AP/ January 21, 2012, 5:00 PM

Scalia on unlimited political ads: Turn off TV

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, left, and Stephen Breyer, right, talk to moderator Charles Bierbauer, center, at a debate before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012, in Columbia, S.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, left, and Stephen Breyer, right, talk to moderator Charles Bierbauer, center, at a debate before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, Jan. 21, 2012, in Columbia, S.C. / AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins

COLUMBIA, S.C. - U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has a simple solution for people who don't like all the political advertisements unleashed by the court's decision two years ago that ended limits on corporate contributions in political campaigns — change the channel or turn off the TV.

Scalia was asked about the decision during a presentation before the South Carolina Bar on Saturday, exactly two years after the court handed down the 5-4 decision in the case that led to the rise of Super PACs. They are outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don't directly coordinate with the candidate.

"I don't care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier," Scalia said. "People are not stupid. If they don't like it, they'll shut it off."

Scalia was joined on stage by Justice Stephen Breyer, who voted on the losing side in the decision which has become known as "Citizens United," for the group that successfully sued over federal campaign finance laws. Breyer didn't directly criticize the ruling, instead pointing out how it is critical in the American system that people respect the decisions the judiciary makes.

By nature, when a decision isn't unanimous, "somebody is making a mistake," Breyer said.

Pro-Gingrich super PAC goes animated to attack Romney
Video: Romney, Gingrich spar on super PAC ads
Video: Super PACs blur the lines of campaign finance

Breyer also briefly summarized both sides of the argument concentrating on his own.

"There are real problems when people want to spend lots of money on a candidate ... they'll drown out the people who don't have a lot of money," Breyer said.

Money flooding political races was a consequence predicted as soon as the decision was handed down in January 2010. And so far, it's true. Super PACs have raised more than $30 million just three races into the 2012 presidential race, according to the website opensecrets.org, run by The Center for Responsive Politics. TV advertising alone in South Carolina, which is voting Saturday, is estimated at $12 million, or nearly $27 per voter when calculated using the 2008 Republican primary turnout numbers.

Even U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham poked jabs at the amazing amount of campaign ads on television as he introduced the justices.

"I miss seeing car ads," said Graham, R-S.C.

Scalia said the blame for this type of system shouldn't fall on the Supreme Court, which he said decides merely whether the system is legal under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he said the ones who have to change things are the politicians who created the system and the voters who often reward the candidates who spend the most money.

"If the system seems crazy to you, don't blame it on the court," Scalia said, during a discussion in front of South Carolina lawyers that lasted for more than an hour.

Both justices refused to talk in detail about the health care legislation case the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear later this year.

Scalia spent more than 10 minutes lamenting the way confirmation hearings for new justices are now held in the U.S. Senate. He said lawmakers are now more concerned with making sure a prospective member of the court will interpret the Constitution they want, instead of the way the founding fathers wrote it.

"It's like conducting a mini constitutional convention every time you pick a justice," Scalia said.

Breyer said it's important for judges to take a flexible view of the Constitution. He said that, depending on a judge's interpretation, the clause allowing everyone equal rights under the law in the 14th Amendment meant making sure someone had the right to a lawyer, or the right to not be forced to give incriminating statements, or even the right to abortion or the right to choose to die when one wants.

"They look at those words and they say they apply to their cases too," Breyer said.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
11 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
lami987 says:
Clearly this goof, Scalia, wants Americans to just learn what are pleasing. Americans must learn what are pleasing and also what are not. Especially in this case we can turn off TV and black out all news but we will still feel the results. Of course this is what Scalia wants that is Americans not know anything just do what he says. Its ashame we have a character like that in our supreme court. Any American with any brain power at all should encourage all Americans to know more not less.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
nearl451 says:
The ******* unleashes a plauque of bibilcal proportions and then tells us "Let them eat cake"....o wait, just turn the TV off.

Ever hear of pursuit if happiness? What a B-hole.
reply
nearl451 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
OK. Jerk, then.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Jaylah54 says:
Really Scalia? Do you also figure that if women don't want to get raped they should never wear skirts?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
thefatcat2 says:
Turn off the TV or Change the Channel.
This is always what Democrats say > when we Complain about Foul Language on TV.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
So if corporations are people and money is free speech where does that leave poor people, without free speech? And can we then put corporations in jail or to death for their crimes? Better watch out BofA, Wells, Chase and Citibank!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
lubdub48 says:
Anyone who has studied or watched the US Supreme Court KNOWS that Scalia is NOT one of the brightest lites at the table; and will never go down in court history as one of its luminaries. There is a precedent for overturning SC decisions.. THANKS BE TO GOD!. And the one defining corporations as 'persons' will be revisted and shot down.
reply
nearl451 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Not the brightest, but one of the most belligerent.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bc-1948 says:
This was a bad decision and purely a political one. Corporations are not people - but somehow in this twisted decision certain judges decided they are.
reply
Smokey75 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Do you consider Unions people? They spend millions every year trying to sway elections. Should they be banned from doing it along with corporations?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
I hope this evil brain dead Republiclown idiot is happy that he was responsible for turning American elections over the his corporate masters. Happy second anniversary for your Citizens United "ruling" you slimebag POS.
reply
See all 11 Comments