Hmmm, how will we respond..?
I am responding by going back to college,
Laugh with the children of the revolution, as the "state" dismantles itself to tiny pieces using it's best friend the corporate octopus, as pliers.

It's a wild ride, the backroads are filling up with suv's stuffed with blankets and appliances, power tools and other mean comforts.

It's actually illegal now to sleep in your car, so now that corporations are "people" and the disposessed are criminals, I forsee a real enforcement bottleneck right up ahead.

How will we respond? Well first by rounding up the losers, when that goes wrong (and it will, FAST) then maybe we will round up the winners.

How will we respond? Well NOT by "taking back the street" thats just pointless. The pigs will make short work of you and the media will make you dissappear.

Anyone with something to lose, is lost. Only those who have lost everything have any power at all.

Singing.

dancing. (you know, like in south africa in the 80's?)

dressing up in funny costumes and fighting the power.
We're not "consumers" anymore, were just collateral damage in a class war that we lost long ago. The victors count their winnings, and we count our blessings.

Apparently TALK is MONEY! is that not a kicker?

The corporation talks to itself, the people try to talk their way into a cup of coffee.
The revolution as farce.

Thank you!
Thank you for an informed and reasonable explanation!

In Justice Alito & his creepy conservative cronies, former Justice Lewis Powell has seen the object of his "Powell Memorandum" bearing judicial fruit to the point where the tree that supports is heaving over.

"e.g., though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that;"

One can stare hard at the letter of the law and not notice that money is fungible and corporations are international. Even in the case of a purely domestic entity, profits pass across international borders without earmarks on them.

I defy any non-forensic accountant to look at a complex corporation and tell me where the profits go. Modern corporations are giant shell games with dozens of entities, always changing the names and addresses. We can't even track their offshore tax dodges.

Well,consider who chose them. It relects the same lack of class--and what can you expect from Trenton NJ? That is Scalia & Alito, both from Trenton, NJ.

Aside from that, he may've been feeling the need to demonstrate a certain guilty defensiveness.

WHAT do you expect from an UNELECTED
criminal cabal like cheney et al but cramming
the court with CLOWNS for impure motives...
I've been saying since nov 2000; SCOTUS
is NOW the FRUIT of the POISON TREE..
appointed by an UNELECTED administration

Mr Greenwald can't possibly believe that the Supreme Court, now or ever is apolitical.

Reference the court-packing plan in 1937 when FDR shoved the peoples' will in the faces of the obstructionists to move them off dead stop. Or Marbury vs. Madison for god sake.

So his main problem is the surface appearance of judicial evenhandedness? Really?

The sad reality is that we need a constitutional convention (see article 5) to fix this mess and worrying about facial antics isn't helping anyone.

Having read the Wikpedia article about FDR's attempt to "pack the court" I conclude there was really nothing unconstitutional about it, merely the fact that it upset precedent and that the legislation was not backed by Congress. Given my profound disrespect for the Court, both because of the recent ruling allowing corporate power to nakedly insert itself into political campaigns and my continued resentment about the stolen 2000 election-- I think Obama should try packing the Court again.

nice poetry above; provocative and scary. We are in for some serious trouble.

It is hard to imagine that the SCOTUS dirty five, political hacks that they are, have not screwed the pooch somewhere along the way in the manner of the long-gone Justice Fortas. I wonder why they couldn't be legitimately gotten to somehow, of course with Congressional support. Moreover, what of the membership of Scalia and Thomas in OPUS DEI, an arch-reactionary secret Catholic society? Is such membership appropriate for a supremo in the first place, and why aren't they forced to recuse themselves in anything involving abortion in the second place? Attack these lifelong roadblocks to progress!
Tony Vodvarka

I think Alito did us all a great service. He helped expose yet another American myth, that the SCOTUS is objective and supreme.

I seem to remember a movie, Orwell's "1984" and the supreme court sitting in the front row looked a lot like the pigs right after they moved into the farmer's house.

. . . a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court."

This reactionary court has no credibility and doesn't really care if it does or not. It exists to fuck over 99% of the American people. That is its sacred mission.

The next president will no doubt be a Republican. I hope there's some "progressive" Democrat attending his/her first SOTUS who shouts out, "Shut your hole, motherfucker!"

Even if Mr. Alito had yelled "not true" he would not have cared what I, Mr. Greenwald, and other contributors to this site think of him because he is appointed for life and yelling "not true" is not an impeachable offense. He never has to run for re-election.
The problem lies with the "appointment for life". Much better and fairer systems of limited terms have been proposed (not by me though). Yes, they require a constitutional amendment. So what?
Criticizing sitting justices is a waste of time. We must demand a change of their terms of appointment instead.

Alito, Scailia, Roberts et al. who voted corporate control over congress shame the institution of the supreme court. They also flexed their right wing muscles and elected Bush to the presidency. Disgraceful!

Nothing defines this supreme court better than the following question.

Are they protecting the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic?

The answer is " The Patriot Acts " " Warrant less surveillance " and " immunity from prosecution" .

The answer is NO!!!

They are right wing , domestic terrorists.

Oh and by the way, since my tax dollars pay their SALARYS,

YOUR FIRED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both Canada and the USA have systems where the Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the executive branch. In Canada there no "review" and cofirmation hearings like there are in the USA.

There are differences. First the appointee must have a background in law having either been a Judge in A Superior court of any province and or having 10 years experience as a barrister or advocate in such a court.

There is a parliamentary review panel but it can only make recommendations and can not block an apppointment.

I think the greatest difference is this. Canada does not have a system wherein Judges are ELECTED to office in the lower courts nor do we elect our district attorneys. Judges in Canada at the lower court level do not run on platforms of being "Tough on crime" or "Cleaning up Corruption". Thus they are far less partisan then in the US system.

They do not have fund raisers to run for office. The equivalent of the DA does not go to "Liberal" fund raising dinners to get the money to run for election.

So in essence from the very beginning of a Legal career Judges, and lawyers in Canada are much less partisan. They obtain their positions usually via promotion within the ranks. This is generally done via review panels who are less concerned with ones Political ideology (Is he liberal or conservative) then with a knowledge of the law .

I believe a lifetime appointment is necessary to enjoy independence from political interference. I also believe that the system in the US ingrains political partisanship from the very beginning via the process by which Judges "Run for Office".

What's most disturbing to me is how the R-nut cult will defend any fellow cult member no matter how giant and obvious the lies, crimes, and/or ethical breaches.

And the thing about cult members is that no amount of reason or logic or fact can penetrate their 'beliefs.'

So 'down' is always 'up.'

Worse, a recent poll found that 74% of R-nut cult members believe FOX 'News' is the 'most trustworthy,' the same FOX 'News' that is telling them 'down' is, and always will be, 'up,' and anyone who says otherwise is a lefty-loony traitor socialist Marxist fascist who hates American and God.

That's what most disturbs me...

Author Greenwald writes, "Seriously: what kind of an adult is incapable of restraining himself from visible gestures and verbal outbursts in the middle of someone's speech, no matter how strongly one disagrees -- let alone a robe-wearing Supreme Court Justice sitting in the U.S. Congress in the middle of a President's State of the Union address?" --Mr. Greenwald, what makes you presume that we are ruled by "adults" worthy of the name? Have you not noticed the imbecilic level of political discourse that prevails in this country?
Greenwald concludes, "I spent substantial time over the last week here and in other venues partially defending the Citizens United ruling . . . ." Huh? Come again? --Is Greenwald an "adult"?

Well, anyone who has ever had a run-in with any court anywhere in this country knows empirically that courts are political. Greenwald is writing this piece for the naive politcal class, that lives under the bizarre and clearly incorrect notion that the law is impartial, that justice is blind, and that the same laws apply to the rich as to the poor.

For all the complaints I've read about this supreme court decision, I actually think it is the best decision the supreme court has ever made. At last, they have finally identified their true masters, and they have shown us so clearly who "justice" is intended to serve. No amount of education and advocacy could ever achieve what these henchmen have done.

So for anyone who harbors fantasies of the fairness of the law, this should be your wake-up call. I actually think some of the indignation in this piece is feigned. Greenwald is smart enough to know that laws are always written by the rich, for the rich, and that the law is fundamentally a political framework.

So who cued; then, viewed Alito, brainstem media?

The greatest mistake made by the gutless Democrats when they were the minority party in the Senate, was to fail to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination. He was clearly a hard right-wing corporatist who virtually thumbed his nose at the judiciary committee during the confirmation hearing. The Democrats should have fought to maintain ideological balance on the Supreme Court to protect the powerless in American society.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Obama, in essence, admonished the Court's majority for making it easier for corporations to further distort representative democracy.
Fine, so far as his words went.

But if Justice Stevens, a strong dissenter against the Citizens United decision, had been the one shaking his head at Obama -- for the latter's rank hypocrisy -- I don't think many of us would've minded the gesture.

Considering how many former corporate officers and lobbyists Obama has appointed to high government positions, along with those appointees' obviously corrupt influence over administration policies, the president's admonishment to the Court was laughable. In fact, it deserved a mocking guffaw from every honest person in the chamber, decorum be damned.

So, how did you expect the punk to act?

Leopards don't grow stripes and Alito did nothing unexpected.

In fact had he dropped pants and mooned the President his actions would not have been unexpected. Today rightwingers would be pointing out that at least it was a white moon.

"It was clear from Sam Alito's confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well."

Greenwald is being very kind using the term "intemperate" when Alito actually behaved like a spoiled child.

Greenwald cites Scalia's comments about the ticking bomb scenario:

"'It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that,' Scalia said in an interview aired Tuesday."

While this comment has an arguable moral basis as long as one assumes that in fact the torture would be reasonably likely to produce useful intelligence and thereby save lives, the laws against torturing detainees contain no exception; the laws don't in any way support Scalia's insinuation that such torture would be legally justifiable. Nor has there been any demonstration that torture in fact does produce useful information. To me Scalia's comment is a scary demonstration of ignorance.

It might have been excusable to claim that interrogators could have moral, but not legal, grounds for violating the law; or to claim that it would be unlikely that prosecutors currently in office would have the will to prosecute high officials who authorized violating the anti-torture laws. But he didn't say those things.

Greenwald says, "though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that." He cites Bradley A. Smith's article, which argues that the court didn't invalidate 2 U.S.C. 441(e) which is found at http://bit.ly/boUUxz).

I'm unsure where the law defines "foreign nationals" to include foreign corporations. But the Federal Elections Commission says foreign corporations are foreign nationals. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml.

I think Greenwald correctly says the majority's rationale could lead to holding 441(e) unconstitutional, even though that wasn't before the court. But technically, since the court didn't rule on the constitutionality of 441(e), it stands for now in opposition to Obama's claim that Citizens United v. FEC "open[ed] the floodgates for . . . foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections."

As usual, Greenwald is on target in this article. He's also to be admired for admitting there are good arguments against his own claim, made elsewhere, that the First Amendment doesn't limit itself to protecting the freedom of speech of specified persons or things, but simply outlaws any restriction on free speech, which seems to be the gist of the majority opinion in the Citizens United case. I agree with his critics on this point.

First of all, THE LAW IS A FRAUD; there is no law. There never was. What there is, is POWER. Power trumps "the law" every time.

Judges, as a "class" are invulnerable. They can rule however they please and short of bizarre breaches of decorum (i.e. jumping up on the bench and dancing naked) are immune from any accountability.

Second, if we had a "congress" worthy of the name, Scalia and Thomas would have been impeached and thrown off the court a decade ago. They both had close relatives working in the Bush campaign and therefore a clear and incontrovertible conflict of interest when they refused to recuse themselves from the Bush v Gore case.

Third, IMO, the founders made a horrible, catastrophic blunder when they established that “Justices” would serve for life. In a democracy, nobody should have lifetime tenure; that’s a function of royalty. This would be the subject of a national discussion, but I believe that we should amend the constitution to require the “Justices” be reconfirmed every ten years.

Fourth, the “independent” judiciary is a fraud and a myth. Whether appointed or elected, judges are members of and vetted by political parties, therefore tried and tested ideologically (with rare exceptions). Example: how many non-racist judges were there in the South until relatively recently (maybe)? Further, their personal financial interests tend to incline them to be pro business and anti-individual. As a “class” they are anything but independent.

“It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars.” Really? Vital to who?

“The Court's credibility...has -- justifiably -- declined substantially over the past decade” So what?

“destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived -- and to act -- as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.” So what?

“Much of the public will view his future "judicial" and "legal" conclusions -- and those of his fellow Court members -- with an even greater degree of cynicism.” So what?

These kinds of statements reveal someone who, despite their good intentions, hasn’t yet been able to face reality: this is a country ruled by a power elite, in which exercises such as elections, ceremonies, decorum, protocol, and “law” are mere camouflage. “Democracy” is likewise a myth.

When will liberals wake up?

This is the first time I've read Greenwald making a really big deal over basically nothing. I know SC justices are supposed to be "above politics", since of course they're godlike, but the fact is, they seldom are. And so what if Alito made a slight grimace (I've seen the tape) and mouthed "that's not true"? The rest of them were thinking the same thing, and since GG says there's no reason or law that says the president should be treated like royalty, even if he nearly always is, and he admits the Joe Wilson flap last year ("you lie!")was overblown, why is Alito's little self-expression something to get all lathered up about?

The five who voted to give corporations a free hand in buying the whole electoral process are essentially a mafia, dedicated to fascistic interpretations of the law, and unless we get rid of them for good, that's all we're going to get: American-style fascism. Who cares if Alito "broke decorum" at a venue where nearly everyone in attendance is a criminal? Should we demand that some of our criminal elite abide by social graces and good manners before other members of the same crime syndicate?

Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts, and especially Scalia, belong in the same prison as Obama, McCain, Biden, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, Geithner, Summers . . . the list is too long, but at the top are Bush and Cheney and their enablers. But what's next? If someone yawns in Obama's presence, should Greenwald get all worked up again? The fact is, Obama IS a liar, for reasons that have nothing to do with Joe Wilson's demented world, and much of what he said last night wasn't true at all, having nothing to do with Alito's affection for corporate domination of elections and the entire political process. They're all hopelessly corrupt! I really don't give a shit if one of them shows a little disrespect for another. None of them deserve anyone's respect.

The moral arc of the Universe is long... and it bends toward justice" (Paraphrase MLK). The Citizens United Decision and the Bush/Gore Decision by The Supreme Court deepen the stain on the history of this Court. The breach between the Citizen and the Government is widened. Mr. Gore must also take his part. He chose not to exercise the full range of his rights as a Citizen. We must come to the place where We, Citizens collectively, will begin to exercise the full range of our rights or we will remain in a state of frustration.

alito is an ass, no doubt. but big deal! the president called him and his four brethren out, and he reacted to it in a visible but restrained way. obama is not a king, despite the teabaggers' posters. i guess americans would have heart attacks under the british system. i would love to have seen george bush answer questions about iraq in the house of commons. bush the american aristocrat would then fall in world esteem far beneath the lowest british commoner, and probably end up incriminating himself. let's see, london is how many miles from the hague? and the brits are already equipped for extraordinary rendition. thanks to us.

Mr. Greenwald, lets get something straight, their are no liberals on the United States Supreme Court. There are four centerists and five right wing political ideologs/religious zealots!
By the way sir, not even a word about impeaching those five bastards for overturning a centuries worth of settled law? Strike another blow for the status quo!

Seriously, do people truly believe that Supreme Court judges were ever non-partisan? I have never understood why people pretend that a Supreme Court judge can somehow not have a bias. He is a living human being. He sees things through a certain perspective, just as we all do. Sometimes I believe the deification of the framers of the Constitution is ridiculous. How would giving a lifetime appointment to a judge erase his convictions? Perhaps Clarence would actually help the black man if that were true. He doesn't, because this is what he believes. A lifetime appointment may, in the future, take a certain amount of politics out of matters, but you can't erase someone's upbringing, race, etc., that all affect his prejudices and judgments on cases.

For those on this board who are defending Justice Alito, you obviously know nothing about the role of a judge, particularly an appellate court judge. I have been a trial court judge in California for 23 years, and from day 1 on the bench you learn to mind your temper and control your behavior. Criticism is part of the job, and if you haven't the self control to endure it with poise, then you most certainly are unfit to serve the interests of justice, particularly the supreme court of the land. Rather than accept the President's comment as dissent within the range of reason (afterall, it was a 5-4 decision), Justice Alito chose to engage in disrespectful conduct that further tarnishes an already suspect court.

(Postscript: Justice Kennedy was my con-law professor in 1973. What a sad intellectual decline for a once inspiring teacher.)