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

[Intense]

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

Yeah ... Only Unions And DNC Special Interests should be able weigh in. What is this, Cloud 9? Maybe if Al Gore and Michael Moore were mandated to wear Clown Suits in Public the World would make more sense. Decades of bullshit Documentaries, from the Networks to HBO, Hollywood, slanted partisan crap, at the same time censoring and obstructing, the other side of the story, as you screw in your mercury filled efficiency light bulbs, just a thought.... Fuck Yourself... leave the rest of Us Alone.
How do You know when a DNC Partisan Hack is Lying? It starts out with "Everyone agree's", spare us.

'Decades of bullshit Documentaries, from the Networks to HBO, Hollywood' to prevent mercury filled people...

The difference between My side and Yours, is Yours seeks to bind and gag opposition, Mine seeks to address it.

 

[Intense]

Obama atttacks the Supreme Court in front of the nation and somehow Alito is the bad guy for shaking his head? Are you serious?

We seriously live in Bizarro world where free speech is bad.

Boo Hoo! He said bad things about their horrid decision. Boo Hoo! Make him STOOOOOOP!!!!!

No... He should continue making an Ass out of Himself. It was a poor speech, that's not criminal, just sad.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you're the one who needs to get it right.

I do have it right.

Corporations have rights. Whether you like that is of little opinion.

Why have you not answered this?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-justice-alito-in-audience-2.html#post1951619

so you're citing someone's post on a messageboard as a basis for a court decision?

you might try actually reading the caselaw BEFORE this travesty of an "opinion"...perhaps that would help.

Perhaps you should try reading their opinion.

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf

 

[Shogun]

oh no000ez! knee jeriking right wingers auto-spinning the State of the Union Address... Next thing you know rain will be wet and fire will be HOT! woa.. boy...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I want the constitution to be upheld.

You should too.

Stop covering for barry's lies.

no. you don't. the constitution protects individual rights. the right wants to destroy individual rights at every turn and pretend that corporations are people??? it's a cosmic joke. and every lawyer and judge i know is disgusted... but you all are talking about how you want t o uphold the constitution??? puleeze... Xeno, we're friends, and I like you, but we're not going to talk about this any more.

and that's the last i'm going to say on this subject.

You're an idiot, who the hell do you think owns, runs and manages corporations? Could it be people?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

oh no000ez! knee jeriking right wingers auto-spinning the State of the Union Address... Next thing you know rain will be wet and fire will be HOT! woa.. boy...

what spin are you talking about specifically? Or is this a trolling post?

 

[JimH52]

How can Alito even think the ruling will do anything other than begin a bidding war for influence. Being a Bush boy and all, he knows exactly what the ruling will do. It will bring big bucks to the GOP and bring them back into power.

At least Obama did use the address to repeat a lie about a country trying to obtain nuclear material, as Bush did. The lie was repeated so many times that even those on the other side of the isle believed it. What did it get us? Trillions added to the national debt, thousands dead and disabled. Obama is just stating the facts and I guess Alito just couldn't take it.

 

[Intense]

oh no000ez! knee jeriking right wingers auto-spinning the State of the Union Address... Next thing you know rain will be wet and fire will be HOT! woa.. boy...

You best be doing something about those wet dreams!

 

[Claudette]

Whats the big deal??

Hell Unions, Lawyers Unions and loads of others contribute heavily to both parties. So what if corps do also?? That is of course if the boards of directors of said corps approve of those types of contributions.

There are some States that already allow contributions by Corps. I think I read somewhere where these States say that it doesn't have much impact on their elections anyway.

So. Whats the big deal???

 

[Queen]

Yes, they are supposed to be non-reactive. But, hey, Alito's a Bush appointee ... a dick.

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.

HAHAHHAAAAAAA a birther.

I should have known.

 

[bodecea]

Whats the big deal??

Hell Unions, Lawyers Unions and loads of others contribute heavily to both parties. So what if corps do also?? That is of course if the boards of directors of said corps approve of those types of contributions.

There are some States that already allow contributions by Corps. I think I read somewhere where these States say that it doesn't have much impact on their elections anyway.

So. Whats the big deal???

We're about to find out, aren't we?

 

[rdean]

THIS is the lie ladies:

"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.

It was NOT a "century of law" and they CANNOT "spend without limit." And "foreign corporations" and even DOMESTIC ones STILL cannot contribute directly to political campaigns!

It's just a flat-out LIE and mis-representation of the ruling.

Moveon.org made political campaign ads against McCain and for Obama, yet gave no money to Obama's campaign.

Swiftboat Veterans made ads against Kerry and for Bush and gave not a cent to Bush.

Either group could have spent unlimited money - if they had it.

Now that corporations are considered equal to "American Citizens", free speech says they can spend all the money they want without giving a single cent to any particular candidate.

Foreign corporations who have a subsidiary here which employs American Citizens is considered EQUAL to an American Citizen and can do exactly the same thing.

Republicans are like children's scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp. Don't feed 'em and they won't "breed".

-----------

One wonders, do Republicans really feel that foreign corporations spending unlimited money in American political campaigns is a "GOOD" thing? I always thought they didn't like foreigners. Now they want them in our political process? So, which do Republicans prefer? Muslims, Atheists, Communists?

Translation: If You can't control it from cradle to grave , It's the Devil. LOL What ever You do, stay away from looking into your reflection.

Just curious. So you are saying that foreign companies involved in our elections is a "GOOD" thing?

 

[Queen]

It was NOT a "century of law" and they CANNOT "spend without limit." And "foreign corporations" and even DOMESTIC ones STILL cannot contribute directly to political campaigns!

It's just a flat-out LIE and mis-representation of the ruling.

The lie is your post. It was a century of law. The Tillman Act was overturned by this ruling and it was passed in 1907. That's 103 years ago. 100 years is a century.

This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.

Appendix 4: Brief History

Don't spread lies.

 

[WillowTree]

It was NOT a "century of law" and they CANNOT "spend without limit." And "foreign corporations" and even DOMESTIC ones STILL cannot contribute directly to political campaigns!

It's just a flat-out LIE and mis-representation of the ruling.

The lie is your post. It was a century of law. The Tillman Act was overturned by this ruling and it was passed in 1907. That's 103 years ago. 100 years is a century.

This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.

Appendix 4: Brief History

Don't spread lies.

we can spread whatever shit we want, you ain't da boss..

 

[rdean]

Whats the big deal??

Hell Unions, Lawyers Unions and loads of others contribute heavily to both parties. So what if corps do also?? That is of course if the boards of directors of said corps approve of those types of contributions.

There are some States that already allow contributions by Corps. I think I read somewhere where these States say that it doesn't have much impact on their elections anyway.

So. Whats the big deal???

We're about to find out, aren't we?

Unions might have a few million to spend, but it's rough, because they only get their money from American workers.

A company like Royal Dutch Oil might have tens of billions to spend.

Just curious. Moveon.org and the Swiftboad Veterans spent millions and ran ads, but neither gave any money to Obama or Bush. Foreign companies are now free to do the same thing.

 

[bodecea]

Obama atttacks the Supreme Court in front of the nation and somehow Alito is the bad guy for shaking his head? Are you serious?

We seriously live in Bizarro world where free speech is bad.

Boo Hoo! He said bad things about their horrid decision. Boo Hoo! Make him STOOOOOOP!!!!!

No... He should continue making an Ass out of Himself. It was a poor speech, that's not criminal, just sad.

No, it was not a bad speech. But, of course, when I see people putting the speech down EVEN BEFORE he gives it, do you really think we believe you guys listened with an impartial ear?

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me that corporations have little trouble accessing the political system. This decision increases their abilities, while doing nothing to help the American citizen. I dispute that a corporation has Constitutional rights equal to that of actual people. That is where I think the Justices failed.

 

[PixieStix]

Corporations are made up of people. I have more of a problem with union thugs

People are forgetting the basics of our Constitutional rights. Shees

 

[Shogun]

"We the corporations of the United States...."


yea, just doesn't have the same ring to it. Hey! Maybe we can have some Belgian owned beer companies pouring money into our politics in order to benefit their Belgian based investment!

 

[Intense]

Moveon.org made political campaign ads against McCain and for Obama, yet gave no money to Obama's campaign.

Swiftboat Veterans made ads against Kerry and for Bush and gave not a cent to Bush.

Either group could have spent unlimited money - if they had it.

Now that corporations are considered equal to "American Citizens", free speech says they can spend all the money they want without giving a single cent to any particular candidate.

Foreign corporations who have a subsidiary here which employs American Citizens is considered EQUAL to an American Citizen and can do exactly the same thing.

Republicans are like children's scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp. Don't feed 'em and they won't "breed".

-----------

One wonders, do Republicans really feel that foreign corporations spending unlimited money in American political campaigns is a "GOOD" thing? I always thought they didn't like foreigners. Now they want them in our political process? So, which do Republicans prefer? Muslims, Atheists, Communists?

Translation: If You can't control it from cradle to grave , It's the Devil. LOL What ever You do, stay away from looking into your reflection.

Just curious. So you are saying that foreign companies involved in our elections is a "GOOD" thing?

LOL!!!

It could be that .... or......

No Less Than SEVENTY TWO Violations of the UNITED STATES CODE:
The President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, is both responsible for his own personal acts in office and for those appointed by him when he appears to tolerate the misconduct of others under his governance. When apologists for gross injustice insist that the American people are unable to offer "specifics" of laws which appear to have been violated by the President's administration, the People respectfully submit the following references, publicly known which involve:
Bribery, Graft, Conflict of Interest and Other Violations of Public Trust:

(18 USC 3), Accessories After the Fact. The White House knowingly comforted and/or otherwise hindered apprehension of those who violated campaign funding laws, some of whom have evidently fled to foreign countries.
(18 USC 4), Misprison of Felony (Having knowledge of, and approving, numorous felonies committed by his staff in the White House, i.e. the raiding of Vince Foster's office after his death, the illegal solicitation of political funds by Gore and others, etc.)
(18 USC 13), Assimilative Crimes Act (Actions and practices promoting anti-competitive combinations in violation of the appropriate anti-trust statutes).
(18 USC 201(b)) Offering A Bribe (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201(c)), Seeking or Accepting A Bribe, and (18 USC 1957), Hobbs Act (Though Maggie Williams and others, Clinton and DNC sought and received millions of dollars from Shady contributors like Charlie Trie, Wang Jun, Jonny Chung, Pauline Kanchanalak, and many others in exchange for policy decisions favorable to their business interests in Asia.)
(18 USC 201(d)), Offering a Bribe to a Witness (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201 (e)), Seeking or Accepting a Bribe as a Witness (Whitewater, Cattlegate)
(18 USC 201(f)), Offering Gratuities or Graft to a Public Official (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201(g)), Soliciting or Accepting Illegal Gratuities (Vice President Gore)
(18 USC 201(h)) Offering Gratuities to a Witness (Hush money to Webb Hubbell)
(18 USC 201(a)) Seeking or Accepting Illegal Compensation (The White House's campaign through the media to obtain donations to "legal defense" slush funds)
(18 USC 203(b) Offering Illegal Compensation to a Government Employee (The White House creation of "legal defense" slush funds)
(18 USC 205) Illegal Activities in Connection With Claims (Whitewater affair)
(18 USC 207 (a)) Conflict of Interest by Former Employees (Webb Hubbell taking large pay-offs from special interests with ties to US agencies.)
(18 USC 207 (g)) Illegal Activities by Partners of Federal Officers (First Lady actions in the Heath Care "reform" process banning the publicfrom meetings and participation provided under the Sunshine Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.)
(18 USC 208(a)) Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest (Whitewater, interference with RTC investigations).
(18 USC 209(a) Receiving Dual Compensation (Clinton "Legal Defense" Funds)
18 USC 210) Offering to Procure an Appointive Public Office (The Clinton reelection campaign, indicated its readiness to make government appointments based upon non-merit factors of race, gender, and national original as part of a scheme to obtain votes).
(18 USC 211) Soliciting to Obtain Appointive Public Office (The Clinton reelection campaign, indicated its readiness to make government appointments based upon non-merit factors of race, gender, and national origin as part of a scheme to obtain votes).
(18 USC 211) Accepting a Fee for Federal Employment (The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee appointed ambassadors and others based upon the monetary ("soft money") contributions made by the nominee. i.e. M. Larry Lawrence, Mr. Hormel, etc.)
(18 USC 371) Conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States (i.e. all the felonious "foreign" fundraising from White House property.)
(18 USC 607) Use of a public building to solicit political funds. (Vice President Gore, and possibly others, abused the public trust by political hawking from the White House. President Clinton urged political fund-raisers to offer the Lincoln bed-room as a prize for contributions).
(18 USC 1905) Disclosure of Confidential Information (Cronies of the White House carried government secrets to foreign interests).
(18 USC 1916(1)) Unauthorized Employment (Persons such as Roger Altman, a disgraced Treasury Department official, where "'hidden" in White House jobs permitting them to receive public compensation while performing private, and personal agendas and John Huang, who recieved a dubious security clearance and held a top-level post at the Commerce Department.)


Theft, Loss, Misuse or Wrongful Disposition of Government Property:
(18 USC 641) Larceny of Government Property (The unaccounted for disappearance of public papers from the office of Vincent Foster following his unexplained death).
(18 USC 643) Failure to Account for Public Money (The task forces and advisory committees on health care).
(18 USC 641) Receiving or Concealing Stolen Government Property (Documents were hidden in the White House which belong to government agencies and investigators).
(18 USC 643) Failure to Deposit Federal Monies (Moneys received for renting rooms in the White House were not deposited in the US Treasury).
(18 USC 648) Misuse of Public Funds by Custodians (The use of public funds to employ persons who perform non-public duties, such as political advance men, legal staff used to obstruct justice, and public relations).
(18 USC 654) Conversion by Federal Officers or employees (Taking the funds received for use of Federal property and failing to deposit them in the Treasury, as required by law).
(18 USC 663) Wrongful Solicitation or Embezzlement or Gifts (Receiving political campaigns in the White House. Solicitation and acceptance of "home owner's" insurance payments which appear to be gifts from a powerful industry. No other example of the payment of such a "claim" could be found by experts in home owners insurance.)
(18 USC 1719) Misuse of Franking Privilege (Its use by non-governmental officials at the White House and questionable mailings during the reelection campaign season).
(18 USC 2314) Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. (Documents taken from the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas and transported to the District of Columbia).


Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Practices:
(18 USC 1962(a)) Investing Racketeering Income (Vincent Foster trips to various off-shore banking facilities).
(18 USC 1962(b)) Acquiring an Enterprise Through Racketeering (Whitewater, Castle Grande, Clinton "Legal Defense" Fund, etc.)
(18 USC 1962(c)) Engaging In Racketeering (also Stephanopolis' Nation's Bank real estate grab, etc.).
(18 USC 1962(d)) Conspiracy to Engage in Racketeering (Whitewater, Castle Grande, Clinton "Legal Defense" Fund, Cattlegate cover-up).


False Claims, Contract Frauds, and Related Offenses:
(31 USC 1341(a)) Obligating in Excess of Specific Appropriations (Health Care Task Force activities.)
(31 USC 1342) Wrongfully Accepting Voluntary Service (John Huang fund-raising episode).
(31 USC 1517(a) Obligating in Excess of an Apportionment (Health Care Task forces).
(18 USC 443) Wrongful Destruction of War Records (Destruction of Federal records at the universities in Arkansas regarding Mr. Clinton's shameful evasion of military service).
(18 USC 874) Receiving Kickbacks from Public Works Employees (Certain labor union political funds gathered on behalf of the Clinton administration).
(18 USC 51, 54 Taking Illegal Kickbacks (Clinton "Legal Defense" Fund).
(15 USC 1) Contracts and Conspiracies in Restraint of Trade (Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Agriculture and Transportation busily promoting private companies, even selling seats on business trips in official aircraft.)


Obstructions of Justice:
(18 USC 1503) Influencing or Injuring Officers, Jurors, or Witnesses (Employees of the White House were intentionally set up by the FBI, forced to undergo public defamation, suffer enormous expense. The President failed to see that justice be done to the perpetrators of these vile, cowardly and heinous outrages).
(18 USC 1505) Obstruct o an Agency Proceedings (Interference in the RTC investigations and the FBI Foster investigation).
(18 USC 1510) Obstruction of Criminal Investigations (White House actions under the supervision of the President involving the disappearance of evidence, tampering with a homicide investigation, failure to cooperate, providing false and misleading statements in the matter of the death of Mr. Vincent Foster, and Obstructing Ken Starr's investigation as related to Monica Lewinsky and other women.)
(18 USC 1512(a)) Threatening Victims, Witnesses or Informants (Attempts to interfere with the actions of Congress in reimbursing the White Travel Staff for their legal expenses, and Pressuring Monica Lewinsky to Lie Under Oath.)
(18 USC 1512(b)) Harassing Victims, Witnesses, or Informants (Actions against the victim Paula Jones to obstruct her access to justice).
(18 USC 1513 Retaliating Against Victims, Witnesses,. or Informants (The sole purpose of the Clinton "Legal Defense" Fund appears to have been to smear, oppress and injure Mr. Clinton's victims particularly so as to deny them the exercise of their rights as victims seeking justice and redress of grievances).


Perjury, Fraud, and False Statements:
(18 USC 494) Falsely Making, Alerting or Forging a Public Record (The arbitrary persecution and defamation of the White House Travel employees).
(18 USC 494) Uttering or Publishing a False Public Record (Few official statements of the President would appear to be fully truthful).
(18 USC 494) Transmitting a False Record to the United States (Papers made available to the FBI in the Vincent Foster investigation were incomplete in spite of assurances that the White House would fully cooperate with law enforcement investigations).
(18 USC 494) Falsely Making, Altering or Forging a Document (Clinton income tax-returns indicate factual discrepancies. Clinton fails to report donation he receives for "Legal Defense," though any other citizen would have to report such income for tax purposes).
(18 USC 495) Uttering or Publishing a False Writing (Repeatedly the reports by the White House in response to inquiries and disclosures resulting from the work of Independent Counsels have been proven false, misleading or deceptive).
(18 USC 495) Using a False Writing (Cover-up "ethics" statements issued by the White House counsel).
(18 USC 643) Concealing or Covering Up of Material Fact (Documents found in the White House which had not been produced in spite of a lawful subpoena).
(18 USC 1001) Making or Using False Statements (Statements regarding various scandals; Cattlegate, Webb Hubbell, Paula Jones Deposition, etc.).
(18 USC 1002) Possession of False Papers (FBI frameup documents of White House Travel employees).
(18 USC 1016) False acknowledgment (Response to the subpoena by investigator agencies failing to disclose that documents were being retained unlawfully).
(18 USC 1341) Mail Fraud (Fund raising by the White House under various pretexts, disguised as "non-partisan" activity).
(18 USC 1343) Wire Fraud (The use of the White House fax machines to promote oil and gas schemes by the Tung gang).
(18 USC 1621) Perjury (Testimony in the Paula Jones, Vincent Foster matters, Monica Lewinsky Affair).
(18 USC 1622) Subornation of Perjury (Webb Hubbell, Monica Lewinsky Affair, and others)
(18 USC 1623) False Declaration before a Court *Clinton's close testimony in Whitewater related trials).
(18 USC 2071(a)) Tampering with Public Records (As Attorney General of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton's office obtained Federal military records from an ROTC officer in Arkansas. These records have never been returned to United States custody).
(18 USC 2071(b)) Wrongful Handling of Public Documents (Documents "misplaced" in the White House. Secret documents provided to political fund raisers, etc.)
(18 USC 2073) Making False Entries in Public Accounts (The misappropriation of US property to facilitate political party and campaign activity).
(18 USC 2314) Interstate Transportation to Defraud (Unlawful campaign fund solicitations and activities performed under the guise of "official business."
(5 USC 552) Privacy Act of 1974 (Clinton officials Craig Livingstone and Anthony Marceca illegally possessing and disclosing thousands of FBI files or former goverment employees and private citizens.


Relevant Violations of DC Law
(DC Code 22-1112) Indecent Exposure & Lewd Proposal---Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinksy, et. al.
(DC Code 22-4106) Misdemeanor Sexual Assault---Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky, et. al.

Clinton's SEVENTY TWO Violations of the UNITED STATES CODE