You can see that here.
Isn't it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — is outweighed by one man's headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?
And isn't it ironic that, right when we saw the judge's minimalist expression that overwhelmed the President's torrent of words, Obama was railing about the "powerful interests" that would use their great wealth to speak far too much during election campaigns?
It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?
ADDED: I've changed the word "are" in the "Isn't it fascinating" paragraph to "is" to correct an error that I noticed after the paragraph got quoted in full at Instapundit and Volokh. Do I write to them and ask them to take the trouble to correct my error, or do I just sit here and feel awful about it? The embarrassing clumsiness was caused by changing "lengthy, amplified, magnified words" to "lengthy, amplified, magnified speech," which I did because I didn't like the repetition of the word "words" — which is the kind of writing flaw that is hardly even embarrassing but absorbs my attention.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२८८ टिप्पण्या:
288 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Wholeheartedly agree. I'm amazed that this is the takeaway today. More, as I've not seen much mentioned yet, where the hell was Hillary?
I wasn't aware of any sniper fire in DC last night...
As he should. He gives Obama two you lies in two SOTUs.
If Barry is so concerned about big corporations influencing elections, why didn't he just go with public financing?
Jesus, Ann, I'm sorry - I went and answered the title without reading the text until afterwards:
Loud or soft, long or short / cursing, crude or pinched / fools are trying to show how clever they are / when what's important is making sense
but all he mouthed was "this robe itches"...
Except for a few commenters on this blog, it sure seems that almost everyone is either turning against Obama, or at least questioning his judgment.
Except for a few commenters on this blog, it sure seems that almost everyone is either turning against Obama, or at least questioning his judgment.
DUH!
So the President has his big opportunity to regain his mojo after what has been a disastrous couple of months for him and his Party, and he chooses to use that opportunity to scold and lie.
We're dealing with a petty little man here, and he ain't that bright.
The SOTU address is formal, boring and no one believes anything the President says in it.
Alito is the focus because his open rejection of Obama's statement was unexpected and is interesting.
"It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?"
Even a whimper in defiance of the king is a scandal.
Considering where we come from as a nation, we have been acting quite silly lately.
Good Lord, the White House is pushing back on this. How dumb are those people? It'll extend the life of the story, piss off the Supreme Court in general, and potentially nudge Justice Kennedy to the right.
The only thing I can think of is he's trying to demonize the current Court in anticipation of filling a few vacancies with some really radical people, but I doubt that's going to be an effective plan.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html
At what time will Hillary smell blood in the water, resign, and then start to mount her challenge.
WV: ditchops
It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?
No, it is not and not even through money. I will give you a different context than the one you give. During the Democratic primary, Hillary got more votes than he did in spite of spending 4 times more than she did. He got trounced in WVa, Kentucky, and other places and even in MA. Money did not do much for him but the party's skulduggery did. He had to be carried through the finish line in the primary and now we are all paying the price for it. I didn't think it all would come crashing down like this so soon.
It has to be incredibly frustrating to be one of the Supreme Court Justices and have to sit like a lump on a log while the President and others tell lies about and distort the meaning of one of the most important decisions that the Court has made in quite some time.
You know what they are saying is blatantly untrue, yet decorum says you must sit there with a stone face.
What the Court did was to give BACK free speech to everyone, including corporations.
What t-man said.
Heck, if somebody would run on the platform, "I will go back to delivering Congress a written report and dispense with the SOTU speech", I'd very strongly consider voting for them on that basis alone.
DBQ,
You are talking about Democrats. Their whole raison de erte is to lie and distort.
It's frightening that the MSM has gone into overdrive telling us peasants that Judge Alito is a bad bad man for having dared to diss the Prez.
I'm starting to feel sorry for the people I hear defending this President. The arguments have been boiled down to: 1) What about what Bush did. 2) Ah, c'mon, give him a chance, he's trying. I usually see Blacks on TV doing this. I feel sorry for them, because that "community" is so politically monolithic, that they seem trapped, unable to break out and say what they know to be true, or to have a differing opinion. Seems part self delusion and part peer pressure. It's sad.
At what time will Hillary smell blood in the water, resign, and then start to mount her challenge.
I'm guessing that if she does do that, it will depend on the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats get trounced as the prevailing wings seem to indicate, she might very well shake the dust of this admin off her shoes and mount her own insurgency.
The economy is going to make or break this guy and he spent his first year pissing away every bit of political capital he had on health care when first and foremost in the electorate's mind was JOBS.
As much as I disliked her, I don't imagine Hillary could have been worse than this novice.
Guess I'm alone here. Of course Justice Alito should have kept his head still and his mouth firmly shut. Can't we at least pretend there is a vestige of neutrality on the Court?
Troubling that the President would use the State of the Union address to dress down the Supreme Court. More troubling that Alito would take the bait.
The arguments have been boiled down to: 1) What about what Bush did.
When I hear that I just ask: "So I was right about all that Hope and Change was just being bullshit right?"
Usually gets a tongue smack, eyeroll and stomping retreat.
bagoh20 said...
In a strange reversal of conventional wisdom, black Americans coming together as one unified political bloc has actually worked against them. They are now owned lock, stock and barrel by a Party that couldn't care less about them as individuals.
I don't see it changing any time soon, but I have to suspect that the 95% of black Americans who vote Dem will eventually wake up to the reality that they have a better option.
@AllenS
At what time will Hillary smell blood in the water, resign, and then start to mount her challenge.
History will probably point to when the AP called the race for Brown. However, knowing what we do about the Clitons, I'm betting it was weeks and weeks earlier when they started doing "what-if" sessions about a GOP victory in MA.
Look at it this way. Suppose the President is thoroughly pissed that she wasn't there last night. Suppose he's pissed at her about anything. He has lost the political clout to do anything about it. If she resigns, or if there's even a whisp of a conflict between them, it will look far, far worse for the President.
Hillary is in the driver's seat on this, mark my words.
Remember that old perfume ad:
"If you want to capture someone's attention, whisper."
Alito is a symbol of the problem we all have with Obama. Obama is unable to tell us anything that is not a master full display of his power to charm us with known lies. That is a display of arrogance by Obama that has built up to a hostility towards him. He is morphing himself into a Chavez and his enemies show. Now no one believes Obama can change. His friends are also running away from him because even crooks need to follow a leader that they can trust.
As a CEO, I often have to give "state of the company" speeches to our employees. The idea that I would pick out, people or divisions in the company and criticize them or their work in such a venue would be incredibly stupid, and counter productive. Even if true, it would be seen as small, and I would lose the trust and respect of those not criticized as well as make saboteurs of those I did. It certainly would not motivate anyone and would destroy the team spirit that makes organized human effort effective. It's just bad leadership. That's what you get when you choose a leader who has never lead anything.
It doesn't take much to overshadow Obama.
Alito should not have reacted even though our buffoon president is completely wrong.
jimspice said...
When the President lies to the country about fundamental rights and Supreme Court rulings, it's up to good men like Justice Alito to point it out. We can't allow Obama's deceptions to go unchallenged.
The arguments have been boiled down to: 1) What about what Bush did.
Obama sounds like a tenant trying to argue that it should be OK that he burned down your house because the prior tenant burned down the garage.
I mean, that's second grade mindset.
cc
"Can't we at least pretend there is a vestige of neutrality on the Court?"
Of course there is not neutrality when it comes to Supreme Court cases. That's basically the whole job of a Supreme Court Justice. They are paid to have an opinion on such things.
Unlike Obama, the justices cannot come down on two different sides on the same issue.
I don't understand why we expect ANYONE to sit motionless like a statue while they are attacked. They're not furniture and this is not some religious ceremony. Disrespect and lies should get a reaction in a free society.
Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker.
Alito should not have reacted even though our buffoon president is completely wrong
I'm betting it was purely reflexive considering how completely wrong Obama got it. I suppose Alito assumed Obama, being a Constituional lawyer and all that was just stunned by his ignorance of the law.
Sorry but I don't think the SOTU should be a forum where you can just stand up and lie your ass off and everyone should just sit like 5th graders and nod.
President Obama, YOU LIE!
Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President.
Isn't he half white? Or does mom's genes not count?
Just asking.
"It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?"
This is what annoys the hell out of me about the pro-censorship crowd. They assume that the public is so weak minded that they will be swayed by the number of times a message is broadcast rather than the content of the message itself. They fundamentally have no regard for the intelligence of the citizenry. They really do think they are smarter.
Hey DTL are you talking about Chris Matthews or Harry Reid?
Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker.
Ah! Straight from the DTL play book. Ignore the facts of the matter and the discussion at hand while attacking the other side with accusations that he couldn't possibly know are true or not.
/ignore on
/troll shield activated
Go back to the kiddie table, DTL. Adults are trying to have a discussion here, and you keep dripping snot all over dining room floor.
DTL, Is that all you got for argument, yell "racist" as part of your ad hominem?
Even you should be able to do better than that. Try again.
@Oxbay: The Sombrero is my favorite galaxy.
Because pushing back at Alito is gonna save this POTUS from plummeting approval rating. Yeah, that'll work.
Everything is about Alito. No one is mentioning Joe Biden. He was nodding, talking to himself, and bobbing his head like a retard in a nursing home.
The man is an embarrassment.
Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker.
Troll ignore ON.
"So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension"
Then we have no worry, that racists will resort.
Touchy touchy! If Alito knew it was a just ruling, why get all flustered? Pretty revealing.
DTL...Do you really believe that saying white men are rascists is an answer to all who dare speak truth back to the lies coming thru Obama? Come on man.
Yawn. The "racism" card has been folded, spindled and mutilated beyond use.
It's pretty clear why people don't like Obama. He's a liar and a fraud. His skin color has nothing to do with that.
/ignore on
/troll shield activated
You forgot - /Phasers at maximum
It's sort of like that press conference last fall. Obama tried to make a pitch for health care, but the take-away story was about one ill-considered remark about how the "police acted stupidly."
By the way, We like to be referred to as Welsh-German-French-Beige Americans now.
If Alito knew it was a just ruling, why get all flustered?
Maybe he was stunned that a constitutional law professor now General Secre....I mean President would make such a monumentally ignorant statement.
I on the other hand was not stunned because I've known for a long time that ignorant statements come out of his mouth all the time.
As a racists, I must admit that the white half of Obama is a super duper leader of infinite wisdom.
God, I wish we had question time.
I also wish I knew what Obama was running for.
It would have been cool in my opinion if all the justices reacted in some reserved, but negative way. They certainly all disliked him saying it, regardless of their side in the decision.
Maybe he was stunned that a constitutional law professor now General Secre....I mean President would make such a monumentally ignorant statement.
Why was Alito the only one that got so shaken by it.
Why was Alito the only one that got so shaken by it.
I dunno. Maybe he, like the 52% of the electorate bought into Obama's aura if intelligence whereas the rest of them know he's a dumbass and took it in stride.
Why was Alito the only one that got so shaken by it.
SNL aside, why was Joe Wilson the only one to say "you lie" last time? Subsequent analysis, if memory serves, proved Wilson correct.
As I stated before the visual of directly criticizing the Supreme Court while they had to sit there stone-faced and surrounded by applauding Dems was not good. And that's without the Alito lip reading.
And on a related note (I watched the speech on CNN) How many frigging cameras did they have for this speech?
At one point we got the Alfred Hitchcock downward shot from the top of the ceiling. When are we going to get the super slow mo and that cool 3-D moving the still shot effects that we get on NFL coverage.
And we need more microphones too. I want to hear what Joe and Nancy are talking about; what John McCain said during the speech.
And I want to read the note passed to Speaker Pelosi during the speech. Was it one of those Joe Wilson likes you and wants to ask you on a date kind of notes or was it a Pick up some Chinese on the way home tonite. kind of notes....inquiring minds want to know!
Hillary is damaged goods. She;s accomplished nothing as Sec of State and has been dragged down by Obama's mistakes.
She hasn't accomplished enough to be POTUS and we all know that it's important to have accomplishments under your bel... wait, scratch that.
Obama takes a lofty, non partisan stance in a way that invites a partisan response. He flogs his opponents with an olive branch and calls their yelps disrespectful. The birth of a new tradition: From now on only Justices appointed by Democrats will attend Obama's SOTUS. They will listen to his pleas for non-partisan solutions to the nation's problems with proper respect.
Original Mike said: They assume that the public is so weak minded that they will be swayed by the number of times a message is broadcast rather than the content of the message itself.
That's because the elites believe that if you say something enough times, it will be true.
vw: cestox = the toxic cesspool of politics
Hoosier said...
Hope and Change!
Scott M said...
Joe Wilson!
Awesome.
@Rialby
She's accomplished nothing
That hasn't stopped Democrats in the past from becoming President. See 2008, re Barrack Obama.
Original Mike said: They assume that the public is so weak minded that they will be swayed by the number of times a message is broadcast rather than the content of the message itself.
But you know what Mike, they have a right to assume that. What was Obama's message during the campaign? Hope and Change. Rinsed, repeated and an occasional spin cycle but pretty much the same. Heavy on the symbolism and light on the substance. Yet the electorate bought it.
I think what Obama has missed the boat on is that most people are over Bush and are actually expecting Obama to start earning his pay. I know myself, if I was still blaming my predecessor I'd be unemployed right now.
Thanks garage. I'm glad I can lift your spirits.
No white President was ever treated with such contempt by members of Congress or the judiciary. Sorry, but the racism is obvious. On both occasions Obama spoke the truth as well, and in fact, was not even saying anything controversial. Now you might think that foreign governments should be able to bankroll political commercials as a matter of free speech, but the FACT is that that they know can. Without any spending limits whatsoever. That's indisputable and that's all that Obama said. Now whether they SHOULD be able to do that is a legitimate point of debate.
The racism is obvious. Not a surprise. The vast majority of white Americans are racists.
Oh Yes! Amazing that Alito's petulance got the most attention from RIGHT WING BLOGS! Who could have guessed that RIGHT WING BLOGGERS THAT HATE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA would focus on this trivial detail of the State of the Union? I mean, what a crazy revelation! And shouldn't Obama just resign now, because of the Memeorandum???
All you have to do is install the memeorandum greasemonkey plugin to see that the majority of blogs talking about the Alito thing are right wing.
This is really the ultimate proof that Obama is a noob and Alito pwned him! It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it, hmmmmmmmmmm? Is it?
Former solicitor general Ted Olson, the litigator for the plaintiff in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, tells National Review Online that President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision during the State of the Union was a “disappointing attack on our independent judiciary.”
“Other presidents have spoken out and scolded the Court before, usually liberals, like Franklin Roosevelt,” says Olson. “It’s not appropriate. Presidents should respect the justices.” The Citizens United case, he adds, “was not about corporations taking over the political process, but enabling everyone to participate in the political process and protecting free speech.”
"...As many of us have argued around here for a while, conservatives aren't obsessed with Obama's race, liberals are. That's why we've had so many asinine, nasty, and ignorant charges of racism hurled at Obama's critics. There's a certain species of liberal that can't get over Obama's race. They assume that conservatives can't get over it either and so criticism of Obama from the Right must — ---according to Olbermannesque thinking — stem from some evil desire to see a "black man fail" or some other idiocy. I think it's nice that we have a black president as do most conservatives I know. I just don't think it's the most important thing in the world. Nor do I think that his blackness makes bad liberal ideas suddenly good. Black men, too, are wrong when they say 2+2 is 5."
-Jonah Goldberg
Alito got flustered because he know he's a political hack. Just like Roberts, who both lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings.
I thought that thing about any criticism of Obama making you racist was a caricature of his defenders, but DTL, that's your argument for everything. You are the caricature, like a cartoon thingy.
"The vast majority of white Americans are racists."
Well, here's one who surely is.
Finally {sigh}
I love that there are people from the left here to argue and I wish there were more, but please guys, raise the bar a little. Please. It gets boring. The race card is lazy and boring.
dtl: "Now you might think that foreign governments should be able to bankroll political commercials as a matter of free speech, but the FACT is that that they know can. Without any spending limits whatsoever. That's indisputable and that's all that Obama said."
Uh.. no. The president's statement is false. As in, he lied.
Quoting Bradley Smith, Law Professor, from The Corner:
"The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.
Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.
Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind."
So now Alito is a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy. Cynicism abounds.
Alito got flustered because he know he's a political hack. Just like Roberts, who both lied through their teeth at their confirmation hearings.
LOL!
I doesn't bother me at all that Obama is a Negro.
"So now Alito is a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans"
It is possible to be both when your politics includes adherence to the constitution.
"Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker."
Please everyone knows white people like light-skinned, articulate Negroes, it's the dark swarthy ones that scare us to death. Harry Reid said so.
I doesn't bother me at all that Obama is a Negro.
Half-negro. Which makes him half-white. Which apparently,makes him part of the vast white racist conspiracy. Can someone get a mic on the President's internal monologue?
You're right, Scott. I didn't mention the fact, because I'm boycotting white people this week.
Except for the white people who produce Leinenkugels.
Now how do you know Leinies is made by white people? Been to the brewery?
So, let me get this straight... our POTUS is railing against foreign influence in US elections. This would be the same President who 1) explicitly turned off all security controls on his donation site so that there was absolutely no donor validation in place and 2) took donations from at least one foreigner that we know of - his aunt. He did return that money. How many more were there?
Nevermind that this is not even what the decision actually does.
F15C, my money is on demogoguery. And this is an interesting way for the Democrats to attack this ruling (claiming that it will allow those damned ferrunners to influence our elections) given the contributions that Clinton received from China, and that Gore received from Tibetan monks with no earthly possessions.
Try again, DTL, Montagne, garage, et al. That argument doesn't hold water.
I have, Mike. Couple of times. Not the whole tour, just the part where you can get free beer. Plus I've purchased Leinies refrigerator magnets and other stuff. I'm a classy guy.
So are the lefties asserting that Alito was wrong and the President correct in the matter of foreign corporations being able to influence campaigns legally? For once I hope that the lefties are right. But would that be racist?
I've always assumed it was made by Indians. Learn something new everyday.
I have a Leinies baseball cap. Does that make me a classy guy, too?
Nothing says class, like a Leinies baseball cap. Man, I'm starting to get thirsty.
Overshadow in the blogosphere != Overshadow in real life.
I have a Leinies baseball cap. Does that make me a classy guy, too?
Only if you have the matching t-shirt and boxers.
I have a picture of myself with a Leinies t-shirt on, holding a Leinies at Miller Park, taken in 2008. I'd put it in my profile, but the picture would probably come out too small to appreciate. I need one of those flickr things.
Sounds like you need to get the boxers, Allen, to complete the set. But no pictures, please.
Elliott said: "So now Alito is a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats,"
I love this liberal idea that anyone who ever says (or even silently mouths) something the least bit critical of the president is now his "enemy." Real nuanced thinking, guys.
-Lyssa
WV: tuortali- sounds like a delicious Italian dish. I hope that Justice Alito gets to eat it for dinner tonight.
Has there been an Obama speech yet where the focus has been *words he actually spoke in the speech*, and not either attempts by his sychophants to spin obvious mistatements or a negative reaction from the crowd?
Anyone? Bueller?
(I did have to laugh at the line the local fishwrapper chose to put in bold type above the fold .. "I don't quit". Hey, Barry, Mr. I-d-rather-have-only-one-good-term, did anybody but you say that you were?)
vw: anial. The opposite of cranial
If Mr Obama is concerned about corporate contributions, can any of our left wings commentators explain to me why Mr Obama failed to accept public financing of his campaign to be president?
Mr Obama is the end result of affirmative action. And its not a pretty sight. I would rather have Al Sharpton as the first black president. The guy is gutsy, funny, and otherwise outrageous. And somehow I think he would do better job that this piece of shit we have now. And at least Al Sharpton bathes every day.
well it goes to glenn reynold overarching point in an army of davids. more than ever, the little guy can stand up to the big guy and win the argument.
Its all ironic, then that just as the supreme court showed it understood better than ever the necessity of money and business organization in order to facilitate speech, the world is changing to make that stuff much less important than ever in this country. mass media doesn't require mass effort or massive amounts of money. Dan rather can be taken down by a handful of bloggers. in their pajamas.
And, the "I don't quit" line is particularly jarring. This from the guy who wants to cut and run from two different countries.
"You are talking about Democrats. Their whole raison de erte is to lie and distort."
As distinct from the Republicans, whose raison d'etre is to distort and lie.
I always thought that the Lienies were made by the Sgiugiies!
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"I don't think Hillary could have done much worse."
You're right she was much more qualified. Just shows how stupid Democrats are. It's pretty simple...they voted for the black man. Made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Chippewa Falls is a long way from Milwaukee, York.
I ask once again, why are liberals so afraid of the freedom of speech?
Why are you liberals so frightened of what, for example, the Saudis have to say? I'm not. Nor am I afraid of what Chavez, bin Laden or anyone else has to say. They have a right to say it.
I know that the knee jerk response is that liberals don't trust people blah blah blah. So what? I want to hear from the liberals. Why are you so damn afraid of free speech?
Headlines We'd Like To See - Obama Apologizes To Supreme Court, Asks For Beer Summit!
lunatic, that ties into the quote from JG that AprilApple posted.
They voted *for* Obama because he was black, therefore we must have voted *against* him for the same reason.
Joe's got an idea there. I'd love to see a campaign ad from Osama. Why the hell not?
He really shouldn’t pick on Alito. I mean everybody on the Court loves him. They call him the “Situation” because he loves to pick up his robe and show off his Abs.
He didn’t spend all that time at the Jersey Shore for nuthin’
He does have a problem with Ginsberg though. She’s a stalker.
She even bought him a “I Love Jewish Girls” T-shirt.
I can't think of any presidential election over the 2008 race where one candidate received such favorable foreign press and used that foreign press in his campaign.
Brandenburg speech anyone?
Yeah, keep them damned foreigners out of our elections.
> Why are you liberals so frightened of what, for example, the Saudis have to say?
Well, more than that, even if citizens united came out the other way, the saudis could still fund corporate speech that engaged in electioneering. we don't shut down Al Jazeera just because it is a terrorist loving foreign network.
Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker.
Wow, what predictable, ridiculous, tripe.
I thought Joe Wilson was being rude, but if Obama takes every opportunity he has to say rude things about someone who disagrees with him, well, I think we're about to the point that people should start walking out of his speeches.
"I want to hear from the liberals. Why are you so damn afraid of free speech?"
Well, you see, when those donations start flooding in from our enemies and they are all for Democratic candidates, we are gonna have a bit of a problem with the American voters.
Does anyone have any doubt about which party will get those donations...anyone?
Btw, its funny how the left opposes speech by foreign corporations, but didn't raise a peep when illegal immigrants were protesting.
Mind you, i agree that illegal immigrants have freedom of speech. i am just noting the contradiction.
OF COURSE liberals are afraid of freedom of speech. That's why liberals have long opposed the actions of the ACLU, that famous conservative organization, whenever it litigates freedom of speech cases across the land. Liberals are also known for banning books in public libraries because they mention homosexuality or paganism.
In fact, as proper conservatives, you should probably send in a check to the ACLU right now.
Btw, its funny how the left opposes speech by foreign corporations, but didn't raise a peep when illegal immigrants were protesting.
Most excellent point. Wonder if there is anyway to determine if any of the estimated 10-15 million non-US citizens currently residing in the US contributed to the campaign.
My guess is no.
OF COURSE liberals are afraid of freedom of speech.
Well you prove it every time you shout down or throw food at a conservative speaker at a college campus.
You also don't see conservatives championing laws punishing 'hate speech' or instituting 'speech codes'.
If god had wanted Alito to speak he would have made him a jihadist.
@MM
In fact, as proper conservatives, you should probably send in a check to the ACLU right now.
Why? There's ample documented evidence of the ACLU turning a blind eye from defending conservative speech. The fact that they defend "unsavory" speech like Nazis and NAMBLA doesn't make up for it.
Consider political correctness. PC is nothing but a widespread, INSTITUTIONALIZED, attempt to control speech and is wholly a construct of liberal academia.
I personally think PC is having its last gasp (thank God), but I think a lot of the bullshit we've been putting with for the last 30 years, on both sides, is going to start petering out as the Boomers shuffle of this mortal coil.
Alito should have thrown his shoes.
Alito has not overshadowed Obama.
Google News search on "Alito" for the past day = 619 stories.
Google News search on "Obama" for the past day = 12,033 stories.
Pesky facts!
As I pointed out here last week, the Republican Supreme Court decision allows foreign governments owning corporations in the US - think Citgo - to influence elections.
Read the opinion.
The Roberts Supreme Court is the most openly partisan in memory. Alito behaved letter better than Rep Joe Wilson.
He clearly lacks the right judicial temperament.
Well, you see, when those donations start flooding in from our enemies and they are all for Democratic candidates, we are gonna have a bit of a problem with the American voters.
It isn't about donations. The ruling was about the ability of corporations AND anyone else to have the right to free speech.
Purchasing an advertisement, publishing a magazine, publishing a newspaper, publishing a book or in the case in hand....making a documentry are forbidden because of McCain Feingold. This is a clear violation of the free speech clause.
Instead of the money being donated, as it is now, to 527 groups or directly to the sleazy campaigns of the sleazy congress critters, the PEOPLE and corporations can just put their money where their mouth is and buy an advertisement to promote their own issues.
This applies to the Unions, the Tea Party groups, Ma and Pa Fricket and anyone else who desires to make their voice heard.
The Supreme Court just did us ALL a huge favor by allowing anyone and everyone the right to free speech.
but, hey, let's see what Glenn Greenwald has to say! He, after all, was kind to Rep Joe Wilson after Wilson's outburst, saying it's no big deal:
Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President -- with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.
"In fact, as proper conservatives, you should probably send in a check to the ACLU right now."
I thought that the ACLU agreed with the SCOTUS and Alito on this one.
They aren't automatically and always wrong, you know.
In the earlier years of homeschooling the homeschool legal defense organization, or one of their lawyers anyway, said that when you went to court what you really wanted was a judge who had previously been a lawyer for the ACLU because they understood the Constitutional issues.
They take up some twisted causes from time to time, seem to seek them out even. And I think they've earned their reputation as being aggressively socially liberal.
But how does that equate to a need to oppose them no matter what and without regard to whatever the particular issue is?
The way things are going I can see a switch happening. Because instead of liberals saying "Yay! The conservatives are comming down hard on the side of free speech and liberty and keeping the government out of our lives!" it's something more like "Ack! Conservative cooties! Change what we believe in quick! Before the popular kids see us sitting at the same lunch table as the nerds!"
But... alas...
So it goes.
"It's not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?"
Right. For example, there was that most important part of the address where Obama evidently spoke very softly and said:
"The American people are sick to death of the graft and corruption surrounding congressional earmarks. Consequently, I will veto each appropriations bill with earmarks that crosses my desk. I will also publish the names and details behind the earmarks that gave rise to the veto."
He spoke so softly that I didn't hear it, but he did say that -- didn't he? Didn't he?
As I pointed out here last week, the Republican Supreme Court decision allows foreign governments owning corporations in the US - think Citgo - to influence elections.
I bet you exhibited similar outrage when Chavez was trying to buy favors with cheap heating oil too right Alpha? Oh and you don't have much to say about the lack of credit card validation for Barry's campaign contributions. I'm sure those millions of non-US citizens didn't kick in a few bucks either did they.
You're a fraud of the highest order. Go back to Olberman's lap.
Yes, Glenn Greenwald makes other good points about the deeply partisan nature of the Republicans on the Supreme Court:
What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity. Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney, dubiously refuses to recuse himself from a lawsuit challenging the legality of Cheney's actions, and then rules in Cheney's favor. Scalia has an increasing tendency to make highly politicized comments about purely political conflicts, most recently defending torture in an interview with 60 Minutes. As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements -- even parading himself around on Rush Limbaugh's radio program -- and turned himself into the food fight of the week between Democrats and Republicans .
Say it, Glenn!
Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice. While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either. And, as usual, the disingenuousness levels are off the charts: imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush's State of the Union address. .
I agree. The purpose of the ACLU is to defend free speech in America. That's why they're right to be going after the DoD on US drone attacks on Pakistan. I will donate to them tomorrow.
Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event
Flamboyantly? Is he serious? Hell I had to watch the video twice to see where he actually expressed himself. You mean a barely perceptible headshake is now the definition of flamboyant?
Jay-sus Christ.
What is the ACLU's position on hate speech codes and laws? Anybody know?
Say it, Glenn!
Can we get an Amen and a Hallelujah!
Don't forget to throw in a 'testify my brotha' and Praise Jesus.
What is the ACLU's position on hate speech codes and laws? Anybody know?
I know for a fact that they don't think I should have a right to own a firearm for self defense.
"It isn't about donations. The ruling was about the ability of corporations AND anyone else to have the right to free speech. "
Thanks DBQ, That's my imprecise verbiage, but the result is the same: Whoever our enemies chose to support with their money, in whatever form, will help inform our vote.
The Democrats have a bit of a conflict with that support. I don't think the Repubs will have to worry about it.
The left has been against George Soros using his billions to influence American elections all these year?
Who knew?
There are two things about this episode that bother me. The first is that Obama knew the justices were present in the chamber, and if he had the brains of a cockroach he would have realized the downside risk of his remarks. He wasn't precisely inviting the response he got, but he was unthinking enough to set the stage for it.
The second is more serious in my estimation. The justices ruled on a Constitutional question, which I understand to mean that it cannot be overturned except by amending the Constitution itself. Yet the President asked for Congress to pass an ordinary law to overturn the ruling. As a former Con Law professor, you'd think he would know better, wouldn't you?
"As a former Con Law professor, you'd think he would know better, wouldn't you?"
That needs to be an Althouse tag.
@Big Mike
What do you expect from a guy who is bummed out that the Constitution is a document of negative rights...saying things the government can't do to you rather that what it should do for you.
He's on the wrong side of an extremely wise decision made over 200 years ago.
His rude criticism of the Supreme Court while they were sitting there is akin to his claim that his agenda is not being enacted due to politics. In fact, Mr. President, your opponents have deep seated objections to the policies. We think your health care bill will seriously damage health care in this country. To suggest that we are not "working" with you out of political motives is frankly, insulting.
Yet the President asked for Congress to pass an ordinary law to overturn the ruling. As a former Con Law professor, you'd think he would know better, wouldn't you? .
No, you are wrong. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court chose not to address the question of foreign-owned corporations influencing elections. Because they left it an open question when granting corporations the rights of citizenship it is a loophole that the Saudis, Russians, whoever could exploit.
you could always search on "foreign" in the opinion. but that would be employing facts and logic. Not the practice of Republicans!
Alpha
> As I pointed out here last week, the Republican Supreme Court decision allows foreign governments owning corporations in the US - think Citgo - to influence elections.
Oh, hell, alpha. Chavez got ownership of many of the voting machines. i didn't hear any liberals raise a peep about that. That's a little more serious than putting on a commercial.
Btw, am i the only person who thinks it might be useful to know who Chavez endorses? i mean its a simple rule: whoever chavez likes, vote for the other guy.
Damn that firebrand Alito--what a douchebag responding to a personal attack on his institution, an attack that was supported by a lie by the president of the united states--god- the temerity of that guy--say, his name ends in a vowel--I bet he's a wop and probably a mackerel snapper--Fortunately, he has life time tenure--kind of like our hostess here--so he can stick it to da man every year.
but we dont want to make a partisan issue of this. As Alpha said, Alito lacks judicial temperament--Of course it is manifest that Obama lacks presidential temperament let alone qualifications or ability.
And then AL brings up Citgo.
It goes like this: Conservatives hate Chavez and think he's a scary communist... so lets bring up Chavez and they can't say anything.
But anyone paying attention knows that the arguments against the "Republican" SCOTUS ruling are the same arguments as Chavez makes and the same justifications that Chavez offers to restrict freedom of the press in his country.
Anyone so much as claiming that Chavez is a "bad guy" has to admit the correlation. Or they don't think he's a bad guy at all.
The arguments about why the SCOTUS ruling is bad rest on the exact same arguments that Chavez makes. Chavez, after all, is simply defending the people against the wealthy businesses and corporations who fund the radio and television stations and bank roll the opposition in Venezuela.
So essentially all bringing up Citgo or Chavez does is illustrate and high-light that the SCOTUS ruling prevents and forbids the same behavior and excuses for silencing the opposition in the US.
The only reason I can imagine for not realizing this is that the person bringing up Chavez because he is a conservative boogy-man, personally approve of Chavez and the twists of logic he uses to justify intimidation, control, censorship and silencing of the media and the press.
Chavez is a good guy trying to help the people, opposing the corporations and greedy businesses who only care about profit and shutting down the wealthy so that the people can be heard.
What's not to like and support?
Chavez is even progressive enough to insist on *positive* rights to freedom of speech by requiring that the corporations and media companies and those motivated by greed are not able to silence the people by choosing not to run his speeches. He refuses to let them control the dialog that way. So all networks now have to broadcast his speeches. They can't refuse or he shuts them down.
What's not to like about that? The people have a right to speak and they have a right to listen and those nasty corporations and rich dudes want to take that right away by deciding *themselves* what people should be able to hear. Chavez shut that down! People ought to have the right to decide for themselves.
Now... that silly dystopian movie hog-wash where the law forbids turning off the television set.
That could *never* happen.
Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner ....
Flamboyantly? Highly politicized manner?
Since Alito was quite subdued and it is unlikely that he even knew he was on camera, this a significant stretch for any sane person, and perhaps even for Greenwald and you, Alpha.
Obama's speech was fodder for dupes as is Greenwald's nonsense. Thank's for sharing, Alpha. I doubt you'll find many takers here.
One problem with the ACLU is that they are not monolithic. There is a national organization, and then there are state organizations, and they often seem to be running against each other.
So, yes, you find them on the free speech side of some issues, but then you find them on the liberal side of other issues that just happen to be against free speech (e.g. hate speech laws). It is not that the organization is schizoid, but rather, you have different organizations with different agendas, loosely linked, all under one name.
Alpha Liberal, who the fuck cares? Seriously, why are you so fucking afraid of freedom of speech and so hell bent on controlling it?
Congress shall pass no law...
The founding fathers knew about foreign countries meddling and were worried about it, but chose to not limit free speech because they knew that any stated limit would be abused by the government and would ultimately reduce our rights, not enhance them.
If the Saudis want to run ads supporting whoever, let them! I am not afraid. Why are you?
"Btw, am i the only person who thinks it might be useful to know who Chavez endorses?"
He really *really* liked Obama.
Changed his mind, though. Now the stench of the devil fills the room and taints the podium where Obama spoke in Copenhagen. Just like Bush stunk up the UN.
Somehow no stench from Chavez or even Mugabe clung to the podium at Copenhagen at all.
Go climate change!
His rude criticism of the Supreme Court while they were sitting there is akin to his claim that his agenda is not being enacted due to politics. In fact, Mr. President, your opponents have deep seated objections to the policies. We think your health care bill will seriously damage health care in this country. To suggest that we are not "working" with you out of political motives is frankly, insulting.
So much word. This needed to be repeated.
Some people in this country need to take a very deep breath and realize that sometimes, someone might just disagree with you. It doesn't make them evil, racist, unfeeling, or hate-filled. It means they have an opinion, just like you do. God, that is probably the thing I hate most about politics. And it's beginning to be one of the things I hate most about Obama.
Is there a "Godwin's Law" for dragging race into an argument? Cuz I think it got violated aways back.
Alpha
> The Roberts Supreme Court is the most openly partisan in memory.
Well, I guess you can’t remember the Warren Court.
> but, hey, let's see what Glenn Greenwald has to say!
No, let’s not.
> Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event
Um, flamboyantly?
> Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.
Democrats have politicized the supreme court for years. They have openly declared that their justices won’t have to follow the constitution, but can make up whatever “rights” they hallucinate into it. by transforming the supreme court into a super-legislature, the left has made its composition more politicized than ever.
The fact was that if the president didn’t want alito disagreeing with him, he shouldn’t have LIED about what the supreme court actually said.
Synova
> I thought that the ACLU agreed with the SCOTUS and Alito on this one.
Yes, they did.
> Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney
You think sotomayor never attended a party with the president?
> As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements
By telling his life story. How evil of him.
> Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice.
To their face? In the SOTU?
> While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either.
Of course he doesn’t mention the precedents because they were considered pretty horrible.
Sy, sorry some of that was directed at alpha and not labeled as such.
Alpha
> Antonin Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney
You think sotomayor never attended a party with the president?
> As part of Clarence Thomas' promotional efforts to sell his book, he spent substantial time building his conservative icon status with the furthest right-wing media elements
By telling his life story. How evil of him.
> Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice.
To their face? In the SOTU?
> While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either.
Of course he doesn’t mention the precedents because they were considered pretty horrible.
> imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush's State of the Union address.
Republicans are hypocrits because… I am pretty sure they would react differently if the shoe was on the other foot!
> No, you are wrong. The Republican majority on the Supreme Court chose not to address the question of foreign-owned corporations influencing elections. Because they left it an open question when granting corporations the rights of citizenship it is a loophole that the Saudis, Russians, whoever could exploit.
No, you are wrong. The law presently bans foreigners from electioneering, and thus foreign companies, too.
Second, the Saudis already had a loophole. The could have just bought out NBC and filled the airwaves with whatever message they wanted, including electioneering.
That is one of the fatal flaws in that ruling. It was both overinclusive and under inclusive. Corporations were banned from electioneering, except so-called media companies. Except of courst Citizens United was by any rational measure a media company but they were not allowed to speak. But at the same time, Michael Moore and Disney, were allowed to put out and promote Fahrenheit 9/11. Would you care to explain to me why Fahrenheit was kosher and Hillary: the Movie was verboten?
Notice that you liberals always want to ignore the facts of the actual case before us, when making their arguments. That is because when you look at what happened in that case, a company that engages in nothing but free speech, being silenced because it dared to speak against a specific candidate, all of your theory suddenly is revealed as the fascist sham it really is.
But go on with your fictions. “This isn’t banning speech, just expenditures.” Well, if you want to show an ad, its kind of hard to do it without expending money.
“Only real people have freedom of speech.” Oh, then I am allowed to ban speech by the Democratic party, then? Because they aren’t a real person, but they speak all the time. And for that matter in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times Company, a corporation, in its right to express itself. So I guess that was wrongly decided, right?
But the biggest error there is that the left explicitly says that they don’t want corporations to speak because they don’t like what they think they can say. In doing so, they urinate all over Justice Jackson’s declaration that “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics.”
And for all the endless talk of corruption, the left never even notices the corruption that is inherent when Congress decides who may or may not speak in regard to their own elections. Because above all else, across all partisan lines, Congress will support any rule that makes sure the incumbents keep their jobs. Maybe you are fool enough to trust congress with this kind of power, but I am not.
What did Justice Alito say? All I saw was he shook his head and mouthed something. Maybe he took a shower before the speech and had water in his ear? That is so annoying.
Let me get this straight--the objection is that foreign companies are now allowed to buy advertising in the U.S., in which they criticize our politicians? And that's somehow a threat to our freedom?
1) If Hyundai buys up tons of ads, with "paid for by Hyundai," how are the American people uninformed about where that's coming from?
2) Even if Hyundai isn't identified (Did the Supreme Court rule that the government couldn't even insist on that? I doubt it.), doesn't the ad stand or fall on whether it's a persuasive argument?
Since when are persuasive arguments a threat to free elections--because the wrong person makes them? It seems to me the same folks who object to them furriners being involved here, are the very ones who love the idea of using foreign law to interpret our law! Isn't that curious?
Of course, we all remember how President Steve Forbes and President Ross Perot before him, were able to use their vast fortunes to buy the presidency...
Hoosier,
"Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President.
Isn't he half white? Or does mom's genes not count?"
I'm pretty sure Alito is all white.
The ungratefulness of Chavez is astounding, actually.
Here Obama went all in and forcefully supported Chavez's fellow Zaleya through one revelation after another, even that Zaleya had certified results of an unconstitutional election/referendum that hadn't even happened yet that showed that he'd won. And Obama stuck by him most strongly, revoking travel privileges to Honduran officials and other stern actions. Because, after all, Zelaya was talking about the will of the people, and what is a Constitution compared to that? The fact that it was blindingly obvious that Zelaya wanted to become the Chavez of Honduras wasn't an issue, because what's not to like about Chavez? He'd been shutting down opposition media for years before Obama was all chummy with him. One can only assume approval.
And what does he get for his trouble?
Chavez hating on America and on Obama at Copenhagen and talking about how he stinks of the devil.
What does a person have to do to get any respect in the World, hm?
Fox
> Even if Hyundai isn't identified (Did the Supreme Court rule that the government couldn't even insist on that? I doubt it.),
Actually they did specifically apply and uphold the disclosure rules. Although I think Thomas’s dissent on the topic is interesting, especially as it bears on their decision in regard to the prop 8 trial.
I think the reason why is the budding meme that Obama is a liar. Or deceptive. Or full of s*i* on anything he says.
Sy
> And what does he get for his trouble?
> Chavez hating on America and on Obama at Copenhagen and talking about how he stinks of the devil.
Well, to be fair, do you think Obama wants Chavez to openly endorse him? I am sure after Chavez started saying nice things, Obama called him up, and said, “Dude, you are totally screwing me up. Look, the American people don’t like you. I like you. But the American people don’t. so please keep your admiration for me on the down-low, k?”
Well now we know where downtownlad moved to.
;-)
This post is why I read Althouse.
Sometimes her logic shines through like a bolt of laser light onto a Taliban meeting house. That is, you couldn't really see it yourself, but the impact on your thinking that results is awesome.
Aaron, if so it worked!
At least one person here in the last couple of days pointed out Chavez's antagonism as vastly important and validating of Obama.
I'd be more impressed with a quote of Obama criticizing Chavez or his policies in any way.
By the way, who made this "rule" that Justices aren't allowed to defend themselves from slander?
wv: vinesse, which is how you use subtlty to parry slander while holding a wine glass.
The claim has been made that President Obama rebuking the court--to their faces--for a constitutional holding is unprecedented.
Well, that's a testable claim. I wonder if anyone has checked on this, or cares to?
After all, members of the court have been coming to this speech for some time; and I certainly recall past presidents, in my lifetime, finding fault with court rulings.
I have to agree with downtown lad that this was a partisan act. Alito spoke the truth, which is clearly an attack on all that the Democrats hold dear.
Surprise. Surprise. Another middle aged white guy who can't stand the fact that a Black Man is President. So when Obama speaks the truth, the racists resort to condescension. Shocker.
I agree, that comment by Chris Matthews was pretty revealingly racist! For 'one hour' he forgot Obama was black? What is he doing the rest of the time?
dewave
it explains why chris matthews is so quick to accuse others of racism--because he is racist himself.
Its called projection.
and racist love can quickly turn to racist hate. which is why we all need to forget what color we are as much as humanly possible.
Opus One Media wrote:
but all he mouthed was "this robe itches"..
No, it was clearly "this rogue snitches..."
There is an outside chance Justice Alito really said "this rube bitches..."
"I hope all you stupid fucking lip-readers are watching this." (Joke stolen from George Carlin.)
It's not about forgetting.
It's how much importance is put on a physical characteristic.
We wouldn't "forget" that Obama was male, or tall, or what he looks like, including the color of his skin.
I clicked through and read Ta-Nenisi Coates at the Atlantic who asked what we'd think if in a conversation about the NFL someone said, after we were smart about it, "Wow, I forgot you were a woman!"
It wouldn't be a compliment.
It's insulting to imply that a woman transcended her woman-ness to comment intelligently on sports and it's insulting to imply that a black person transcended his or her race to speak intelligently of politics.
Someone doesn't forget your color or height or sex or age or weight... they just don't put importance on it. Matthews, whatever his explanations, always did.
Coates' comments on this are really good up until the insistence that people who claim they never *did* notice race need to admit their racism. But I believe that for a great many people it really is that unimportant, no matter what anyone says. Coates said that Obama can't be post-racial, every one else needs to be. I think that's true... but if it is, people have to be allowed to be and when they say they don't base their opinions on race and they don't put importance on race... they ought to be believed.
I don't see a black man standing behind the podium, I see Obama. I can't get distracted from the fact that he is black or have my attention pulled away from the fact that he is black because that is not where my attention is to start with.
Forgetting is like forgetting to stop at the store to get milk and a loaf of bread. You can't *forget* if you had no plans to go to the store.
@Synova
I used to inhabit Coates' blog. It wasn't until the whole American black vs immigrant black affluence thing boiled up that I left in disgust. All in all, he's a decent guy and we've traded emails privately about this and that since, mostly PC gaming related :)
The best observation made so far about Matthews obvious and strangely unshocking comment is the question, "what did Obama do to remind Matthews that he was black again?"
president obama spoke the truth...
and only nine times in the past century or so, have presidents confronted the supreme court during such a speech:
but only harding, fdr and reagan were the only three who really took aim at the Court specifically -- harding to advocate the repeal of court decisions outlawing child labor in America (really); fdr to pressure the court to get out of the way of the New Deal; and reagan to urge the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer. (duh)
AllenS said..."Except for a few commenters on this blog, it sure seems that almost everyone is either turning against Obama, or at least questioning his judgment."
good lord...you are incredibly perspicacious.
are you laying off the booze or cutting back on the meds?
Jeremy, this doesn’t quite make sense
“harding to advocate the repeal of court decisions outlawing child labor in America (really);”
My understanding is that the decisions on that were based on statutes, not judicial interpretation. So it seems unlikely that he would blame the court for the ruling.
“and reagan to urge the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer. (duh)”
Arguing for a constitutional amendment to change the constitution is not the same as scolding them. do we have reagan’s actual words?
But the FDR one is on point. And it wasn’t exactly a high point in our democracy, the way FDR behaved, now was it?
I think that the standing ovation Obama got from, I would brave a guess, the Dems in Congress right after Obamas words and Alito's reaction was pretty damning. That shows that President Obama is not alone in his obuse of Contitution. Democrates elite supports him pretty enthusiasticly.
can we all assume, if alito was telling the "truth," and that this will not open the corporate floodgates...that john mccain and other republicans are just as out of touch as president obama
mccain: "I was disappointed"...I've never favored public financing."
snowe: "It's very disappointing, frankly."
of course steele thinks it's just great...and we all know how sharp steele i.
aaron - i have no idea what you're trying to say.
all i did was provide a bit of trivial background regarding how seldom presidents make such comments or confront the court.
i personally think obama was right and that alito should have sat without comment, just as his fellow justices did.
if you and others here don't think this will open the door to massive corporate interference in elections...that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
i disagree.
i also think congress is going to try to tweak the decision to make sure foreign corporations are not allowed much leeway...and again, if you don't think that's a good idea...so be it.
and let the bitching and whining continue.
as always.
People,
Do not believe a single "fact" that Jeremy spits out, and don't attempt to argue without verfication first (and actually reading any supposed sources he cites).
This is the entire section of Reagan's SOTU speech on school prayer:
And let me add here: so many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being -- yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment. (Applause.)
This is what Jeremy is charachtering as "taking aim at the Court" and "calling the Court out by name."
Do not engage him, it is pointless. He does not even attempt to argue in good faith.
No white President was ever treated with such contempt by members of Congress or the judiciary.
Yes, the Democrats treated W with such reverence, didn't they?
The vast majority of white Americans are racists.
Yet Obama still won the election. Hmm. You're saying he really did steal it, after all?
Jeremy
> i have no idea what you're trying to say.
I am saying that your claims are illogical.
> i personally think obama was right
Well, even the NYT disagrees with you.
> i also think congress is going to try to tweak the decision to make sure foreign corporations are not allowed much leeway...
Given that the law currently already does that, they will be wasting their time. but given that this congress generally does more harm than good on any subject, that is probably a good thing.
> if you and others here don't think this will open the door to massive corporate interference in elections...that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
What I think is that the fundamental flaw in that criticism is that it assumes you have the right to prevent that outcome. The first amendment means that congress cannot control the direction of the debate. It cannot silence certain voices out of fear that they will be believed.
But I challenge you to justify what happened to Citizens United. I challenge you to explain why Disney could create and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, but Citizens United could not do the same for Hillary: the Movie.
t-man - "Do not believe a single "fact" that Jeremy spits out, and don't attempt to argue without verfication first (and actually reading any supposed sources he cites)."
if you don't believe it, provide any evidence that refutes what i post.
telling people to just ignore or not believe what someone posts is less than intellectual.
it's just the standard chickenshit strategy of those who don't want to hear anything other than what they want to believe is so.
and i didn't "characterize" anything: i merely posted something relating to the few times presidents have taken the court to task during such a sotu speech.
reading comprehension is evidently not one of your better traits.
Jeremy wrote (and many others have agreed):
i personally think obama was right and that alito should have sat without comment, just as his fellow justices did.
Why? What law says that Justices aren't allowed to express disapproval when slandered and lied about? What purpose would that serve?
Being dignified is one thing. Getting slapped in the face is another. I think if all the Justices immediately gasped and cried out "liar" that they would be fully justified.
The only reason that congressmen can't do that is because they have to abide by the rules of the House and Senate or be ousted. Justices have no such problems. I doubt they would be impeached and convicted over it, and that is the only thing in the world that can be done to them, legally.
The best observation made so far about Matthews obvious and strangely unshocking comment is the question, "what did Obama do to remind Matthews that he was black again?"
Heh.
But I challenge you to justify what happened to Citizens United. I challenge you to explain why Disney could create and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, but Citizens United could not do the same for Hillary: the Movie.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.
aaron - between you and the t-man i don't which one is most lacking in reading comprehension.
as i said before: i'm not "claiming" or "characterizing" anything.
what i posted relates to the few times presidents have mentioned directly or taken the court to task during such a sotu speech.
if you don't find what i posted interesting, don't fucking read it.
and why is the NYT's suddenly your bastion of truth? you and the rest of the wing nuts here constantly bash the publication as some kind of liberal tool...or is that only when they don't print something with which you agree?
and...once again: if you and others here think it's a good idea for corporations to have the same rights as individual citizens i think you're dead wrong.
show me anything in our constitution that provides such protection.
lol
Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.
"I'm an American...and so can you."
skyler - "Why? What law says that Justices aren't allowed to express disapproval when slandered and lied about? What purpose would that serve?"
i never said there was a law prohibiting such action or inaction.
i also just think alito is wrong and president obama is right.
it's called an "opinion."
skyler - i forgot to ask: do you think alito will sue president obama?
you know for the lies and slander?
I think it's funny that the president who went to Germany to make a campaign speech, and who took money from George Soros and unions (and disdained public campaign finance) is making this big stink. Obama doesn't pay much attention to what he says as opposed to what he does, does he?
i always love the way the local wingnuts try to present their arguments in favor of the supreme court's decisions...as if the decisions were 9-0 or 8-1 or 7-2 or even 6-3...and that it's just obvious they must be correct in every respect.
but they're not.
it's become a 5-4 court, with the conservative members voting in lockstep as the majority on almost ever contentious issue at hand.
you only agree because they're voting the way YOU want them to...and of course, you always favor anything that is not favorable to our president.
period.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.
Isn't this what the Court just changed? Wasn't that the point of the lawsuit? That the FEC has not the right to censor or restrict free speech....no matter WHO is speaking. That the Government can't pick and choose who gets to speak, advertise, publish based on who they are or what they want to say.
Wow. After reading this thread, all I can say is - you people on the left are losing your effing minds.
Garage
> Fahrenheit 9/11 was within the laws of the FEC, Hillary: the Movie, did not.
Really? What did Moore do that Citizens United didn’t?
Jeremy
> if you don't find what i posted interesting, don't ... read it.
Its not a matter of interest, but credibility.
> and why is the NYT's suddenly your bastion of truth?
Because any admission that the conservatives are right anything is an admission against interest and bias.
> if you and others here think it's a good idea for corporations to have the same rights as individual citizens i think you're dead wrong.
The first amendment doesn’t apply solely to those you wish to hear, but to those you don’t wish to hear. And normally you liberals get that. that is why liberals correctly think that flag burning and nazi marches in jewish neighborhoods are protected under the first amendment.
But apparently you wouldn’t extend to Walmart the same courtesy you extend to the American Nazi party.
> you only agree because they're voting the way YOU want them to
Indeed I do. I believe that the first amendment is sacrosanct and I am glad that 5 justices agreed, and I am disappointed that 4 didn’t.
> and of course, you always favor anything that is not favorable to our president.
Actually, at the time it was released, Hillary the Movie probably would have helped Obama.
By the way, I am still waiting for you to explain why Hillary the Movie was verboten, but Fahrenheit 9/11 was kosher.
it's become a 5-4 court, with the conservative members voting in lockstep as the majority on almost ever contentious issue at hand.
But somehow the liberal members do not vote in lockstep, but always end up in that 4. Strange.
The blog post asserts as fact something that is certifiably untrue.
In what universe, and by what measure, did Alito's headshake "outweigh" the state of the union?
It didn't. You could say that Althouse is "lying," but the post is too sloppy and lazy to merit being called a lie.
I'd call it a brain fart.
And yet, it is "The Left" that is losing its mind. And Obama is about to have a breakdown, because he looked into the mirror on Flickr, and the great right-wing artists of history are looking down and laughing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा