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

[Ravi]

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.

what did he lie about?

 

[jillian]

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

all while their policies attempt to violate or terminate individual rights...

but they're the "constitutionalists", eh?

and RGS isn't smart enough to understand that it isn't the 5-4 nature of the decision that makes it wrong...it's the going against all precedent that comes before that makes it wrong. (and yes, before a wingnut can bring it up...sometimes that's a good thing... like when you're protecting individual rights a la brown v bd of ed).

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Think people:

Corporations and unions have always been allowed to endorse candidates. McCain-Feingold put a 30 day or 60 day restriction on any such advertising before an election.

Which means, any such ads had to STOP either 30 or 60 days before an election. Now, they do not.

Corporations and unions and etc who DO endorse candidates or advertise against candidates do so at their OWN peril. They STILL have to identify themselves in the ads. THIS is why you've never seen it happen, although it's ALWAYS been legal to do so.

 

[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.

what did he lie about?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

 

[Darkwind]

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

Nice spin. Liberals judges split inf favor of killing innocent lives while conservatives split in favor of allowing free speech for all.

Do try and get it right next time.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

what did he lie about?

Right here Ravi:

49

 

[jillian]

Nice spin. Liberals judges split inf favor of killing innocent lives while conservatives split in favor of allowing free speech for all.

Do try and get it right next time.

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

 

[Ravi]

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.

what did he lie about?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

No...but I read what he said about the court's decision and I don't see a lie in there. What are you referring to exactly?

 

[jillian]

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.

what did he lie about?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

he never lied. stop it.

 

[Dante]

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.

Nixon was a national disgrace.

SCOTUS should join thr Birther Movement? The movement populated by people ....people the lunatic Glen Beck calls lunatics?

 

[Darkwind]

Nice spin. Liberals judges split inf favor of killing innocent lives while conservatives split in favor of allowing free speech for all.

Do try and get it right next time.

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

 

[beowolfe]

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.

Embarrased? He told the truth about a decision they made and his opinion of that decision. How can that be embarrassing? If they were embarrassed then they must think he's right about the impact of that ruling.

 

[Ravi]

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.

what did he lie about?

Right here Ravi:

49

"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,"

in 1907 and again in 1910, I believe, laws were written to limit corporate spending...so the 100 years is accurate.

And as far as I can tell, there is no longer a limit on corporations, including foreign corporations, spending without limit on our elections.

So, where is the lie?

 

[Navy1960]

Look while I disagree with the ruling, it's clear that the court left intact the prohibitions regarding direct contributions to elections from corporations. So to use the term "bankroll" would imply that these companies can now simply send unlimted amounts of money directly to campaigns.

(CN) - The Supreme Court on Thursday killed a central part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and ruled that corporations may spend as much as they wish to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The 5-4 vote left intact limits on corporate gifts to individual candidates.
Courthouse News Service

 

[PixieStix]

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.

Obama has been labeled a liberal, when in fact the word does NOT apply to him

He is a socialist at the very least, and many American people have no idea just how dangerous this President is

He respects nothing that remotely resembles what our founding Fathers fought for

 

[jillian]

Nice spin. Liberals judges split inf favor of killing innocent lives while conservatives split in favor of allowing free speech for all.

Do try and get it right next time.

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.

 

[Darkwind]

what did he lie about?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

he never lied. stop it.

The man hasn't stopped lying since Jan 20, 2009. I'll cut some slack and ignore the lies in his campaigning. Those are expected lies. Just ask Pelosi.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

what did he lie about?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

No...but I read what he said about the court's decision and I don't see a lie in there. What are you referring to exactly?

what did he lie about?

Didn't watch the speech, eh.

No...but I read what he said about the court's decision and I don't see a lie in there. What are you referring to exactly?

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.

 

[jillian]

Look while I disagree with the ruling, it's clear that the court left intact the prohibitions regarding direct contributions to elections from corporations. So to use the term "bankroll" would imply that these companies can now simply send unlimted amounts of money directly to campaigns.

(CN) - The Supreme Court on Thursday killed a central part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and ruled that corporations may spend as much as they wish to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The 5-4 vote left intact limits on corporate gifts to individual candidates.
Courthouse News Service

you think there's a substantive difference if they can run ad after ad after ad and pervert the information that's being disseminated? Since the money raised in campaigns is largely used for airtime... it is bankrolling campaigns.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

You are a lawyer? I'm asking you to reply to that post. Nice attempt at deflection.

Why are you trying so hard to ignore it?