In a breach of protocol, Associate Justice Sam Alito was filmed during the State of the Union address last night shaking his head and mouthing “not true” in response to the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits. Ironically, Rep. Joe Wilson promised to restrain himself during this speech and not scream “you lie” again during the President’s speech. For a justice, this breach (shown below) is no less remarkable. It is, in a word, injudicious.
Justices are expected not to express support or opposition to a president during the State of the Union — symbolizing the neutrality of the Court. This demonstration of Alito’s views undermines that principle and makes the Court look partisan and rather petty. Whether or not Obama overstated the holding is completely immaterial — just as immaterial as what Obama was referencing when Wilson screamed “You Lie!’
Justice are expected to speak through their opinions alone. Indeed, the relatively recent trend of justices speaking at conferences and associational meetings have troubled many of us. I have long favored the prior view that justices rarely speak in public — largely confined to graduations, funerals and the like. While Alito clearly experienced an uncontrolled moment, justices are expected to control themselves and act judiciously — particularly at major events like a State of the Union.
Alito should apologize to the President and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States Congress) for the incident. Notably, if a president (or any citizen) goes to a court of law and mouths objections, they risk a contempt warning or sanction from the judge. No one requires a justice to come to the State of the Union. The price of this particular trick is to remain stoic and neutral. As with Wilson, there is limited audience participation. This is not Oprah, it is the State of the Union. When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views. They are present to show the unity of the tripartite system, but also to reaffirm the strict neutrality and apolitical role of the Court.
For commentary on the incident, click here (Glenn Greenwald) and here (Huff) and here (Politico) and here.
Loved the smack-down Obama gave SCOTUS. And, Alito needn’t have done what he did, as it is alreay known that he’s a partisan hack. Therefore, his childish behavior didn’t surprise me. Impartial justice indeed **end sarcasm**.
I’m REALLY surprised, however, that it appears no one picked up on McCain saying, “Blame it on Bush” when Obama was laying out the facts of the colossal mess he inherited, a mess many seem to think Obama would make magically disappear within mere months. Sorry if the truth hurts but, them be da facts.
When you are God, can there be any before you?
The president had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. “With all due deference to the separation of powers,” he said, the court last week “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”
Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words “not true” or possibly “simply not true.”
Alito’s head-shaking, though only two rows directly in front of Obama, wasn’t the “You lie!” moment that brought the president’s last speech to Congress to a screeching halt. In fact, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who shouted it, was stonefaced throughout Obama’s latest speech, even rising a few times to applaud.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800508.html
Who ever I am today, it’s
“simply not true.”
Bdaman And the Supreme Court did not award the election to Bush, right? This a an activist political republican SCOTUS.
I know how you feel; Bdaman.
Peace out
Bdaman: “simply not true.”
–That’s what I thought he said too.
“Who ever I am today, it’s…”
—Don’t go there, everybody’s playing nice.
Think about it. Out of the last 40 years, Republicans have been in power for 28 of them. Out of the last 30 years Republicans have been in power for 20 of them. Out of the last 10 years, Republicans have been in power for 8 of them. I find it ironic that Republicans are claiming Obama’s programs aren’t working after 1 year when their programs have been shown not to work over the past 40. Alito’s head shaking shows the politicalization of the conservative branch of SCOTUS and the denial as well.
Mom, I hope you don’t mind me calling you that, I just don’t feel like keying in Swath any More.
Anyways, believe it or not, I do not believe in the election process anymore since 2000. I feel that yes, although the 2000 election was stolen from Gore or given to Bush, however you want to look at it. Between the two, Gore vs Bush the selection of Bush was a better choice in 2000. The guy who invented the internet also appears to have help invent Global Warming. He’s gotten rich of the scheme, stands to become even richer, so in hindsight he’s probably not complainning.
Then in 2004, Bush again was selected because he would ” keep us safe”. Then in 2008 Obama was selected, so here we are.
Wonder who they will select in 2012.
I think you should go on Countdown tonight to discuss this breach.
Do not call me mom. I have a 25 year old son. Wish Al Gore had been elected. He would not have invaded Iraq. He would not have chosen Cheney for VP. I think it was a tragedy for the USA when the SCOTUS chose Bush.
Former Justice O’Connor Sees Ill in Election Finance Ruling
Published: January 26, 2010
WASHINGTON— Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did not sound happy on Tuesday about the Supreme Court’s big campaign finance decision last week. It repudiated a major part of a ruling Justice O’Connor helped write before her retirement from the court in 2006, and it complicated her recent efforts to do away with judicial elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27judge.html?pagewanted=all
Bdaman,
What did you think of President Obama comment that even without the overwhelming science supporting climate change reducing pollution is still good policy? I wish I’d said that. Oh wait, I did.
Surely this comment by Obama was intended only to underscore his deep respect for the separation of powers and an independent judiciary.
Obama’s comments and stated intention to work around speech protections established down by the Court reminded me of Bush and his signing statements. Would Chavez be proud of our President today?
From December 15, 2009:
Jailing of judge over ruling, Chavez’s criticism, stir debate on Venezuelan court system
Last week, Supreme Court president Luisa Estela Morales said Venezuela has moved away from “a rigid separation of powers” toward a system characterized by “intense coordination” between the branches of government.
Chavez, who was in the audience, said Morales was right that “the separation of powers weakens the state.”
It might have been more interesting if Scalia had been there to give his customary Sicilian response to Obama.
puzzling,
In our system the different branches of government are supposed to act as checks on each other. When the supreme court rules in a way that the president (and many others) believe is corrosive to our republic, I think he was perfectly justified in calling for congress to pass legislation correcting that egregious ruling.
depressed in NH,
Are you providng stats to make the player look better?
Since 1945, the Democrats have controlled the House 52 of those years, while the Republicans controlled the House for 14 years. In that same period, the Democrats have controlled the Senate for 46 of the years, and the Republicans were in control for 20 years. For 30 of those years we had a Democrat as President, and for 36 of those years we had a Republican as President.
The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for 44 of those years, and the Republican controlled both for 12 of those years.
The Democrats had control of all three for 22 of those years, and the Republicans controlled all three for just 4 years.
The Democrats have had more power, by a large margin since 1945.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
The Supreme Injustices, the conservatives that is, are accustomed to being able to humiliate those appearing before the court. They are accustomed to asserting their opinions with the servile accolades of a captive audience. So it must have been tough for Herr Alito to have to sit still while Obama treated his crimes so mildly.
Sm said “Wish Al Gore had been elected. He would not have invaded Iraq. He would not have chosen Cheney for VP. I think it was a tragedy for the USA when the SCOTUS chose Bush.”
I can’t be sure about Iraq, but I’ll put money on you being right about choosing Cheney. I’ve never trusted Cheney. I don’t trust anybody from the Nixon Administration.
Has the President ever gone after a SCOTUS decision during the State of the Union before?
Duh,
I haven’t seen anyone come up with a previous example yet. If someone did, my money’s on FDR.
puzzling
The executive and legislative branches in several states, particularly more conservative ones, where the states’ highest court ruled (correctly) that equal protection clauses requires states to recognize same-sex marriage, went into high gear changing statutes and constitutions in reaction to the court decision. See how that works?
Slart I wouls like to discuss it with you but I don’t want to be seen as a Jacker of Threads. Is there a place I could give you my answer. You have know Idea what has been uncovered the last two weeks. There are calls for Pachuri to resign and they are most vocal about it in Europe. Here in the U.S. not so much.
Bdaman,
Find a dead thread (or a climate change thread other than the one hijacked by the 9/11 argument) and post there.
Swathmore Mom, right here with ya. Been married twice, I have a 25 year old, a 24 year old with three of my grand children and a 4 year old with this marraige.
Cute story for you. My daughter came over one day this past summer with my 3 grand kids. My grand kids call me papa or grand pa. We decided we would go to the pool. My daughter has a 4 Runner and I have a two seater. I decided I would drive my car and my daughter would drive hers with my grand children. We are in the drive way and my 4 year old says to my grand kids as they are walking to their car, ” hey guys, I’m not gonna be riding wiff you, I’m gonna ride wiff my grand pa”
Oh I got one Slart, the one about Hypothermia, I had already warned everyone to get their comments in on that thread cuz I was gonna hijack it.
At least you are being honest.
Thanks AY, love you too. Muaw XOXOXOXOX
Mr. Obama is *not* the aggrieved party here. He knows that the State of the Union does not involve debate and he picked the fight knowing that the Justices’ hands were tied.
I can hardly bear to listen to Obama and his lies. He is largely responsible for any current gridlock and disillusionment of government because of those lies and broken pledges.
Professor Turley, given your strong free speech advocacy—further demonstrated by your agreement the Court’s recent decision—your liberal bias is showing within this article regarding Justice Alito.
Come on. Obama LIED about the holding in Citizens United.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/blogging-the-presidents-address/#t20h31m
It doesn’t make you a partisan to shake your head about that. (I’m not saying that Alito is not a partisan, but his head shake is not evidence of it.)
To lie about the holding before the nation and then earn a standing ovation from those in attendance. Tacky to say the least. It makes Obama come across like a bully and an asshole.
Good for Alito.
Wayne,
That’s why they call it the ‘bully pulpit’. Justice Alito had his say – in the decision of the SCOTUS. President Obama had every right (an obligation, even) to voice his opposition to a decision which although it may have been correct on the law, was nonetheless corrosive to our republic. As long as he advocates measures allowed by the Constitution (i.e. a congressional law which passes a SCOTUS challenge or an amendment) I would certainly hope that the president would speak out in such a high-profile forum about a decision that is so dangerous.
You will see that truth is the best Defense.
Like to statement: You cannot awake a person pretending to be asleep. Navajo Proverb. I think mespo posted it.
It is like another I read, it makes sense too. Everyone is naked right before they get dressed.
Alito is full of it. The decision said nothing about ownership of corporations, and in overturning the law allowed ALL corporations, foreign owned or not, to spend as much money on “political speech” as they wanted. That is the truth.
Now, the opinion left the door open for Congress to write a law that does exclude foreign corporations. Which will then go to the Supreme Court, and the Court will then decide whether or not foreign corporations are guaranteed the same right to free speech as US corporations.
Here’s my definition of “foreign” — a single share owned by someone other than a US national. How about a company owned 49% by the government of China? Or a company who’s controlling interest is foreign, even if it’s not a majority of the shareholders? A privately owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation?
I foresee many, MANY court cases, with Alito, et. al. deciding narrowly, kicking the can down the road yet again.
This whole “originalism” is a load of BS. If the authors of the Constitution thought that corporations should be involved in the political process, they would have given them a vote. The principles of our government are based on human rights. This decision equates artificial entities with people, and grants them rights given humans by their “Creator”.
Time for an amendment, courtesy of the best Supreme Court money could buy.
Slart: No question Obama has the right to be an asshole. It does not mean he should do it.
Bottom line: he lied to the American public. He knows better. He knows what the holding actually means. He is a con law professor after all. Shameful.
Or as FDR showed that he could pack the court. There is no limit to the number of Sct Justices. I think conservatives make the best in Criminal cases and Liberals in Civil cases before them. Maybe they could have two court systems. One Criminal and One Civil.
“Now, the opinion left the door open for Congress to write a law that does exclude foreign corporations.”
Why would Congress bother, when both foreign corporations (and foreign individuals) are already prohibited from contributing.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml
Incidentily, this is a law Al Gore weaseled around in 1996.
Apologize to the president? LOL! The five fascists on that court should apologize to the American people for royally screwing us with that awful decision (which Turley supported).
“The Democrats had control of all three for 22 of those years, and the Republicans controlled all three for just 4 years.”
Duh,
As usual your knowledge of history is incorrect and partisan.
From 1932 through 1964 while there were more Democrats in Congress, at least a third were “Dixiecrats.” These were racist conservatives who got powerful chairmanships by dint of longevity. They voted with the majority of Republicans on many issues and so prevented much legislative support of what Democratic Presidents proposed. They were nominal Democrats simply because Lincoln was a Republican. In 1968 the game changed and they defected in large numbers to support and become Republican’s. Nixon, whose “Southern Strategy” got him elected President,was a tactic openly discussed by his party.
That is the history of it and if you don’t know it you are talking from ignorance and if you do know it you’re talking from deceit.
Nal wrote:
“I think you should go on Countdown tonight to discuss this breach.”
If Professor Turley does that with the same biased, one-sided tone of his article then he will enter the Hypocrite Party in good standing alongside Mr. Obama…
Roberts and Alito lied in their testimony to Congress prior to their appointments. The said that they would unequivocally support stare decisis. This decision clearly does not and moreover over reaches by far what the Plaintiffs were asking for. It was a political act, by men whose partisanship is such that they are unfit to be judges of any kind. All “Robert Borks,” who at least is honest about his desires.
FF LEO–
I’ve been disappointed in some of the decisions and appointments Obama has made since he assumed office–but I think the Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats are mainly responsible for the gridlock in Washington.
I found it injudicious as well, but no apology seems necessary. Men and women have a right to express displeasure, and unlike Wilson’s outburst last year, it was not a public challenge to the Office. This case is a close one by most anyone’s standards, but the rhetoric about its impact is way over the top. No one likes to be chastised in a national speech surrounded by cheering throngs of the speaker’s persuasion. This is especially so when the Cannons of Judicial Ethics require you to “sit on your hands.” It’s not a fair fight, and the President, as a member of the bar and the nation’s Chief Magistrate, knew it. Alito’s out of line, but it’s only a venial sin compared to Wilson.
Mike Spindell,
They were Democrats nonetheless. Just because the person isn’t Democrat enough for you, that doesn’t mean they can be dismissed as not being Democrats. They did run for election/reelection against Republicans. Didn’t they? They were endorsed by the Democratic Party. Weren’t they?
“In 1968 the game changed and they defected in large numbers to support and become Republican’s.”
Please provide the name of the defector(s) and the date that he changed parties. I apologize for requesting such a large list, but I couldn’t find it. A link to the source would suffice. Thanks.
Danimal:
The decision does not open the door to foreign corporations. In fact, the Court specifically said it was not deciding that issue, since the statute was broadly applied to all corporations not merely domestic corporations. The Court did mention Congress’ interest in regulating foreign corporations saying:
“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.”
Read more–Rant less.
Start with Strom Thurmond and then look the rest up on your own.
you shouldn’t argue history if you don’t know it.
Mike Spindell said “The[y] said that they would unequivocally support stare decisis.”
I’m not trying to pick on you Mike, it just happened to be that your statements were the ones that I disagreed with.
To support the doctrine and to be bound by the doctrine are two different things. I fully support the doctrine of stare decisis. It provides for continuity in the courts. To bind SCOTUS to the doctrine is to declare that past justices had more wisdom than future justices. The Constitution does not bind SCOTUS to the doctrine, and I think it would be wrong to attempt to bind future justices to the doctrine. In most cases, SCOTUS does follow the rulings of the previous court. That is the intent of the doctrine.
Mike Spindell said “Start with Strom Thurmond and then look the rest up on your own. you shouldn’t argue history if you don’t know it.”
I asked you to support your statement. I am asking for nothing more than that which I provided and am willing to provide. Please see the link provided with my claim that the Democrats have had much greater control over the years. I am not an independent source, and neither are you. “Go Fish” is the card game of children. Asking for a source to support your claim should not be taken as an insult. It’s just that I don’t think your claim can be supported.
Please stop the little jabs. We don’t need them here.
“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process. See Broadrick , 413 U. S., at 615.”
But it does not say anything about American Corporations that are controlled by Foreign entities.
Mespo,
Thank you for your legal perspective.
_________________________________
What concerns me about Mr. Obama is that he either did not read or understand the Court’s decision or that he is flat-out lying for political gain—given the popular outrage against the decision.
If he is a competent constitutional lawyer, then the only reasonable conclusion is that he is lying and did so to the Nation and the world in a reprehensible rebuking of the members of the Court before him in what should be a hallowed and neutral chamber during the State of the Union address.
Lest not forget:
Howard Zinn (1922-2010): A Tribute to the Legendary Historian with Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Naomi Klein and Anthony Arnove
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/28/howard_zinn_1922_2010_a_tribute
Wayne Jarvis
You will have to justify your assetion that Obama lied. As I see it he is 100% correct. If by some horror Alito is correct in his ruling then the Constitution must change or this is the end of our democracy and the formal inauguation of the United Corporation of America. It takes a very cynical, twisted and dangerous view of democracy to arrive at a conclusion that money=speech and that corporations are people (citizens, voters).
The fact that the GOP loves this ruling is proof of it being contrary to the values of democracy. The GOP has no interest in democracy nor the American people as citizens, so an endorsement of this ruling by any conservative is all the proof anyone needs that it does not serve the republic well.
FF LEO
I’ve been reading/listening to different arguments in regard to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. There are constitutional lawyers whose opinions come down on both sides of the recent decision by the Supreme Court. Four Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the ruling of the majority. You may think our president was lying about the decision. I’m not of the same opinion.
***************
From Politico (1/28/2010)
White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision
Excerpt:
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: “There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling.”
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
And on Page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html
“You will have to justify your assetion that Obama lied.”
(1) Obama told our country that the opinion invites foreign corporations to meddle in our democracy.
(2) The opinion expressly states that it DOES NOT apply to foreign corporations.
(3) Foreign corporations are already banned from campaign contribution.
I seem to be coming in on the tail end of discussions recently. My own view is that Pres. Obama’s comment to the Supreme Court and Justice Alito’s response last night was a juvenile exchange. But I also believe that much of the reaction to the decision itself is overwrought. There has never been a pronouncement by the Supreme Court which was not subject to the ameliorative power of the legislative branch. Furthermore, the doctrine of stare decisis is not intended to produce the legal equivalent of bronzing baby shoes. I view the law as a living organism, constantly evolving in response to changes in circumstances and the needs of society. The doctrine of stare decisis operates to slow down the process of change, thus providing for continuity and stability in the law. My objection to the decision is based primarily on three elements: 1. I believe the view that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to fictitious persons such as corporations is simply wrong. 2. The court’s opinion was broader than necessary to address the issue initially presented to it, violating the principle of judicial restraint. 3. The breadth of the decision confirms the belief of many (including me) that the growth and impact of the Federalist Society has created a court majority possessing an openly ideological agenda which it is hell-bent on implementing.
Wayne–
Read the excerpts of the Politico article included in my comment made at 12:58 pm. Justice Stevens disagrees with your opinion.
Justice Stevens: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
FFLeo:
“he is flat-out lying for political gain—given the popular outrage against the decision.”
***********
I wouldn’t call it lying necessarily since a reasonable person could come down against the decision on “good government” or public policy grounds. Obama knows it is a nuanced opinion on a close issue. That kind of “pointy-headed” rhetoric doesn’t play well to his base of progressives, so he threw them a bone of appeasement by putting SCOTUS on the hot seat. There’s lots of reasons they call it “base” you know. It’s as old a political trick as we have to blame the Courts when you don’t like a decision. Roosevelt, Regan, Bush–they all did it, but not in a State of the Union address when the justices had to sit mute.
Mike A.
As always–well said. I agree with all three of the points you made in your objection to the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.
mespo–
“…but not in a State of the Union address when the justices had to sit mute.”
I agree.
************
The word “base” has both positive and negative connotations. It can be used as a noun, verb, or adjective. I believe there are different roots for the word base–which has two different entries in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
I consider myself part of the progressive base in this country–but I’m not a base individual. I do my best to base my opinions on facts and thoughtful evaluation of issues.
Thank you Mespo.
This is the untrue = false statement made by Mr. Obama to which I appended the name liar to him; “…will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limits in our elections.”
The ruling *itself* does no such thing. The Supreme Court did its job and now it is up to the other 2 branches of government to do their jobs—as I mentioned in the previous article regarding this decision.
Mr. Obama’s comment was grandstanding, hyperbolic (“floodgates”), cheap shot demagoguery directed at a whole branch of our government—a makeup of justices which I do not particularly like.
Mike Appleton, I too was anticipating your reasoned contribution. Thank you.
Alito’s head-shaking and silent mouthing off were just more sophisticated forms of “You lie!” … was his wife weeping at the injustice of it all?
Conservatives from top to bottom, i.e. Sam Alito to Joe Wilson simply have trouble demonstrating proper respect for the Office of the President of the United States … they can’t help themselves … it’s just the way their uneducated grandmothers raised them … lack of breeding … too much food …
“‘agent of a foreign principal” means any person who acts as an agent agent, representative, employee,or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal.”
Why does this not cover subsidiaries acting under the control of a foreign coporation?
so prof. turley which is it? my reading of the fec’s foreign nationals’ brochure is that they can’t start a pac but can contribute to one. please weigh in. i am siding with stevens on this one for now.
Let me attempt to add some reason to the discussion of “foreign” corporations. If by “foreign,” one would mean owned and controlled by foreign interests, then Obama was certinly correct in saying that the decision was opening the door to allowing campaign expenditures by such entity, — as long as that particular corporation was incorporated in the U.S. The current restriction on campaign contributions and expendutires by foreign “nationals” (2 U.S.C. 441e)uses the definition of “foreign national” in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and that includes businesses that are incorporated or do their major business in a foreign country. (22 U.S.C. 611). Now, a U.S.-incorporated subsidiary of a foreign corporation, doing business in the U.S. (Honda America, BP America, Sony America)even if it is 99% owned by foreign interests is certainly not a “foreign national” under FARA, and therefore may NOW make unlimted expenditures to influence elections in the U.S. I believe this is the issue that concerns people.
Even if you argue that they are under the “control” or direction of a foreign principal, they need only to register under FARA to carry out political acts in the U.S., and are not prohibted from making contributions.
UnionJacK
Agreed, but the nefariousness involves surreptitious support by foreign nationals. What domestic politician wants to be known as the “Manchurian” candidate?
What domestic politician wants to be known as the “Manchurian” candidate?”
Mespo,
how about George Bush, brother of Saudi Prince Bandar?
Paraphrastically speaking from another point of view,
“In a breach of protocol”, President Obama “was filmed” (and loudly heard) “during the State of the Union address last night” mouthing off “a response of “the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits”.
For a President, “this breach is no less remarkable. It is, in a word,” unpresidential.
The President “should apologize to” Justice Alito, the Supreme Court of the United States “and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States” *Electorate*) “for the incident.”
“This is not Oprah,” a’vistin’ the White House, Mr. President, while agreeing with your silly self aggrandized grade B+ for lyin’ n’ pledge breakin’, “it is the State of the Union.” “When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views.” However, during this address and previous addresses, all justices sometimes stand up, applaud their approval, and perhaps frown inwardly with their disapproval while swearing under their breaths.
If I were a justice, I would never attend a forum where a bunch of pompous, clapping seals bobbed up and down like synchronized jack-in-the-box clowns in a chamber of nonsense for a play of allegiance to the current emperor.
On the lighter side of judicial matters–I remember Sammy Davis Jr. on Laugh-In decades ago.
FFLEO The justices do not deserve anymore respect than do the politicians. It changed with Bush v. Gore.
FFLEO,
To paraphrase my Mom: I don’t care who started it, someone should have finished it.
We hold different people to different standards depending on their jobs. As a musician, I’m not allowed to shake my head in a wedding ceremony if the officiant says that marriages that don’t involve Christ are doomed to fail.
That’s not to excuse what the President said, that’s just to say Alito should have had the same self control that millions of people who bite their tongue because of the etiquette of a situation.
Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision
(Think Progress, 1/28/2010)
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/corporation-election/
P.S. I love a corporation with a sense of humor!
eniobob –
Thanks for your comment about Howard Zinn, as well as the DN link. (My apologies for running off-topic.)
Here’s another link. “Refer to “Report of proposed expert Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Boston University.”
In Zinn’s honor, how about a “truth and reconciliation commission” (with teeth) to get to the bottom of what’s been going for the past God-only-knows how many years? (Whatever happened to Leahy’s initiative?)
http://www.judibari.org/COINTELPRO-OOP_020514.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE ESTATE OF JUDI BARI,
and DARRYL CHERNEY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FBI Special Agent FRANK DOYLE, Jr., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. C-91-1057 CW (JL)
OFFER OF PROOF
(AMENDED)
May 14, 2002
Judge WILKEN
PLAINTIFFS’ OFFER OF PROOF REGARDING FBI MISCONDUCT
What follows is the concluding paragraph of Zinn’s report:
“I am Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Boston University. I plan to serve pro bono in this case. I haven’t testified in any case, as expert or otherwise, for several years. Attached is a biographical summary of my academic career and my writings.” (Howard Zinn)
Zinn’s autobiography is appropriately titled: “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.”
FFLEO said “If I were a justice, I would never attend a forum where a bunch of pompous, clapping seals bobbed up and down like synchronized jack-in-the-box clowns in a chamber of nonsense for a play of allegiance to the current emperor.”
So true. That’s all State of the Union addresses have become. Just once I would like to see a President just tell Congress the state of the Union.
I don’t want to see the faces of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House. I don’t want to see who applauds and who just sits there. This thing has become more like a pep rally in which both teams are required to attend.
Chastizing the Justices of the Supreme Court while expecting them to remain silent and respectful of the President is to put the Executive above the Court. He’s not their daddy. They are deserving of as much respect as the President.
you can cast a vote here if you wish.
http://politics.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2010/01/28/3822426-was-it-appropriate-for-president-obama-to-publicly-scold-the-supreme-court-for-its-recent-decision-on-campaign-finance-reform
Ms. EM’,
Very funny, a DH for the corporations. I like the ideal of cutting out the middlemen and midwomen, for sure, no more congresspersons…corps instead of corpses.
I bet some of those justices would have voted differently in some of those birther suits they conferenced now that Obama has called them out.
I agree with Swarthmore mom when she said, “The justices do not deserve anymore respect than do the politicians. It changed with Bush v. Gore.”
Duh, you B da Man? Duh!
Seriously, I voted NO and the vote stands at 50% NO to 48.5% YES
FFLEO,
I am not bdaman. I guess I could state that until I am blue in the face, and some would still believe that there can’t possibly be more than one person who would have the nerve to present an opposing view.
I was poking fun at the other regulars who kept saying you were. That is why I wrote the word “Seriously” after my comment. I do not care who you or Bdaman are as long as you contribute to this blawg in a positive manner and I think that you both are.
At the end of this video read McCains lips. More Blame Bush.
FFleo have you noticed all the new people that jumped all over the Okeffe story. I’m some of those people too.
bdaman,
I knew that some of them were you. I remember you from the movie.
You’re the award winner.
Thanks FFLEO, I’m doing my best. Your acknowledgement helps.
Swarthmore Mom and anon nurse,
Therefore, you are going to condemn a whole branch of government for something that happened 5 years or more before Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor were even around, in addition to Stevens and Ginsberg who both dissented in Bush v. Gore?
I did not want Bush, although Gore is a mental midget and who in the world—in a cogent state of mind—would have wanted Joe Lieberman ‘a heartbeat away from the presidency’?
I do not agree Gore is a mental midget and would have been grateful to have him as president. I am not condemning the court. I just realize some of them are politicians. I would certainly take Joe Lieberman with all his liabilities over Cheney. The case we are currently discussing further illustrates the republican political bent of the majority.
Is it just me, or does Joe Lieberman remind you of the guy who played the father on Alf?
Swathmore Mom
I feel for you but I just can’t reach ya.
Gore is an Idiot who is trying to scam the world on his fake religion. His a hypocrite that doesn’t practice what he preaches. The typical rogue minister.
http://theteleprompter.com/Al_Gore/
Duh
FFLEO,
I am not bdaman. I guess I could state that until I am *blue in the face*, and some would still believe that there can’t possibly be more than one person who would have the nerve to present an opposing view.
================================================================
Ahha … I knew it! … you’re the *blue man* from Sesame Street.
Seriously … once again I find myself agreeing with FFLEO (which constantly amazes me as our political leanings are so different) but, … be that as it may,… I enjoy your point of view and I don’t even care if you get carried away and occasionally write something disrespectful for I, myself, occasionally, tend toward the hyperbolic hyperbally.
(Is Grover really as dumb as he seems?)
Blouise,
I enjoy your point of view too, Ma’am.
Thanks Blouise. How come I have to be blue man from sesame street? I would much rather be one of the blue men from Blue Man Group. Them’s soma talented dudes. It would also support the claim made by some that I am “serving” some other master.
Because you are Duh. You and a lot of your other personalities. When you try and fool some of the people some of the time you always fool yourself all of the time.
Duh
Thanks Blouise. How come I have to be blue man from sesame street? I would much rather be one of the blue men from Blue Man Group. Them’s soma talented dudes. It would also support the claim made by some that I am “serving” some other master.
============================================================
Come on … you’re a conservative, and … okay, I did think about it but … one night, during a surreal trip to Vegas, after the performance, I was backstage and a Blueman kissed my cheek. Yuck! That stuff doesn’t wash off! When looked at from my point of view … better to be the blue man on Sesame Street.
Besides, I thought you’d see the comparison as favorable … the blue man is always trying to get Grover to listen to what he’s saying and Grover is always taking it the wrong way …
I’m deep, baby ………..
The President reprimanded the Republicans, the Democrats, himself, and the Supreme Court. He played the role of an all-inclusive
politician because that’s what he is.
Alito’s passive/aggressive political move was, in light of Wilson’s performance last year, just bad form.
Perhaps President Obama can make this all go away by inviting Justice Alito to a beer-fest at the White House. They’ll have to find somebody to sit with Biden in order to set up the photo-op.
Mi piacerebbe sapere per quale motivo il giudice Alito pensato che?
The SOTU has devolved into a cheer/jeerfest. SCOTUS over the years (depending on who the Justices and the President were at the time) refused to attend the SOTU. Justice Roberts made a point of showing a presence out of respect for our system of government. The President just poisoned the well. My only suggestion is that someone, anyone poll the President’s only nominee on the Court, Justice Sotomayor, and she what she has to say about this exchange. Any answer would speak volumes as to her judicial independence and glean some insight into what kind of Justice she will ultimately turn out to be.
FACT CHECK: True or False
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication… .”
Fact Check: a corporation which is 99% owned by foreign nationals, but is incorporated in the United States is itself not a “foreign national” (22 U.S.C. 611, 2 U.S.C. 441e), and so may NOW make unlimited campaign expenditures. U.S.-incorporated subsidiaries of foreign corporations are domestic corporations under the law. It is not as cut-and-dried as you think. This is what has some people upset.
“FFLEO The justices do not deserve anymore respect than do the politicians. It changed with Bush v. Gore.”
Swarthmore Mom has it correct. Since that decision SCOTUS has been compromised as a non-political, separate and independent branch of government. O’connor and Rehnquist may be gone, but their replacement by Alito and Roberts has made things worse. While Rehnquist was a Nixon defender during Watergate, O’Connor, while a conservative used independent judgement. A & R are simply ideological hacks, with a lockstep devotion to corporate power.
This particular decision can destroy whatever Democracy we have left in this country and turn it into a corporate (fascist) state. Given that commenting on it in the SOTU speech was perfectly appropriate. As to Alito’s anger I don’t think what he did was of any import. He feels that SCOTUS judges deserve respect, when he is one who has cheapened SCOTUS.
FFLEO, if Al gore had been elected, despite your low opinion of him, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, not to mentioned more than three thousand of our troops. We also would not be running huge deficits and the economy might have shown growth for the past decade. All of us who do not repesent the top 5% of the country’s wealthiest people, would probably be living better lives. That is true even if conceding
Gore’s problems. If it was my son or daughter, thinking they were defending our country, being killed in a meaningless, illegal war my life would be over.
Quote:
Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, in Front of a Nation
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 28, 2010
WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html
I hope Obama does not bow to the right wing and even think about apologizing.
“WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.”
Now THAT’s change we can believe in!
So the record is straight. I did not vote for Obama. I can also in the same breath he bated the Sct just like Bush did congress or one of his henchmen. The rebuke is not surprising at all on either side.
The deviousness of both parties is apparent. It just depends on where.
UnionJack: Ok now I understand, thanks.
Mike Spindell,
Understood. I simply disagree with *some* of your statements on a purely philosophical level that no amount of debate can ameliorate; however, no measure of respect is lost in our differences.
I do not have the answers, although I see the U.S sinking further into an abyss that we are unlikely to recover from if drastic measures remain unimplemented. I simply and naively thought that Mr. Obama would be the person to make those changes—mostly because McCain/Palin gave me no other logical options. Once again, Obama stated in his address that he was not interested in correcting the past (paraphrased) and that stated all I needed to know about his character, henceforth. If we do not correct the past wrongs, we will forevermore continue to repeat them.
You, others and I in the over 60-age class were afforded a good life by working hard, educating ourselves, and trying to do what was ethical and right. Nowadays, no matter how “perfect’ a young educated person is—through following all of the rules, regulations, and laws—there are no real opportunities for success in a now less free and less prosperous world that we were privileged to have known.
FFLEO,
Can’t say I disagree with much you say. My children and grandchildren face a different world than I face and I worry for them. I am disappointed in the President also because I wrongly assumed he would be much more courageous and tough than he has been. My assessment was that he was not a corporatist and had some feeling for all the American people. Sadly, that doesn’t seem true. I can remember feeling bad for Bill Clinton and that ridiculous impeachment, even though I hated his policies. I felt so bad I even bought his autobiography and read it up to the part when he praised Sam Walton and the head of Tyson Foods. Didn’t read another word. I fear that the President is a man in the same mold and having Mr. Emmanuel as Chief of Staff does nothing to disabuse me of my feelings.
GREAT decision by the Supreme Court. FREE SPEECH prevails again. Of course, all you whacko leftists hate it because ….well, because you are all fascists.
FF LEO & Mike S.
I’m one of those sixty-somethings too. I think we all feel disheartened about what lies ahead for our children and grandchildren.
I’m definitely disappointed about some of the decisions and appointments our president has made. And I’m disgusted with most members of Congress. They’ve done little to help the majority of Americans. This two-party system isn’t working for us avergae folks.
OOOPPPS!
Spelling correction:
This two-party system isn’t working for us AVERAGE folks.
Who let the flying monkey in?
Me thinks Robert has not been reading the posts …
Elaine M. said “This two-party system isn’t working for us avergae folks.”
I’m with you Elaine M. The big question is, how do we remedy the problem?
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The State of the Union Faux Pas Offender
President Obama has shown throughout his junior one year tenure that he is a consummate of protocol faux pas’. Diplomatic status relies on rank. When you have two heads of country meeting, there is an equal acknowledgement of status. However, when President Obama showed respect to the Japanese Emperor Akihito with a bow, he did not display proper diplomatic protocol, but rather showed a subservience sign of respect.
This was a duplicate error of his earlier meeting with King Abdulla when he visited Saudi Arabia. Do I need mention his blunders of gift protocol to Premier Brown? Or First Lady Michelle Obama’s touching of Queen Elizabeth? As Chief Officer of Protocol for my town, watching these faux pas was like experiencing the old fingernails on the chalkboard. These acts reflected upon our status as a nation and its effect was reverberated around the world.
Now, a few days into the New Year, on January 28, 2010, we, the US citizens have our Chief of State, President Obama, the host of the State of the Union Address reaching out and back-slapping SCOTUS. I do not know about you, but I prefer my host to be warm and hospitable and not the exact opposite. As President Obama, the host insulted his honored guests with an inaccurate accusation of the court’s decision; the silent murmuring of Justice Alito’s “Not True” did not breach protocol duty. The burden rested entirely on the un-hostly host.
Our Constitution provides for expressed and inherent powers to our President. Article II, Section 2, highlights the power that is taken from the citizens and given to the President. These are the expressed powers. Some of these powers are: President shall:
• be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services
• have the power to grant reprieves and pardons
• have the power to make treaties
But what are his inherent powers? According to Henry Campbell Black in Black’s law dictionary (Vol. 8), the definition of inherent power is “a power that necessarily derives from an office, position, or status.” For example, President G. W. Bush labeled Al Qaeda as “enemy combatants” and approved NSA wire tapping claiming inherent powers. Discourse within the legislative and judicial branches limit or confirm inherent power. These checks and balances limit the power of the executive branch. http://tinyurl.com/yaw8c6c
Therefore, one would have to conclude that President Obama infers that his inherent power excludes him from displaying proper protocol to all including the United States Supreme Court; so where are the checks and balances, I ask?
“Of course, all you whacko leftists hate it because ….well, because you are all fascists.”
Robert,
It would be helpful for you to find out something about a subject before you make comments. Communists are Left Wing, Fascists are Right Wing. how do we know? Well one way is that nobody doubts that Adolph Hitler was a Fascist, since he called himself one. He also stated that Communists were his greatest enemies. Fascist = Right Wing Bush people, like you perhaps Robert?
Doyenne,
I’m not sure how you could be even sillier, but I bet you have the ability to be.
EmpireCookie,
I thought that Buddha had posted. When you stated something about the flying monkeys.
Hitler was a socialist.
Where is Buddah
“Hitler was a socialist.”
How to prove in four words that the writer knows nothing about history and politics.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933. Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10]
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state,[11] with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality.[12] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.
Social interventionism
Generally, fascist movements endorsed social interventionism dedicated to influencing society to promote the state’s interests.[citation needed] According to G.V. Rimlinger, one cannot speak of “fascist social policy” as a single concept with logical and internally consistent ideas and common identifiable goals.[91]
Fascists spoke of creating a “new man” and a “new civilization” as part of their intention to transform society.[92] Mussolini promised a “social revolution” for “remaking” the Italian people.[93] Adolf Hitler promised to purge Germany of non-Aryan influences on society and create a pure Aryan race through eugenics.
Mike S.,
I suppose you are correct in that socialism is a sub-state of fascism.
Damn Badman,
tehe tehe, neither was Bush. Good call and comparison. Thanks.
Where’s Buddah AY did he call you yesterday?
Hitler’s Mein Kampf
Chapter VII:
In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois [capitalist] meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.
Chapter 4:
The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life.
If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.
Chapter XII:
The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.
Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=democraticpeace.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hitler.org%2Fwritings%2FMein_Kampf%2F
Oh that’s just great. I’m a Nazi and I never even knew it.
We all have to be somebody, why not a Nazi.
I have read with interests the Duh’ statements. I think he gets it and is almost as zealous as I, but he is a mere paperweight in a thunderstorm, in comparison as der father.
Bdaman quoting Mein Kampf. How appropriate for someone who believes Jews are “Christ Killers.”
“Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930:
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.”
What he was saying was that he wasn’t a socialist, but since the party was already there for his taking it over and because he needed to use deceit to gain power, he would call himself a (new kind) of Socialist.
If you had any understanding of history you would understand that, but I’m tempted to think it because you secretly admire Hitler, who murdered those “Christ Killers.”
You just have a hard time with the truth don’t you.
Blouise: “I’m deep, baby ………..”
—Yes you are, I enjoy your postings and I’m glad you’re posting here. Keep it multi-layered baby!
Me thinks the two of you need to get a room.
Mike:
I always thought Hitler was a socialist. He certainly wasn’t a democratic socialist. Fascism is control or intermixing of government and industry. Socialism does the same, I honestly don’t know what the difference is.
Can you have democratic fascism?
Hitler was a dictator who believed in nationalism, racism, redistribution and public works. Is the difference in degree and application?
No your right on Byron. Mr. Spindell just can’t accept the truth.
His superiority on the subject refuses to let his common sense shine the light on the truth of the matter.
Lottakatz,
Do you ever hear from Jill via e-mail, etc.?
Bdaman:
call me
Bdaman,
Come on take me on again. You are too rude. My Dad’s side is Jewish, so whats you beef with that?
Hitler in his initial writing was simple he wanted a good Germany without restrictions. He surrounded himself with people that had a different agenda that he but the power made him absolutely mad. Or was that Stage III syphilis? Its hard to recall.
I think it was either you or Duh that stated that Hitler stole the election. I think its funny as the election was stolen for W. Any similarities are purely coincidental.
Right? Wrong, W grand daddy had significant financial dealing with Adolph. He was one of the few that Hitler did not steal from. Hmm, Only sitting US Senator in history that had all of his assets seized by the US Government for under something called trading with the enemy act.
Coincidence in how W operated, I think not. Prescott Bush was an evil man. He initially set Dulles up as head of this thing called the CIA. Then not bad his son took over.
Think about the election engineering that the CIA did on Jimmy Carter. Coincidence, that the hostages were released when RWR was sworn in? I think not. Another puppet.
You tell lie long enough even you are foolish to start believing it too….
Bdaman:
where in the hell did you find that video? Holy shit Bdaman. Marx does say that the rich and upper middle classes need to be disposed of. And he meant killed, exterminated, terminated, whacked, 86, etc.
When the state is supreme there is no I in individual.
AY:
a good many prominent Americans in the early 30′s sided with both Hitler and Stalin. A good many being on the “left”. Most of the intellectuals were certainly left of center at that time and used to make excuses or ignore what was happening in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
I wouldn’t be so smug about Bush’s grandfather being in bed with the Nazi’s there is plenty of that to go around (and it looks like W learned by example in his dealings with the Saudi’s). Joe Kennedy was an avid Hitler lover for example. I think if I remember correctly FDR had to haul him in because of it. And ole Joe set up the SEC, follow the dots on that one.
You hit the nail on the head Byron.
I tell you what you can say what you want about Glen Beck but if you have not seen the documentary Live Free or Die you don’t know what your missing. Here’s part one of six.
Beck covers exactly what you just said Byron.
Former Federal LEO “Lottakatz, Do you ever hear from Jill via e-mail, etc.?”
—No. Unless the name is a link (blue) I have no idea how to contact anyone on this list.
Thanks Lottakatz.
Bdaman,
Come on take me on again. You are too rude. My Dad’s side is Jewish, so whats you beef with that?
What Bra, me make Beef, no bruddah you gots it wrong. Howlee make beef bra, Ka maina right here bra. Meet me at Punch Bowl bra, I show you beef.
I will have more to say on this later (when I have more time), but the short version I’m in the Mike A. Camp. A corporation is a fiction that exists only as a creature of law and should never have rights approaching personhood. It makes as much sense as giving toasters the right to vote. I would like to ask mespo to consider that over broad rulings often lead to abusive laws because of the lobby system. Do you really trust Congress to anything that’s not corporate approved at this point? Much less actually write a law? Good law is succinct and clear. This case is neither. It’s a handoff of a ticking time bomb to the legislature who are graft bound to screw the citizens in favor of their corporatist masters. All Citizens United revealed to me is that all three branches are solidly on the take.
This case is the ticket that sold the last of America as “We the People”.
This is fascism plain and simple.
It’s all downhill from here.
As always, my loyalty is to the Constitution. This cannot be said of the Federal government as demonstrated by the actions of all three corrupt branches.
Right now I feel I am a man without a country, betrayed by the government. Our rights sold out from under us by those sworn to protect them. The American Dream sacrificed on the altar of greed.
Well, fuck them very much inside the Beltway. The graft ridden pols of both “sides” have sown the wind. The karma is theirs to reap.
I suspect I am not the only one who feels this way.
Our Chinese Overlords may indeed be greeted as liberators.
(See recent events in Sino-American relations vis a vis Taiwan if you think that scenario outlandish.)
But our current Overlords need to have the corporatist shit kicked out of them. There is no question about that. If Jefferson and Adams were alive today, they’d be setting fire to Washington. I’m becoming less and less picky about the method of the removal of the entrenched venal plutocrats too although I prefer reform and criminal trials to remedy our broken Federal government. Heads on a stick would work too. And probably provide a much needed national catharsis. So I’m going to put on the popcorn and enjoy the coming spectacle – the savage panorama of the end of America.
All journeys are made of single steps. Even journey’s into Hell. Citizens United is the PNR, the Rubicon, the Waterloo of republican representative democracy. Were I still in practice, I would not be after Citizens United. I didn’t swear to protect “We the Corporate”. But then again, it’s readily apparent that I take my duty to protect the Constitution more seriously than any of you pricks in Washington (Mr. Kucinich aside).
This is what Citizens United is . . .
The big green one is back….and in full form
The 60s a time in our lives when people came out to show what was wrong and many were beaten and many lost their lives in that fight.
When music was of truth and protest.What an unforgetable time for those of us who saw that period up close and personal.
I’m really happy for you Obama and I’mma letchu finish, but SCOTUS had one of the best opinions of ALL TIME this year! Of ALL TIME!
Justice Samuel Alito takes off his mask: Where is the restrained conservative that was advertised?
By Tom Moran/ The Star-Ledger
January 31, 2010, 5:44AM
Who was that sourpuss impersonating Associate Justice Samuel Alito during President Obama’s speech Wednesday night?
It could not have been the dignified federal judge from New Jersey, the one who was so gentle, so polite and so dispassionate during his confirmation hearings four years ago. This look-alike in the black robe seemed nasty and disrespectful
http://blog.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/2010/01/justice_samuel_alito_the_real.html
I find it interesting that Mr. Turley thinks its a breach of protocol for Alito to do what he did but finds no breach of decorum by PresBo calling the court out in a SOTU speeech. Kinda lets us all have an idea of just how fair and objective Mr. Turley really is, doesn’t it?
Waynester,
Jack man, come on. You can certainly do better than this? Yes! I have seen duh better side. I think that (your words) PresBo’s SOU address can state anything he wants. I did not vote for him and until your clown president got the side show going I would have voted for McCain.
Edwards was my first choice, though. Nader is better than the choice of the two.
Duh,
Where did you go? You get a real good dressing down by someone that ate your lunch, like a superior officer and you disappear. Why? Surely your meta is better than that.
AY
“Jack man, come on.
Who’s Jack?
” I did not vote for him and until your clown president got the side show going I would have voted for McCain.”
“My clown president”? What the hell are you talking about?
“Edwards was my first choice, though.”
Figures. Talk about clowns–and a liar and cheater, too.(on his cancer stricken wife, no less) What a scumbag.
McCain changed after he picked Palin. The old maverick McCain disappeared.
From Bradley Smith at NRO’s the Corner:
President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
The president’s statement is false.
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”
This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=
“”The President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,”
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/newsroom/detail/obama-scapegoats-foreigners-and-special-interests
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School
Never heard of Capital University Law School.
Swartzmore mom,
Its in Columbus, OH……
Oh, they usually prefer lawyers from Regent.
Actually one of Biden’s Office Adms went there.
It’s interesting that Mr. Turley limits his opinions to the propriety of Alito’s actions and doesn’t go near the actual merit of Obama’s statement, which it turns out was false. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who he voted for, does it?
“Figures. Talk about clowns–and a liar and cheater, too.(on his cancer stricken wife, no less) What a scumbag.”
Gee Waynester what does a principled guy like you think about?
1. John McCain, left his disabled first wife for a young heiress who’s father financed his political career.
2. Rudy Giuliani, married then cheated on and divorced first cousin. Than married his mistress an up and coming TV personality.
3. Newt Gingrich, as his first wife was in hospital with cancer told her he was divorcing her to marry then current mistress. cheated on 2nd wife during Clinton impeachment and then married his mistress again.
4. Gov. Sanford, married heiress to finance his career and then went to Argentina.
5. A host of current GOP senators, like Vitter, who were cheats.
6. Larry Craig and a bunch of other GOP senators/congressmen who are gay and in the closet. Nothing wrong with being gay, but pretending otherwise is deceit.
Geeze Mike S.,
You left out the best one and thats the guy from Nevada that had his daddy pay for his mistress. Now if you pay for it outside of Nevada, so long as it not in a county with more than 50K people, isn’t it still Prostitution and he was more than a mere John?
MCain didn’t cheat, nor did he father a child out of wedlock and then lie about it. FYI, I voted for McCain but only to try and keep an inexperienced heavily Marxist-influenced community organizer from winning.
Waynester, Gangster, bdagangster, duhganster, et al
Call it what you want, he got D-I-V-O-R-C-E-D. Where’s the family values gone. Oh my and to have your words say that you only voted for McCain because of, well heck there were and a lot of better and more qualified people to chose from than that.
Why not Nader? Why not the green party. Why not the labor party. Why because you are a party hack. Palin even an embarrassment to Alaska. Just think how that policy of just don’t do it worked. Wow, would she have quit as soon as the press got bad? I am sure.
But then again, Blackwater is being investigated now for bribing a foreign country. But then again, take the RWR, Bush, Bush and Cheney tactic and just say. I cannot recall. I believe RWR, he probably didn’t have a clue. But to sell out Ollie North. Come on, real heros in Office. Cheney sold out Libby. Yeah baby always a fall guy. Sad, sad, sad.
Makes me want join your party, real soon. At least LBJ knew how to silence his detractors.
“McCain didn’t cheat” Yes, he did actually.
…When McCain returned from Vietnam, both he and Shepp underwent physical therapy simultaneously. Their marriage lasted seven more years. According to a 2007 profile of McCain in the Arizona Republic, “Their marriage began disintegrating,” and “McCain has admitted to having extramarital affairs.” But the two remained married. Robert Timberg also describes McCain’s extramarital affairs in “The Nightingale’s Song”:
The Nightingale’s Song (pg. 239): The storybook marriage that had survived separation, pain, and prison began to fray. Off-duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John [McCain] started carousing and running around with women. … Asked about them, he admitted to having a series of dalliances during this period.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_john_mccain_cheat_on_his_first.html
Hiya, AY
Welcome back BIL – we missed you!
“McCain didn’t cheat” Yes, he did actually.”
Gee Waynester, I guess you were wrong, but then you would have voted for any Republican, including Sarah Palin. Oh my, you did!
Can’t you just be honest and say that you root for your team and swallow their crap whole. What people like you don’t understand is that the people who usually post here are people who uphold the Constitution and not any political side. To you though it’s like rooting for a football team.
For instance I’m a Jets fan for many years, but I also root for the Giants. Many fans of both teams can’t understand that, but that is because they think team loyalty is a virtue. My only political loyalty is to the upholding of the Constitution. Lately, most Republicans tear that document apart, but it always wasn’t so. The trouble is that you would see those great Republicans like Lincoln, Bob Taft and Everett Dirkson as traitors. What you miss in your thinking is that evn Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater (the real Arizona Maverick), would have found Bush and today’s Republicans as slimy. Lack of historical context and a foolish partisanship can become an evil thing and you are infected.
http://complaintstofederalelectioncommittee.wordpress.com/
Like Duh’s remark above, I can’t think of another occasion where the President of the United States has directly criticized the Supreme Court, to their faces, during a State of the Union address.
I agree with Mr. Turley that Justice Alito breached protocol when he reacted to the direct shot at the Court for the Citizens United opinion. However, the President’s critical comment should never have been made during this particular address in the first place. If the Supreme Court is supposed to attend this political theater to represent the 3d branch and to remind us of its political neutrality, is it fair for the President to attack them, to their faces, in front of the nation, knowing that they can’t defend themselves or ever respond? I say no. The President – ANY president – should show more respect to the Supreme Court when he is addressing the nation, even when he doesn’t like their decisions. President Obama’s remarks degraded the Court as an institution, and degraded our neutral third branch of government.
If Justice Alito was “injudicious” then the President was un-presidential.
“If the Supreme Court is supposed to attend this political theater to represent the 3d branch and to remind us of its political neutrality, is it fair for the President to attack them, to their faces, in front of the nation, knowing that they can’t defend themselves or ever respond? I say no. The President – ANY president – should show more respect to the Supreme Court when he is addressing the nation”
Paying Attention,
I really don’t care that Alito did what he did, but then I think the President was right to highlight this action before the nation. FOX News and most of the other news channels paid scant attention to this decision which may have the most dire of consequences for our freedom.
They actually ruled on far more than the plaintiff’s asked for and went out of their way to give corporations the same rights as individuals. As for them deserving respect as an “impartial” branch, that may have been true at times in the past but very rarely. SCOTUS for the most part has always dealt too closely with politics and much evil has flowed from it, with some good also.
To put it bluntly, they go to the bathroom each morning, hopefully at their age, and produce a result similar to my own. Respect should be given, or not, to them based on their actions. May I remind you that protocol also states that the President should be treated with respect, but that hasn’t happened either.
We live in contentious times and I’d much prefer passion from the people running this nation’s institutions, to the cold methodical rape of the American people that has been taking place since that senile actor played the role of President.
Supposedly Ben Franklin said “Force shites on the back of reason”. Well, I say change shites on the back of decorum and protocol.
The little Missus told voters in Puerto Rico during Obama’s campaign that we must change our traditions. You can click on the link below and see her say it.
Obama’s motto was “change”. It was change 24/7. Change you can believe in. Change, change, unspecified change.
Just what do leftists think happens when “change” is their clarion call?
Protocol?
No, never.
It means whatever anyone wants, it means chaos.
Do leftists just think they can limit change to only whatever they want to change? They better think again. They let Pandora out of the box and it is a bit disingenuous of them to now whine about it. It’s like a court case when on side opens to door to a line a questioning the other side takes advantage of.
Leftists never specified, nor have they hitherto elaborated upon, just what change we are to expect. We are only to expect it while they promote it and push it through with unremitting force.
That is just what Alito did and now the leftists pretend to be mortified that Alito “changed” things.
Well, leftists made their bed and must lay in it.
The president attacked the court to humiliate it in front of the world. There was no need to mention the ruling. He did this because he has no respect for our government. He is a dangerous subversive and that is quite indecorous.
He punches everyone in the nose and then wonders why people say ouch.
(see remarks at the 1:58 mark and the 2:48 mark)
Tootie,
Let’s talk about rightists for a change and how some opportunists have perverted Christianity to ignore some of Jesus most important teaching.
1. The Iraq War attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Murdered at least two hundred thousand innocent Iraqi’s and led to the death of 3,000 Us soldiers and the maiming of far more. The people you support approved that.
2. The Iraq War led to the torture of prisoners, ordered by your Vice President. Wasn’t Jesus tortured also?
3. The people of New Orleans, deserving Federal Aid, found it so delayed that many died and many are still homeless. Isn’t charity a part of Christian Doctrine.
4. The hypocritical anti-abortionists like your self are so concerned about the fetus, but vote against pre-natal care and care for the newborn as it grows. Out of the womb and the people you support could care less about the babies born. That is blatant hypocrisy.
Time after time the people you support so ardently have shown themselves to be un-Christian,while professing religiousness.
Adultery is rampant among your politicians and your presumptive Presidential candidates, as is homosexuality heavily closeted, yet you still support them. Many of your most prominent Ministers like Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggert were and are immoral in their personal lives and yet that hypocrisy is forgiven. The truth is that the elite of the people you support care more for profity than they do for piety. They only use that to foll you and to enslave you.
Mike:
I’m not a republican. And religious or christian hypocrites pre-date America.
Haggert isn’t my minister and any minister caught in adultery is supposed to leave the ministry.
I’m sure you knew that.
Mike:
Oh, and, I oppose the phony war in Iraq.
I oppose Democrats war-mongering in Pakistan, Yemen, and soon-to-be Iran.
Obama is a liar, he promised that the first thing he would do is bring the troops home.
He lies, they love him. Republicans lie and the leftists destroy them in the media.
The public is figuring this out.
WASHINGTON – Still wonder exactly why Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words “not true” during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address? He objected to the president’s saying the ruling reversed a century of law.
The president touched off a controversy when he broke with tradition — and decorum, his critics said — by criticizing the court’s recent campaign finance decision in his speech with six justices in attendance and bound by their own tradition of not reacting to what is said. (Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices “sit there like bumps on a log” in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere.)
“With all due deference to the separation of powers,” Obama said, “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.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_alito_disagrees
With all due deference to the separation of powers, how about Obama stop using signing statements to dictate law?
Just because Bush did it doesn’t make it any less illegal when Obama does it. According to his job description, the President’s job is to sign or veto law as submitted by the legislature. Not make up what he thinks it should be.
That verb, “dictate”?
It has a noun counterpart.
Best not be throwing too many stones at the Separation Doctrine, White House.
Being that your lot is still screwing with it.
That being said, Citizens United is the most damning and most damaging SCOTUS case since Dred Scott. Ailto and Thomas both need to put a sock in it. Their corporatism is self-evident.
Побольше бы таких блогов с подходящей тематикой, все качественно для людей сделали.