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

[Bfgrn]

Imagine President Nixon dressing down the Supreme Court during his SOTU speech after the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Obama's behavior in "embarrassing the court" during the speech was not "respecting the Separation of Powers" in doing so. Maybe the Court should take another look at his Constitutional Qualifications-—and demand discovery this time.

And it wouldn't be the first time a politician in general has disagreed with the SCOTUS. I mean how many Republicans disagree with Roe V Wade? Or how many would of disagreed if Heller got shot down?

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.

So the 'freedom of speech' argument the anti government right wing hails in the Citizens United case decision doesn't apply to the President of the United States speaking out AGAINST government?

Is is their UNIFORMS that make the Justices deities?

 

[WillowTree]

hey folks guess what???? Ge is a giant corporation the own msnbc and nbc they say whatever they want whenever they want for as long as they want,, and guess what folks the ceo of ge jeffery immelt is the dudes best buddy up there making economic decisions for you....................................hell yess the rest of the corporations should have the same ability to influence elections.. So cry us a fucking river whydonchya?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Foreigners have had a vested interest in Obama since Khalid Monsour got him into Harvard and Iraqi Oil for Food Billionaire Nadhmi Auchi funneled money through Tony Rezko to help the Obama's buy their house.

Oh, the irony!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

You mean like the NY Times Company? Walt Disney co (WABC parent)? GE?

Those companies?

 

[asaratis]

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

A corporation speaking freely is nothing more than its board of directors speaking freely. It is no different from the NRA or the ACLU making a statement.

People can vote. Corporations cannot.

Are you worried about the influence of corporate money?

Where did Obama's war chest come from?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no 100 year history of curbing free speech for individuals or Corporations. In fact the recent Supreme Court decision only effects a law passed in the last what 7 years? Prior to McCain- Fiengold, Corporations were free to donate to campaigns , so the lies and outrage of some on the left is hilarious.

Further the court did NOT strike down the laws barring FOREIGN Corporations from participating in US Elections. They STILL can not do so.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

A corporation speaking freely is nothing more than its board of directors speaking freely. It is no different from the NRA or the ACLU making a statement.

People can vote. Corporations cannot.

Are you worried about the influence of corporate money?

Where did Obama's war chest come from?

Then you have to decide how you right wingers are going to slander the President of the United States...Obama is either a corporate capitalist or a Marxist socialist...

 

[Navy1960]

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. Franklin Roosevelt Jan. 1937
State of the Union Address: Franklin D. Roosevelt (January 6, 1937) — Infoplease.com

That is the only time in recent history where the Court itself was called out in a State of the Union address. Justice Alito who is a member of the court and co-equal branch of the Govt. which people tend to forget sometimes made a decision along with 4 other members that some agree and disagree with. However to call out the court in a state of the union and expect the court to sit there stone faced, especially when it is a break in decorum that has existed for sometime now is a bit much to ask. The Justice did not speak outloud and was well within the very rights he is tasked to defend to mouth the words "not true"

 

[Midnight Marauder]

"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.

This is a flat-out lie. And he knows it. If he doesn't know it, he needs to study or replace staffers who are misinforming him greatly.

Aside from that, corporations, companies, unions and groups have always been able to spend their dollars making adverts which either promote or decry political policies.

No one's ever griped about that.

Now they are also able to spend their dollars making adverts which either promote or decry political candidates.

A difference which makes no difference, is no difference and those who are opposed to this ruling have no leg to stand on at all and are merely grasping at straws, trying to deflect, dissemble and obfuscate.

To those opposed: You have no problem with issues-oriented advertising by corporations and unions, but DO have a problem with candidate-oriented advertising?

Can you not see how weak and contrived your argument is, yet?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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..

Time Line of Clinton China Decisions [FROM MSNBC, MAY 27, 1998] (Congressional Record - House of Representatives - June 18, 1998)

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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..

Utter nonsense.

Nothing in the ruling allows anything like what you are describing. It's a red herring all the way.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. Franklin Roosevelt Jan. 1937
State of the Union Address: Franklin D. Roosevelt (January 6, 1937) — Infoplease.com

That is the only time in recent history where the Court itself was called out in a State of the Union address. Justice Alito who is a member of the court and co-equal branch of the Govt. which people tend to forget sometimes made a decision along with 4 other members that some agree and disagree with. However to call out the court in a state of the union and expect the court to sit there stone faced, especially when it is a break in decorum that has existed for sometime now is a bit much to ask. The Justice did not speak outloud and was well within the very rights he is tasked to defend to mouth the words "not true"

Justice Alito IS expected to sit there stone faced. Supreme Court Justices don't applaud when the President of the United States enters the chamber or when he makes his address. The President of the United States is an elected representative of the people...Justice Alito is NOT...Justice Alito broke protocol and exposed himself as a thin skinned political hack...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Justice Alito broke protocol and exposed himself as a thin skinned political hack...

Yet when the President stands up there and outright lies, it's perfectly okay with you.

Thin-skinned? That's Obama and his dazed, brainless minions.

 

[rdean]

I wonder which part he thought was not true?

 

[rdean]

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..

Utter nonsense.

Nothing in the ruling allows anything like what you are describing. It's a red herring all the way.

The Supreme Court declared corporations "citizens". As long as a foreign court has a subsidiary in this country, they can flood the political process with money.

If a corporation wants to, they could create ads for a particular candidate independent from that candidate. Moveon.org did it for Obama and so did conservative organizations like the "swift boat" ads against Kerry.

Corporations can now do the same thing. Tell me you knew that. Explain how it's a "red herring".

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

I think most of us know McCain Feingold was put into law recently and not 100 years ago.

Anyone trying to defend that misstep/misspeak/deception by obama is showing they are a dishonest person motivated by party politics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wonder which part he thought was not true?

There is no 100 years of rulings on the matter. Further the change only occurred in 2004 as I recall so it has been all of 6 years now. But then you would know that if you were not a hack and an idiot.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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..

Utter nonsense.

Nothing in the ruling allows anything like what you are describing. It's a red herring all the way.

The Supreme Court declared corporations "citizens". As long as a foreign court has a subsidiary in this country, they can flood the political process with money.

That is incorrect.

Corporations still cannot contribute money directly to candidates from their treasuries. This is whether they are foreign or domestic.

This ruling is related only to advertisements.

IF a suit comes trying to overturn the laws against direct donations, they do now have somewhat of a precedent however.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wonder which part he thought was not true?

There is no 100 years of rulings on the matter. Further the change only occurred in 2004 as I recall so it has been all of 6 years now. But then you would know that if you were not a hack and an idiot.

McCain Feingold was not 100 years old RDEAN....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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..

Utter nonsense.

Nothing in the ruling allows anything like what you are describing. It's a red herring all the way.

The Supreme Court declared corporations "citizens". As long as a foreign court has a subsidiary in this country, they can flood the political process with money.

If a corporation wants to, they could create ads for a particular candidate independent from that candidate. Moveon.org did it for Obama and so did conservative organizations like the "swift boat" ads against Kerry.

Corporations can now do the same thing. Tell me you knew that. Explain how it's a "red herring".

You would be wrong, You see the laws still bar Foreign Corporations from involvement in US elections. The Supreme Court did not rule on those laws AT ALL. You are either immensely stupid or a partisan hack AND stupid to boot.