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

[MaggieMae]

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 **** 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'.

Did he insult Alito personally or the entire court? That Alito took it personally is his problem.

 

[del]

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

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."

corporations have been defined as *persons* in one form or another since 1819.


fail

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

You do realize, I hope, that Democrats will also avail themselves of these "mystery PACs."

 

[del]

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.

You do realize, I hope, that Democrats will also avail themselves of these "mystery PACs."

will?

please

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Of course it will be. It already is. As I mentioned before, there is no longer any rush for campaign "reform," as this terrible decision will trump any legislative "reform" simply by nature of the language.

Issues will no longer matter; partisan divide will prevail; and the winners will be those recipients of the biggest largess. Pathetic.

 

[ConHog]

Regardless of good decison or bad by the SCOTUS, Obama was extremely tacky by calling them out for it.

Obama acted stupidly, maybe he can have a beer summit with Alito and figure it out.

 

[MaggieMae]

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....(?)




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."

corporations have been defined as *persons* in one form or another since 1819.


fail

Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed.[14] Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable", and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments.[15] The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.[16]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corporation

corporation: an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.

A artificial person: legal entity that is not a human being but for certain purposes is considered by virtue of statute to be a natural person.

A corporation is considered an artificial person for Service of Process.

ARTIFICIAL PERSON. In a figurative sense, a body of men or company are sometimes called an artificial person, because the law associates them as one, and gives them various powers possessed by natural persons. Corporations are such artificial persons. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 177.

I may "fail" but that's because I'm a living, breathing real person--not artificial. The USSC in Citizens neglected to use the term "artificial" in its clarification. The framers are turning in their graves.

 

[MaggieMae]

I cringe when I read some of this sillyness.

You do realize, I hope, that Democrats will also avail themselves of these "mystery PACs."

will?

please

Already then? Better? Good for them.

 

[MaggieMae]

"We The People" now means squat. "We the [Artificial] People now prevails, and no Constitutional amendment required.

 

[Article 15]

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.

And this make Alito less of a whiny lil's ***** how exactly?

 

[Flopper]

If as some claim, corporations should be treated as individuals, then it would seem that the next logical step would be for corporations to hold political office. Impossible? Not really. Money may not buy everything, but it can sure buy congressional seats.

 

[ConHog]

If as some claim, corporations should be treated as individuals, then it would seem that the next logical step would be for corporations to hold political office. Impossible? Not really. Money may not buy everything, but it can sure buy congressional seats.

I would almost rather see an actual representative for a certain corporation sitting in Congress than the lobbyist setup we have now.

Sort of like the Trade Federation in Star Wars. At least you know where they stand.

 

[Flopper]

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....(?)




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.

Corporate interest serves the interest of shareholders, not the public.

 

[CMike]

What the ruling said is that it's very blurred.

Newspapers are part of corporations too, and with the Internet it's more murky. Thus corporations have a right to put in political ads.

 

[Chris]

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 **** Obama.

**** Alito.

 

[WillowTree]

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

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.

And this make Alito less of a whiny lil's ***** how exactly?

Only in your snoooty eyes. The rest of us think he's a hero. You demonRats deserve every snub you get. And then some.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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 **** Obama.

**** Alito.

You would probably enjoy that.

 

[CMike]

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 **** Obama.

**** Alito.

fantasizing again?