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

[Two Thumbs]

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. He gave speeches, the scotus,12 men and women with decades each, focus on only the Constitution.All Obama did when he gave the nodThat wasn't a nod, he spoke down to them like they were errant children. to the USSC justices sitting in front of him was to point out that their [unasked for] we PAYThem for thier opinion. 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.then please tell your liberal buddies not to go. Me and my conservative freinds will take care of everything.

I cringe when I read some of this sillyness.

 

[Trajan]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

 

[Article 15]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

Sounds to me like you got yourself a research project.

 

[WillowTree]

Poor obie wan, he may be the first to have zero supreme in attendance,, oh wait.. sonya and whasshername will be there and rouff.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

There's been many that didn't go all the time, some that stopped but I don't think there are any that never went.

Couldn't imagine not going to see the one that appointed you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

I repeat my post on this thread. Post # 12.

From the OPs link:

"The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years."

This is probably best case scenario for the country on the whole.

 

[Trajan]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

Sounds to me like you got yourself a research project.

so, you don't know. Okay then.

Do you care?

 

[boedicca]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

I repeat my post on this thread. Post # 12.

From the OPs link:

"The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years."

This is probably best case scenario for the country on the whole.

This is the correct motorcycle. If a President has shown a predilection to abuse other branches of government during the SCOTUS, then not attending is quite reasonable.

 

[Trajan]

Will he go if Obama gives him his binky back?

What a whiny lil' biatch ...

hummm, I wonder, I wonder if there have been other SC justices who have not attended thesotu? If there have been what is the infrequency of their non attendance etc.?.....what do you think?

I repeat my post on this thread. Post # 12.

From the OPs link:

"The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years."

This is probably best case scenario for the country on the whole.

I know Sarge.......he didn't, and that the SC's as a whole didn't go to one of Reagan's SOTU's either.

 

[Flopper]

Supreme Court justices have become just as political as the rest of Washington. I frankly don't see any reason why they should be held in such reverence. Do we really believe that these guys are the purveyors of all things just and true?

If we can't count on the Supreme Court justices to be the purveyors of justice and truth then we have a huge problem.

That we do. Unfortunately, it seems that the court has lost all perspective.

 

[Flopper]

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?

The court can apply a very logical interpretation of the Constitution to a case which leads to very unjust decision. The job of the Supreme Court is not just to interpret the Constitution but to interpret it wisely. Over 5,000 cases each year reach the Court, yet the court hears only about 150. With few exception the court is free to choose which cases it will hear. If the court sees that a ruling could cause great harm to country they can refuse to hear it.

 

[Flopper]

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

Ultimately, corporate control of government will make government a servant of corporate interest instead of public interest.

 

[CMike]

Pretty soon he may be all alone in these speeches

 

[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.





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

Ultimately, corporate control of government will make government a servant of corporate interest instead of public interest.

they are distinctions without a difference, corp. interests are and do serve public interests. And yes, there are always outliers.

 

[jillian]

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.

not necessarily. thomas was a judge for about a year before he took the supreme court bench. he never had any background in constitutional law either as teacher or scholar.

scalia and his court are extraordinarily political... and there wasn't anything inappropriate about the mention. but mostly, they are big boys. they should behave themselves.

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

unfortunately, it isn't overstated. and just because some politically predisposed blogs try to downplay it because they like the result doesn't mean they are correct or that, ultimately, this won't prove to be disasterous.

 

[Revere]

Thank God for Citizens United and the Separation of Powers.

 

[Toome]

The way I see it, Obama had plenty of time to mend the fences and chose not to. I believe that had he made some effort, oh, I dunno, another Beer Summit perhaps, then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, it just goes to show the arrogance of the Obama administration.

Mend fences with Alito? Surely you jest. Talk about a conflict of interest. What else would they have discussed? Perhaps he should have invited him duck hunting and try to skew USSC future rulings. Ya think?

This isn't about trying to influence the Supreme Court. This is about having a healthy relationship built on respect even though they may have different opinions. Obama's arrogance clearly shows that he is capable of making another stupid comment during another State of the Union. He did nothing to correct that perception. But Obama won't make any effort because he truly doesn't care whether the Justices show up or not. That's the arrogance that's going to keep him in trouble.

Bill Clinton was perhaps one of the most arrogant presidents we've ever had. But I have to hand it to him, he had that magic touch that had his worst enemies clapping politely.

Obama has 'em flipping the finger.

The young former senator from Illinois hasn't learned.

 

[Moon]

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.

Isn't that their job?

 

[Revere]

The individual is powerless against incumbency, unless he can pool his resources and campaign against the incumbent.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

The court should have addressed only the Citizens complaint against the FEC and not made a sweeping ruling that covered every corporation without any caveats. I don't think the original complaint asked for a definition from the USSC as to what a "corporation" is. They took it upon themselves to define a corporation as a person. That's what I meant by "unasked for."