Oh No You Didn't

So last night the President gave the State of the Union speech, and trust me I have more to say about that (among other things) and plan to get off my duff and post them (really!). But for this moment I would like to concentrate on the actions of one Samuel Alito last night during the speech.

While I think it is nuts to make the Supreme Court (and for that matter the major military brass) attend the State of the Union since they can't indicate any partisanship that however, is the way it is. Except last night when it wasn't. For Justice Alito decided to add his editorial head shake to President Obama's disapproval for the recent Court ruling that allowed corporations to contribute to political campaigns without limits. In effect the Court gave corporations the right of individual citizens saying that it was a First Amendment issue of free speech. Not only does this reverse a hundred years of Court rulings, but it is just plain bad. Corporations do not always, or even some of the time depending on the business, have the best interests of our citizens or our country at the heart of their enterprises. Rather they are often interested in only what makes them profitable. For every Google who pledges to "Do no evil" (which you can feel free to believe or not) there is an Enron that knowingly fleeces its employees and stock holders for the benefit of a small minority. Or an Exxon who allows a natural catastrophe to occur, decimating an environment and a legion of wildlife.

So when President Obama said the ruling had "opened the floodgates" and would allow special interests and even foreign countries to hold sway in our elections, Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed the words "not true."

Wow. In a world where even which big box store you buy from can be a partisan decision, I had hoped we could cling to the allusion that our Supreme Court still had a veneer of impartiality and could rise above the fray of democrat/republican bickering. Apparently like much these days when it comes to our political leaders, I was disastrously wrong. My bad, but Alito's worst.

Off With Their Junk

What the freak is wrong with this dude? Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, is apparently outraged the the Supreme Court struck down his state's law about executing child rapists. Now I am not going to even begin to advocate on behalf of child rapists, but I think America is LONG overdue to re-evaluate our stance on execution (not that I don't think I would want revenge/vindication should one of my loved ones be murdered). That however is a post for another day.

Anyway, Jindal—whose name has been bandied about as a possible VP candidate for McCain—was perturbed and later the same day as the high court handed down their decision signed a bill into law for his state that allows sex offenders to be castrated for their crimes. This option is available to the Louisiana courts after someone is convicted of their first offense. On the second offense it is required and this includes chemical castration whatever the heck that is—one too many beers?? Pardon me if I think that punishment is a bit extreme and, shall we say, medieval.

Full disclosure, Obama also disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, but his dissent was a teeny bit more low key, saying:

I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime . . . And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.

A Supreme Ruling

Justice Kennedy penned today's 5-4 court decision ruling that the Gitmo detainees have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

Yes folks that is one for the Constitution.

And this makes the third time the high court has ruled in the favor of these suspected terrorists rights to a trial. Both previous times, Congress and the Bush administration had to come up with new trial procedures. This decision from the court says those still aren't good enough.

The Court declared that Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional because it wanted to get rid of habeas corpus, despite the fact that our Constitution says this can only be done in cases of rebellion or invasion.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenters. I will pause while you get over your shock.

Here is Salon's news item on the decision. Glenn Greewald also has more about the decision at Salon.com.