Instead of "You Lie". This time its "Not True" by Justice Alito in Audience.

[RetiredGySgt]

Five to Four. Five to Four. Five to Four. CU v. FEC was not Nine to Zero; Alito's opinion is that, an opinon. His behavior tonight was, is, and will always be contemptible.
By showing partisanship he violated that which a judge must be, and dishonered every man and women who wears the robe.

Yup and Roe Vs Wade was 5 to 4 as well, JUST an opinion. Of course 5 to 4 IS the deciding number isn't it?

Yes, as was Bush v. Gore, and look at the consequences of that decision: 9/11; an invasion and occupation of a nation not a party to 9/11; nearly 5,000 American service personnel killed, thousands more with permanent injury; a massive federal deficit; and a decade of terrorist attacks around the world.
"Mission Accomplished"? Sure.

What let me get this right? Bush caused 9/11?

 

[Avatar4321]

As a President you are suppose to respect the seperation of Powers during a SOTU address. To chastise the SCOTUS in front of anyone, especially a national audience is unbelievable! Obama should be impeached for attacking the Supreme Court in a SOTU. It is a dangerous thing for a U.S. president to do. Of course, to Obama, it probably seems perfectly normal, given that his role models are dictators. Obama is such an arrogant fool. This is not the end of this.

Being rude isnt an impeachable offense. I wish people would stop yelling for impeachment every time something you dont like happens. If he commits a crime, then call for it. Like with Clinton or Nixon. But just being the opposition isnt a good enough reason for impeachment.

 

[Avatar4321]

What let me get this right? Bush caused 9/11?

Come one, you are talking to Wry here. Of course he thinks that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even liberal pundits were taken aback that Obama seriously violated protocol when he chastised the SCOTUS during his speech tonight. One mentioned that while Obama probably didn't intend it that way, it could easily be perceived as an attempt to intimidate a branch of government and was entirely improper.

And yes, many many Supreme Court decisions that are often cited as gospel by the left because the High Court passed them down were split votes, several, including Roe V Wade, 5/4.

Isn't it special how some so praise the court for ruling the way they want, but how it is an invalid or corrupt opinion if it happens to go the other way?

 

[Modbert]

Even liberal pundits were taken aback that Obama seriously violated protocol when he chastised the SCOTUS during his speech tonight. One mentioned that while Obama probably didn't intend it that way, it could easily be perceived as an attempt to intimidate a branch of government and was entirely improper.

And yes, many many Supreme Court decisions that are often cited as gospel by the left because the High Court passed them down were split votes, several, including Roe V Wade, 5/4.

Isn't it special how some so praise the court for ruling the way they want, but how it is an invalid or corrupt opinion if it happens to go the other way?

You mean everybody. And it's called life. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you disagree.

 

[US Army Retired]

How many Republican Presidents EVER called a Supreme Court decision wrong in the State of the Union address?

Again, you want to put up different goalposts, so be it. However, to act like this is the first time ever that the POTUS has disagreed with the SCOTUS publicly is bull.

It's no different if he announces it in the SOTU, on the moon, in Translyfuckinvania.

And what about when any President disagrees with Congress? Following the birther's bullshit logic here, that's violating the separation of powers as well.

Looks like the Usurper got it wrong again:

The president's statement is false.
President Wrong on Citizens United Case - Bradley A. Smith - The Corner on National Review Online

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 prohibiting 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... ."

It is unfortunate that we have a Usurper acting as POTUS who is arrogantly ignorant and practices demagoguery on a regular basis.

 

[Modbert]

Actually, the President is right for the most part.

PolitiFact | Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies

First, some background. In Citizens United, the justices overturned previous decisions that prohibited, in the court's words, "corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate." While corporations are still barred from giving directly to federal candidates, they are no longer forced to create political action committees in order to spend money on electioneering. A corporation, the justices held, may simply spend funds from its own accounts.

Critics of the majority's opinion warned that allowing political spending by corporations could also undermine existing barriers to foreign corporate spending on elections.

Current federal law -- legal eagles can find it at 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."

The majority opinion, authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, maintained that the court was not specifically overturning this barrier to foreign campaign spending, essentially saying that it was outside the scope of the opinion.

"We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process," the majority wrote.

But in a strongly worded and sometimes bitter dissent, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens latched onto the question of campaign spending by foreign companies as an example of the majority opinion's shortcomings, bringing it up no fewer than three times.

"The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers," said Stevens. He went on to quote Fordham University law professor Zephyr Rain Teachout's observation that the Framers' "obsession with foreign influence derived from a fear that foreign powers and individuals had no basic investment in the well-being of the country." (Teachout, incidentally, directed Internet organizing for Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.)

But passionate as his view is, Stevens' dissent holds no legal authority.

Indeed, the legal experts we spoke to after Obama's radio address said that the president was overstating the immediate impact of the opinion. They said Obama was correct that the ruling could open the door to foreign companies spending on American campaigns, given the general direction of the majority's opinion. But because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law. Until test cases proceed and further rulings are handed down, Obama's claim about foreign campaign spending is a reasonable interpretation, and nothing more.

"Some people think that Kennedy's opinion in Citizens United logically leads there," said Robert Kelner, who chairs the election and political law practice group at the law firm Covington & Burling. "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We don't know for sure."

Brett Kappel, a political law specialist with the law firm Arent Fox, said the Citizens United opinion "certainly could be read as declaring this provision unconstitutional, so I'd have to say the president's interpretation is correct -- but we won't really know for sure until a court rules on the issue."

Critics of the ruling -- including some readers who contacted PolitiFact after we posted our original analysis -- have zeroed in on one scenario in particular, "that foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries are likely to be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections," in the words of the liberal blog Think Progress. In one theoretical example offered by the newspaper Politico, "even if Sony Corp. in Japan couldn't spend money directly for or against a candidate, the electronics company's American-based subsidiaries could."

According to Politico, the White House and Democratic lawmakers have been discussing legislation to mitigate the impact of the ruling, including directly addressing the question of how foreign companies should be treated.

The scenario involving foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries hinges on a quirk in the law that had seemed to be of little consequence, but which now may loom large.

The federal law cited above -- 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- defines foreign companies as those incorporated under U.S. law or that have their headquarters here. It is silent on the treatment of companies that are incorporated and headquartered in the United States but are owned by foreigners.

That uncertainty could indeed provide a loophole for spending unlimited amounts of money on politics. But even that interpretation is not a slam dunk. Federal Election Commission regulations say that a foreign national cannot "direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process" for spending money for political purposes, a principle that could keep the critics' worst-case scenario from coming true, said Tara Malloy, an associate counsel with the Campaign Legal Center. What that FEC regulation means for political spending by a foreign-owned company is far from clear.

So, if anything, uncertainties about how foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries would be treated only further muddies the question. Based on our reading of the court's opinion and interviews with campaign law experts, we find that Obama has overstated the ruling's immediate impact on foreign companies' ability to spend unlimited money in U.S. political campaigns. While such an outcome may be possible, the majority opinion specifically said it wasn't addressing that point, and only further litigation would settle the matter once and for all. So we find Obama's claim to be Barely True.

 

[MajikMyst]

Five to Four. Five to Four. Five to Four. CU v. FEC was not Nine to Zero; Alito's opinion is that, an opinon. His behavior tonight was, is, and will always be contemptible.
By showing partisanship he violated that which a judge must be, and dishonered every man and women who wears the robe.

Yup and Roe Vs Wade was 5 to 4 as well, JUST an opinion. Of course 5 to 4 IS the deciding number isn't it?

Yup 5 to 4 is the deciding number.. I am glad you approve of china buying our elections to steal military secrets and technology..

Way to go!!

The decision last week was a security risk in the worst possible way..

Our enemies can now buy into our elections and help get people friendly to them get elected..

Way to go..

As a marine!! You should know better gunny!! Or were you really a marine?? I am curious because your views are going to get countless marines killed..

 

[Avatar4321]

Yup 5 to 4 is the deciding number.. I am glad you approve of china buying our elections to steal military secrets and technology..

Way to go!!

Actually, no most people disapproved of Clinton doing that. But what that has to do with freedom of speech is quite a conundrum.

The decision last week was a security risk in the worst possible way..

Yeah if you have a certain agenda you dont want criticized or you want your political opponents to not be able to advertise any sort of complaints about you before any election. It's a definite job security risk for politicians.

Our enemies can now buy into our elections and help get people friendly to them get elected..

Because we all know that we are going to see an advertisement which says:

Vote for so and so. This advertisement is paid for by Al Qaeda.

Way to go..

As a marine!! You should know better gunny!! Or were you really a marine?? I am curious because your views are going to get countless marines killed..

Countless Marines have given their lives for us to be able to freely speak on political issues and to critize whatever politician we want. Im sure many will in the future. After all, you dont join the military to defend our nation because you hate freedom. Well... you might. but no sane person would.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Five to Four. Five to Four. Five to Four. CU v. FEC was not Nine to Zero; Alito's opinion is that, an opinon. His behavior tonight was, is, and will always be contemptible.
By showing partisanship he violated that which a judge must be, and dishonered every man and women who wears the robe.

Yup and Roe Vs Wade was 5 to 4 as well, JUST an opinion. Of course 5 to 4 IS the deciding number isn't it?

Yup 5 to 4 is the deciding number.. I am glad you approve of china buying our elections to steal military secrets and technology..

Way to go!!

The decision last week was a security risk in the worst possible way..

Our enemies can now buy into our elections and help get people friendly to them get elected..

Way to go..

As a marine!! You should know better gunny!! Or were you really a marine?? I am curious because your views are going to get countless marines killed..

Once again RETARD Foreign Companies can not donate and US Companies could until about 2004, So basically you are LYING. Or to stupid to know the truth.

 

[eagleseven]

Politico: Justice Alito mouths 'not true'

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

It would seem the Supreme Court remains resolute in their decision to axe McCain-Feingold, despite Obama's criticism.

 

[Article 15]

Merged.

~A15

 

[eagleseven]

I was slow to the punch, it seems. Oh well...

 

[Brubricker]

Just for the clueless members of this thread, Roe v. Wade was not decided by a 5-4 margin. It was 7-2. Google your history before you make idiot posts.

 

[asaratis]

Five to Four. Five to Four. Five to Four. CU v. FEC was not Nine to Zero; Alito's opinion is that, an opinon. His behavior tonight was, is, and will always be contemptible.
By showing partisanship he violated that which a judge must be, and dishonered every man and women who wears the robe.

Five to Four. Five to Four. Five to Four. CU v. FEC was not Nine to Zero; Alito's opinion is that, an opinon. His behavior tonight was, is, and will always be contemptible.
By showing partisanship he violated that which a judge must be, and dishonered every man and women who wears the robe.

Yup and Roe Vs Wade was 5 to 4 as well, JUST an opinion. Of course 5 to 4 IS the deciding number isn't it?

Yes, as was Bush v. Gore, and look at the consequences of that decision: 9/11; an invasion and occupation of a nation not a party to 9/11; nearly 5,000 American service personnel killed, thousands more with permanent injury; a massive federal deficit; and a decade of terrorist attacks around the world.
"Mission Accomplished"? Sure.

Bush did not cause 9/11. Bush did not cause the current recession. Bush did not cause many if any of the problems that Barry continues to wallow in. Barry and his socialist cohorts are screwing us all by themselves and blaming Bush. That part of the administration is transparent.

Alito was merely pointing out one of many lies told by the BoyKing Obama.

 

[rayboyusmc]

So corporations have freedom of speech, but the President of the United States doesn't. What a crock of conservative bull. I didn't know that the SCROTUS had been given infallibity.

Has a president EVER struck out at the SCOTUS in a SOTU speech before? I think this was a first and he might have shot himself in the foot because Obama's remarks may influence their decisions from his lashing out at them.

THEY ALREADY ARE VOTING ACCORDING TO THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS NOT THE CONSTITUTION.

The constitution didn't even recognize corporations. When they were first started, they had to disband every 20 years. This is more right wing activist $upreme Court Ju$tices voting their conservative values. The crap they say when sworn in about only interpreting the Constitution as it was written is crap. They intepret it as seen through their conservative value system just like the liberal justices do.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Corporations are not people and were not intended to have freedom of speech.

 

[Dr Grump]

Christ, you Cons are desperate ain't ya? Fuck in hell, there are more important things in life than Bazza having a crack at the SC ijits...

 

[Dr Grump]

Bush did not cause 9/11. Bush did not cause the current recession. Bush did not cause many if any of the problems that Barry continues to wallow in. Barry and his socialist cohorts are screwing us all by themselves and blaming Bush. That part of the administration is transparent.

Alito was merely pointing out one of many lies told by the BoyKing Obama.

Move over Jaysus, looks like Asaratis has anointed Bush the new Messiah - "He Who Does No Wrong!"

 

[Neotrotsky]

Has a president EVER struck out at the SCOTUS in a SOTU speech before? I think this was a first and he might have shot himself in the foot because Obama's remarks may influence their decisions from his lashing out at them.


Quote:
POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

" Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone faced, was priceless.

Chuck Schumer stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

YouTube - Alito mouths "not true" as Obama criticizes Sup Ct for opening floodgates to special interests

Justice Alito mouths 'not true' - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com

He and Wilson are racists


(does not matter if they are correct)