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

[Truthmatters]

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

If it effects their decisions then they should be removed from the postition.

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

You do realise that all they have to do is BUY an American company right?

does Alito even know that?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

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.

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....

Part of what was overturned was a 63 year-old law and two previous SCOTUS decisions barring corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries on ads that either advocate electing or defeating candidates.

They now can do so.

Where the hacks are getting "100 years" when they should be saying 63, is a mystery however.

 

[jillian]

A corporation speaking freely is nothing more than its board of directors speaking freely.

yeah, especially when the board of directors is in beijing, saudi arabia or dubai.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

A corporation speaking freely is nothing more than its board of directors speaking freely.

yeah, especially when the board of directors is in beijing, saudi arabia or dubai.

You KNOW this is wrong Jill, so why do you and others keep tossing it out there?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A corporation speaking freely is nothing more than its board of directors speaking freely.

yeah, especially when the board of directors is in beijing, saudi arabia or dubai.

Once again FOREIGN Corporations can not participate in US elections. That has not changed. STOP LYING!

 

[jillian]

You KNOW this is wrong Jill, so why do you and others keep tossing it out there?

because it isn't wrong. a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation isn't barred from contribution.

the decision is disgusting. they should be ashamed.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

That is exactly what it is saying. That is why I have decided not to respond to this person any longer. I don't have discussions with the mentally ill. I just report them to the authorities and hope they get the medications they need.

 

[Bfgrn]

"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.

The Supreme Court majority was apparently unaware or unconcerned about the serious damage the Citizens United decision was going to do to the fundamental concept that we do not allow foreign countries and foreign entities to participate in our elections.

Under the Supreme Court decision, foreign countries, such as China (and its Sovereign Wealth Fund, the China Investment Corporation), foreign corporations and foreign individuals are now able to make campaign expenditures to directly support or oppose federal candidates, so long as these expenditures are made through foreign-controlled domestic corporations.

An existing statutory provision still explicitly prohibits foreign countries, foreign corporations and foreign individuals from making campaign contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections. This statutory prohibition, however, does not extend to contributions or expenditures made by foreign-controlled domestic corporations.

Until last week’s decision, such foreign-controlled domestic corporations were prohibited by the corporate expenditure ban from making expenditures to influence federal elections.

With the corporate expenditure ban now declared unconstitutional by the Citizens United decision, however, the door is open for domestic corporations controlled by foreign entities to run campaign ads, conduct direct mail campaigns and make other campaign expenditures to directly influence federal elections.

This dangerous loophole opened by the Court is one example of how the Supreme Court majority failed to recognize or understand the dangerous ramifications of its radical decision.
Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Opens Huge Campaign Finance Loophole for Foreign Countries and other Foreign Entities to Participate in Federal Elections

No one's ever griped about that.

You have the audacity to speak for all? WHAT do you call the efforts over the years by citizens to get election finance reform passed and limit special interests influence on legislation?

Tell me, what do you ascribe over 100 years of judicial precedent? Was that precedent based on 100 years of wrong headed political 'ideology' by both political parties or the lessons learned and experience gained by generations of citizens and government?

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?

If nothing changed, then why did the Supreme Court have to make a ruling? Your word 'contrived' perfectly applies to this ruling. Activist Supreme Court Justices with a political agenda reaching to make this ruling. The constitutionality of the corporate spending ban was never even raised by the plaintiffs in the lower court consideration of this case. Instead, the Justices, in essence, started the case themselves when, on their own, they ordered further briefing and argument on the constitutionality of the corporate spending ban.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You KNOW this is wrong Jill, so why do you and others keep tossing it out there?

because it isn't wrong. a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation isn't barred from contribution.

the decision is disgusting. they should be ashamed.

Provide evidence this is true.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You KNOW this is wrong Jill, so why do you and others keep tossing it out there?

because it isn't wrong. a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation isn't barred from contribution.

And never was!

THIS ruling kept in place the laws that bar corporations and unions from contributing directly from their treasuries to political candidates, and kept in place provisions that bar them from coordinating with campaigns.

Click link in quote below and READ UP on this case.

The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. The decision completely overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).

The decision upheld the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates, in part IV.

This chicken little crap the left is spewing on this is a complete red herring and a LIE.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

You have the audacity to speak for all? WHAT do you call the efforts over the years by citizens to get election finance reform passed and limit special interests influence on legislation?

Tell me, what do you ascribe over 100 years of judicial precedent?

You are beyond stupid.

ONE 63 year-old provision was overturned. The 100 year-old law was LEFT INTACT!

READ, IDIOT:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[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"

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...

Going to have to disagree with you on this one with respect to a breaking protocol on the part of the Justice. He like the other members of the court there acted in the same manner with respect to protocol. Which includes not standing or making overt gestures such as appaluse when the President was speaking. Instead when the President borke with decorum and called out the court on a SINGULAR opinion , Justice Alito whispered to himself a reaction, a far cry from breaking with decorum. While it's true that a Justice of the USSC is not elected, the President that the people vote for make the appointment, then the Senate that the people vote for confirm them. So without the peoples consent that Justice would not be there.

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Simply mouthing the words to yourself is not a breach of this good behavior standard. While some may disagree the decision myself among them, what the Justice did was not a violation of decorum or the good behavior standard that a justice is governed under. In fact if it were that standard has been ruled to rise to the level of a misdemeanor and is an impeachable offense and I do not think the Senate will be calling for that anytime soon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm puzzled, and amused, at how the tea party populist crowd is running to the defense of corporatism.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'm puzzled, and amused, at how the tea party populist crowd is running to the defense of corporatism.

Identify these.

 

[jillian]

This chicken little crap the left is spewing on this is a complete red herring and a LIE.

yeah, they must have made up the court cases cited in wikipedia... yeppers... it's a vast left wing conspiracy....

if this was something that helped the middle class or poor and not the corporatists, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

corporations aren't PEOPLE.

 

[Xenophon]

The big question now is, how long before Barry is forced to appologize to the Supreme court for his rediculous lying in a SOTU address.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This chicken little crap the left is spewing on this is a complete red herring and a LIE.

yeah, they must have made up the court cases cited in wikipedia... yeppers... it's a vast left wing conspiracy....

if this was something that helped the middle class or poor and not the corporatists, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

corporations aren't PEOPLE.

You have been confused. You believe corporations and unions may now contribute directly to political campaigns?

THEY STILL CANNOT. AND THEY STILL CANNOT COORDINATE WITH CAMPAIGNS.

They my however, now spend their money on ADVERTISING for or against candidates, without the 60 and 30 day restrictions McCain-Feingold put in place.

READ the ruling and the opinions, Jill! You're a lawyer, figure it out!

 

[bodecea]

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

So...Alito doesn't think it's true that American elections shouldn't be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or foreign entities. We already know that by his vote.

 

[Dante]

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?

Let me see...Liberal judges split in favor of rights for individuls in a personal decision regarding the sanctity of a woman's body...

...and Conservatives split in favor of granting individual rights to non persons?

LOL