From our friends at Public Discourse, more on the effects of Citizens United, as Carson Holloway, a political scientist, explains why the concept of “strict scrutiny” is alien to the Constitution and why it poses a threat to a constitutionally defensible judicial review:

The Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding corporate spending on political advocacy—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—provoked the widespread renewal of a longstanding liberal complaint: namely, that the conservative critique of judicial activism is mere hypocrisy. In this case, it was suggested, conservative justices, applauded by conservative commentators, struck down a democratically enacted law and overturned long established judicial precedents. Surely, the argument runs, this is judicial activism, and surely it reveals the critique of judicial activism as just a convenient tool by which conservatives decry decisions to which they object for political reasons, cloaking their real concerns in feigned constitutional principles.

Though common, this charge of hypocrisy sheds little real light on the questions in relation to which it is invoked, for several reasons. First, it does nothing to help us determine the relative merits of the liberal and conservative positions with regard to the proper exercise of the judicial power. After all, the charge clearly cuts both ways. In regard to Citizens United, liberals have complained not only about conservative inconsistency on the matter of judicial activism, but also about the supposed activism of the decision itself. Thus conservatives might well ask these liberal critics: where was your hot indignation about judicial activism when the Court, as recently as nineteen months ago, issued its ruling in Boumediene v. Bush? In that case, the Court, to widespread liberal acclaim, reinterpreted key precedents and struck down Congressional enactments on the basis of a hitherto unknown right of alien enemy combatants to habeas corpus review. Liberals no less than conservatives, it seems, can be charged with a selective opposition to judicial activism.

[Read the rest here.]

You can now also follow the Public Discourse on twitter.

One of the most uprising things to happen during last night's State of the Union Address was the reaction of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to one of President Obama's claims.

The President claimed that the supreme court's Citizens United decision last week "will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in [U.S.] elections".

Take a look for yourself (Justice Alito is in the upper-left corner, in robes and wearing a blue tie):

Within minutes, the news of Justice Alito's reaction - and visible disagreement with the President - went viral on the web, starting with Politico and Drudge (and boosted by a NYT blogger).

But what is the truth about this contentious matter between the court and President?

While the White House still claims today that Obama is right about his criticism of the court's decision, the non-partisan website Politifact.com rates Obama's claim as "Barely True", just one step above false.

The fact-checkers write:

"Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all."

Shannen Coffin, writing for National Review's The Corner, is stronger in his reaction:

"The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process.... So Obama’s attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation."

Meanwhile, Gary Andres, in the Weekly Standard, explains that the supreme court decision has yet to show how it will effect the everyday of politics (because it is so new), writing: "Obama’s comments accurately represent [his] anti-business mindset, [but] it’s not clear exactly how (or even if) corporations will use these newfound freedoms.  Nor is their effectiveness guaranteed."

As always, responsible citizens should do their homework rather than taking the comments of their elected officials at face-value.

And for those who have already come to a decision, I can't help but point out this new Facebook group: "Justice Samuel Alito for Chief Obama Fact-Checker."

It will be interesting to see if anyone on the court responds to the President's claim.

A fascinating possible by-product of the Citizens United case is the "precedent for overturning precedent" it establishes when it comes to other extremely controversial decisions such as Roe v. Wade, as Theodore Kettle explains:

Chief Justice John Roberts last week made it clear that the Supreme Court over which he presides will not hesitate to sweep away its own major constitutional rulings when doing so is necessary to defend America’s bedrock governing document.

The announcement of that guiding core principle means two very big things. First, Roberts and his fellow strict constructionists on the court are now armed and ready with a powerful rationale for overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion ruling if Justice Anthony Kennedy or a future justice becomes the fifth vote against Roe.

Secondly, successfully placing Roberts atop the high court is beginning to look like former President George W. Bush’s most important legacy – a gift that will keep on giving for conservatives for decades.

... If Roberts really did just establish clear restrictions on the power of faulty Supreme Court precedents, it might not just mean a mechanism for the eventual conquest of Roe v. Wade, and victory for pro-lifers; a whole series of widely ranging liberal decisions going back to the activist Warren Court era could eventually be in jeopardy too.

[Read the full article here.]

Over at Heritage's Foundry blog, good words on the Citizens United decision:

The “First Principles” on which this country were founded are the principles that the Heritage Foundation works to advance everyday. In today’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. FEC, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court upheld some of the most important principles: the right to engage in free speech, particularly political speech, and the right to freely associate.

It is no surprise that these rights are in the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders, who had fought a long, hard war with the English crown to establish our independence, knew that the ability to associate freely (think the Sons of Liberty) and to engage in political speech without being censored by the government were fundamental rights crucial to our republic. That is why the Supreme Court’s decision throwing out a federal ban on independent political expenditures by corporations (including non-profits) is a return to, as the Court said, “ancient First Amendment principles.”

... Those who criticize this decision have lost sight of a basic truth: the answer to speech they disagree with is not to restrict that speech, but to answer it with more speech. This decision will ensure that, as Justice Kennedy said twenty years ago in his dissent in the Austin case, there is no stifling of “the voices of some of the most respected groups in public life on subjects central to the integrity of our democratic system.” The First Amendment specifically says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to speak.

More on yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court. This time from Richard W. Garnett, Professor of Law and Associate Dean at the Notre Dame Law School:

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a narrowly divided Supreme Court overruled a still-controversial 1990 decision and struck down, as violations of the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee, certain provisions of the nation’s campaign-finance laws.  According to Prof. Richard W. Garnett, who teaches courses on the freedom of speech and religious liberty at Notre Dame Law School, the Court’s ruling is welcome and correct.  “Justice Kennedy put the matter well,” he said, “when he reminded us that ‘speech is an essential mechanism of democracy – it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.’”

“It is always tempting to think that others’ political expression – one’s political oppoents’ – is what is polluting our politics.  It is easy for even well meaning people to paint those with whom they disagree as ‘special interests.’  The notion that regulating ‘negative ads’ or ‘reducing money in politics’ could return us to an imagined Golden Age of clean and civil politics is, at first, attractive.”  “However,” Prof. Garnett stated, “politics in a free society is necessarily messy, and often unedifying.  The alternative – management by insiders and incumbents  of the tone and terms of debate – is worse.  Again, Justice Kennedy got it right:  Our First Amendment is ‘premised on mistrust of government power,’ and is well understood to prohibit attempts by regulators – even high-minded ones – to disfavor certain subjects, viewpoints, or speakers.”

Citizens United overruled an earlier ruling, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which the Court had upheld a restriction on independent political expenditures by corporations.  According to Prof. Garnett, the Court in Austin gave excessive weight to the government’s alleged interest in preventing “the corrosive and distorting effects” on politics of corporate wealth and speech.  “The problem,” insisted Prof. Garnett, “is that one person’s ‘distorting effect’ is another person’s ‘effective argument.’  Oprah Winfrey has a lot of money and influence – more than the Chamber of Commerce, perhaps – but her power to influence others certainly would not justify limiting her speech.  It is true that insurance companies can shape views through their speech and spending, but so does The New York Times.”

Today’s decision, Prof. Garnett noted, does not mark the end of reasonable regulations that are carefully crafted to prevent election-related corruption.  He noted that the Court did not invalidate existing disclosure and disclaimer requirements.  “It is one thing,” he said, “to regulate expression – to reduce political speech -- out of fear that it will ‘distort’ the public conversation.  It is another thing to say that, as a general matter, people are entitled to know who is paying for the election-related messages they hear.”

The big news today, as reported by the Wall Street Journal:

A divided Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate political spending, overturning two precedents in a ruling likely to affect campaigning in the 2010 elections. President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street and other interests, and said he would work with lawmakers to craft a "forceful response."

The ruling underscored the impact of former President George W. Bush's two appointments to the court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the five-justice majority in ruling that a central provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations from funding political messages in the run-up to elections.

"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion. [Read the full article here.]

For commentary, see what the experts on National Review's Bench Memos blog are saying:

• Ed Whelan: Stevens’s Dissent
• Paul Sherman: Citizens United Decision Means More Free Speech
• Ed Whelan: What Was at Stake in Citizens United
• Richard Garnett: Citizens United and 'Conservative Judicial Activism'
• Steve Hoersting: Freedom in Citizens United