So says Abp. Burke of St. Louis, who just happens to have advanced education in Canon Law.
...In addition, the Decree of Gratian quotes the discipline of the Council of Agde or Montpellier: <
Abp. Burke dismisses the opinion of the West Coast Cardinal who deliberately confused Canons 915 and 916, too.
One bishop issued a statement on the same day as the statement of the body of Bishops, which intimated that can. 915 is not to be applied in his diocese. He stated:
The archdiocese will continue to follow church teaching, which places the duty of each Catholic to examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive holy communion. That is not the role of the person distributing the body and blood of Christ .
The statement of the bishop in question confuses the norm of can. 916, which applies to the self-examination of the individual communicant, with the norm of can. 915, which obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament in the cases indicated.
In a tour of historical responses to questions regarding 'those to be admitted to Communion,' the Archbishop mentions (inter alia) the case of those who join or promote the Communist Party:
On July 1, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a decree in response to four questions regarding the involvement of Catholics with the Communist Party. The third question was: <
The response to the third question was:
In the response to the first question, the reason why those who cooperate, in some formal way, with the Communist Party are not disposed to receive the Sacraments is provided. The response explains:
For Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; the leaders of the Communist Party, moreover, even if at times they declare that they do not oppose Religion, in truth, they show themselves, both by teaching and by action, to be inimical to God, to true Religion, and to the Church of Christ. 
The lesson that Abp. Burke draws?
The discipline, in particular, indicates that among the categories of persons who are to be denied Holy Communion are they who publicly espouse political doctrines which are hostile to the Faith and to the Church. In a similar way, those who publicly support political platforms or legislative agenda which are gravely contrary to the natural moral law show that they are not rightly disposed to receive Holy Communion.
The whole thing is at the link, and it's pretty-near-exhaustive on the topic. Near the end, the Archbishop very gently dismantles the "argument" of canonist John Huels in favor of admitting to Communion the politicians:
John M. Huels, the commentator on can. 915 in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, reduces scandal to a subjective reality, ignoring its essential connection to what is objective, what is right and wrong. He states:
The fact of actual scandal is, moreover, culturally relative. What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church's denial of sacraments and sacramentals than by the sin that occasions it, because it seems to them contrary to the mercy and forgiveness commanded by Christ. 
If a word, an action or an omission leads another into error or sin, there is scandal, whether the person who is led astray knows that he has been scandalized or not. If, as the commentator suggests, the faithful in North America believe that persons who publicly and grievously sin should be admitted to Holy Communion and that it would be wrong to deny to them the Sacrament, then effectively the faithful have been scandalized, that is, they have been led to forget or to disregard what the perennial discipline of the Church, beginning with Saint Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, has always remembered and safeguarded.
The Abp. also cites the Codes of the Eastern Churches which (as you might guess) are consistent with those of Pio-Benedict (1917) and of John Paul II (1983.)
Frankly, there's not much left to say...
HT: Catholic World News