After Obama's snub of the supreme court, Alito isn't going to next speech

[SFC Ollie]

I think Obama had not only the right to say what he did but the obligation to take issue with the court on an a ruling that will encourage corporate and special interest control of Congress, the Presidency and eventually all elected offices. It's bad now and this ruling will make it worse.

It was a 5-4 decision to wipe away limits on corporate and labor union spending in campaigns for president and Congress. Although the Court may have properly interpreted the Constitution, this ruling will further reduce the voice of the individual. Your voice in how Washington runs the country just got a lot weaker. Any hope of any real campaign reform is probably dead forever.

You really don't have any voice in Washington. I have been fighting a health care screw up for 4 years now. And it cannot be fixed without congressional action. A screw up that has cut over 100 Military retirees families off all health care coverage for 6 months at a time. Yet not one congressman or Senator would deal with it even with this big health care reform lie. And I had the backing of the SMA (Sergeant Major of the Army)

Listening to your wingnut cronies, maybe they should just get off the government dime and buy their own.

I haven't seen anyone from the right attack Military benefits, only the left.

 

[MaggieMae]

So what and big deal, now if that malcontent judge were to moon the President during the his speech, now that would be something......

How is someone standing up for themselves a malcontent?

A malcontent would be someone telling a group of far more schooled people that they aren't doing thier job properly.

Uh, Obama taught Constitutional law, so he's not exactly unfamiliar with it. All Obama did when he gave the nod to the USSC justices sitting in front of him was to point out that their [unasked for] decision in Citizens would be opening a huge can of worms. And he was correct. The new legislature and the future presidency will now be bought and paid for. No need to go to the polls at all.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think Obama had not only the right to say what he did but the obligation to take issue with the court on an a ruling that will encourage corporate and special interest control of Congress, the Presidency and eventually all elected offices. It's bad now and this ruling will make it worse.

It was a 5-4 decision to wipe away limits on corporate and labor union spending in campaigns for president and Congress. Although the Court may have properly interpreted the Constitution, this ruling will further reduce the voice of the individual. Your voice in how Washington runs the country just got a lot weaker. Any hope of any real campaign reform is probably dead forever.

"and labor union spending in campaigns "

I'm fairly certain that restriction was not there before, and that this brought corps up to level playing field with the unions.

Wrong. At least unions have to identify themselves.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think Obama had not only the right to say what he did but the obligation to take issue with the court on an a ruling that will encourage corporate and special interest control of Congress, the Presidency and eventually all elected offices. It's bad now and this ruling will make it worse.

It was a 5-4 decision to wipe away limits on corporate and labor union spending in campaigns for president and Congress. Although the Court may have properly interpreted the Constitution, this ruling will further reduce the voice of the individual. Your voice in how Washington runs the country just got a lot weaker. Any hope of any real campaign reform is probably dead forever.

If the court properly interpreted the Constitution, then they did their job. What would you have had them do other than properly interpret the Constitution?

Okay, since one of the questions frequently asked by right wing strict Constitutionalists is "where in the Constitution do you find? [fill in the blank], I shall ask where in the Constitution do you find a business or a corporation as having the same characteristic as a person?

 

[MaggieMae]

I love how some of you buffoons scream that the SCOTUS is not doing their jobs anytime you get a ruling you don't like. There job is to give THEIR opinion on what the COTUS says, not to cater to your wishes. PERIOD.

Buffoons come in all political persuasions, Con, depending on the ruling.

 

[ConHog]

BTW, he (Obama) was right. The flood gates are open for corporate money, and, as far as we can tell, foreign money is right in the mix of it. Ask the US Chamber of Commerce. But you've gotta luv you guys......you get pissed at the truth.

Even if he was right, he was wrong. The job of the Judicial branch is to be the watchdog of the executive and legislative branch, the executive branch is not supposed to attempt to influence the judicial in away, beyond appointing judges as needed of course.


It is not the POTUS's job to berate the SCOTUS because he doesn't like a ruling. He doesn't like a ruling, go to Congress and get a law passed.

 

[MaggieMae]

You really don't have any voice in Washington. I have been fighting a health care screw up for 4 years now. And it cannot be fixed without congressional action. A screw up that has cut over 100 Military retirees families off all health care coverage for 6 months at a time. Yet not one congressman or Senator would deal with it even with this big health care reform lie. And I had the backing of the SMA (Sergeant Major of the Army)

Listening to your wingnut cronies, maybe they should just get off the government dime and buy their own.

I haven't seen anyone from the right attack Military benefits, only the left.

You'll have to be more specific, Ollie. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Tell the story. I don't know about retirees, but I do know that the Obama administration has seen to it that more funding and benefits have been given to veterans than any other.

 

[ConHog]

I love how some of you buffoons scream that the SCOTUS is not doing their jobs anytime you get a ruling you don't like. There job is to give THEIR opinion on what the COTUS says, not to cater to your wishes. PERIOD.

Buffoons come in all political persuasions, Con, depending on the ruling.

This is why I didn't say left or right Maggie. I fully recognize that some on either side scream judicial activism anytime they get a ruling they don't like.

 

[beowolfe]

BTW, he (Obama) was right. The flood gates are open for corporate money, and, as far as we can tell, foreign money is right in the mix of it. Ask the US Chamber of Commerce. But you've gotta luv you guys......you get pissed at the truth.

Even if he was right, he was wrong. The job of the Judicial branch is to be the watchdog of the executive and legislative branch, the executive branch is not supposed to attempt to influence the judicial in away, beyond appointing judges as needed of course.


It is not the POTUS's job to berate the SCOTUS because he doesn't like a ruling. He doesn't like a ruling, go to Congress and get a law passed.

And it's the job of the POTUS to give the American people his honest assessment of the state of the nation in the SOTU address. And if the SUPREMES have played a role in making the state of the nation less sound, then they should be called out for it.

 

[ConHog]

BTW, he (Obama) was right. The flood gates are open for corporate money, and, as far as we can tell, foreign money is right in the mix of it. Ask the US Chamber of Commerce. But you've gotta luv you guys......you get pissed at the truth.

Even if he was right, he was wrong. The job of the Judicial branch is to be the watchdog of the executive and legislative branch, the executive branch is not supposed to attempt to influence the judicial in away, beyond appointing judges as needed of course.


It is not the POTUS's job to berate the SCOTUS because he doesn't like a ruling. He doesn't like a ruling, go to Congress and get a law passed.

And it's the job of the POTUS to give the American people his honest assessment of the state of the nation in the SOTU address. And if the SUPREMES have played a role in making the state of the nation less sound, then they should be called out for it.

Then feel free to point to any other time that a POTUS has chided the SCOTUS in a public setting.

Obama acted stupidly, as usual.

 

[BlindBoo]

So what and big deal, now if that malcontent judge were to moon the President during the his speech, now that would be something......

How is someone standing up for themselves a malcontent?

A malcontent would be someone telling a group of far more schooled people that they aren't doing thier job properly.

Ceilings and floors.

Malcontent:

a : one who bears a grudge from a sense of grievance or thwarted ambition

b : one who is in active opposition to an established order or government

 

[jillian]

alito has no class anyway.

 

[topspin]

this facist cant keep his pie hole shut.

 

[ConHog]

alito has no class anyway.

And Obama berating them like children during a State of the Union was classy?

 

[Trajan]

Uh, Obama taught Constitutional law, so he's not exactly unfamiliar with it.

no but to be fair, as a lecturer, not a proff.. I think the folks he was taking issue with are way more, uhm learned(?) in this area than he is.

All Obama did when he gave the nod to the USSC justices sitting in front of him was to point out that their [unasked for] decision in Citizens

unasked for? Citizens United appealed....(?)

would be opening a huge can of worms. And he was correct. The new legislature and the future presidency will now be bought and paid for. No need to go to the polls at all.

thats a bit much,come on now.


you might find these, in turn interesting and curious MM.....



Is Citizens United a Big Deal Only Because People Mistakenly Think It Is?


Is Citizens United a Big Deal Only Because People Mistakenly Think It Is? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine


also;



* October 8, 2010, 10:55 AM ET

Is ‘Citizens United’ Affecting the 2010 Midterm Races? In a Word: Yes

Is ‘Citizens United’ Affecting the 2010 Midterm Races? In a Word: Yes - Law Blog - WSJ

 

[Trajan]

alito has no class anyway.

why is that?

 

[boedicca]

Supreme Court Justice Alito Plans to Skip Next State of Union Address - FoxNews.com

Alito is absolutely right. The Supreme Court goes to the speeches just as a sign of respect to the president. They have no obligation to be there.

If Obama is going to attack them, in front of them, then fuck Obama.

OH goodie. And now we have a Supreme Court justice also throwing hissy fits. Nice.

It's not throwing a hissy fit to avoid interacting with people who abuse one observing the forms of ettiquette to insult one in a large gathering.

Just sayin'.

 

[Article 15]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

 

[topspin]

One less facist, I could point out a few republicans who should skip as well.

 

[Two Thumbs]

this facist cant keep his pie hole shut.

That's a harsh thing to call obama don't you think?