. Supreme Court justices while they were seated in front of him, politely listening to his address, and encouraging the Democrats in the chamber to taunt them. Chuck Schumer's behavior was absolutely disgraceful.

Apparently, Obama thinks he gets to dismiss the decisions of the judicial branch of the U.S. government.

Obama should maintain his presidential demeanor, and what he said was terribly inappropriate.
_________________

From Bradley A. Smith, writing at NRO:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.