In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president display a gross lack of grace in doing this, but many members of Congress in the audience surrounding the seated justices threw fuel on the fire by standing and pointedly applauding the preident’s remarks directed at the justices.
The President falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would “open the floodgates for special interests” to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. In fact, the ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates. The opinion with which the Presdient so obviously and vehemently disagrees simply allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies.
In asking the Congress “to right this wrong” of the ruling by the Court, Obama displayed further ignorance of that about which he was speaking. The fact is, the case last week specifically overturned an Act of the Congress that had taken away the long-recognized rights of corporations to express themselves and their shareholders under the First Amendment. If Congress were to heed the president’s call, it would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional!
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe case that brought this issue to the Supreme Court was about a movie attacking Hillary close to election time. It was not made by a large corporation. In fact, it was a low budget movie that was censored by the progressives. No wonder they are outraged at this ruling. Freedom of speech is not well received on the left. Just ask Obama who tried to censor corporations from attacking his NHC plan or Fox news that was banned from the White House. It just makes me wonder how Michael Moore is able to come out with such propoganda while others are banned.
In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president d ...[text shortened]... t would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional![/b]
So I guess is is Obama and Chuch U Schumer vs. the Supreme Court. I just wonder if Obama will have as much success at usurping the Supreme Courts power as FDR had in his day. Unfortunately for Obama and company, however, the political environment is much more hostile now to the President than what FDR experienced. Just ask Martha Coakley. All I can say is, "Lets get it on!!" ðŸ˜
A noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.
“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”
Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.” His opinion has nothing to do with animus towards the President, for whom Powe said he voted enthusiastically.
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt was very strange.
In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president d ...[text shortened]... t would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional![/b]
As a lawyer himself, the President should know that Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision that's based on a Constitutional provision; in this case, the first Amendment. I suppose there are elements of the decision that Congress could nullify, though.
Using the State of the Union as a platform to go after the Supreme Court is also inappropriate, IMHO. I never remember another President doing this, and all Presidents get their noses rubbed by the Supremes now and then.
I have no problem with the President disagreeing with the Supreme Court. But speaking at the State of the Union with the Supreme Court judges sitting right there? He has every right to do it; but I don't like it.
Whether the Supreme Court decision was a good one or not is entirely beside the point.
It's not like this is the first time a president has publicly criticized the Supreme Court. Supreme Court bashing has been in vogue for both parties at least since Roe v Wade.
If the court strikes down a law the president likes, the president has every right to express his displeasure and call on Congress to find a constitutionally acceptable alternative.
But I do agree that there's been a lot of hysteria about this ruling.
The main impact seems to be that before the Supreme Court's ruling, corporations had to word their ad so it said "Senator X wants to eat your children. Call Senator X and tell him what you think of him". Now corporations can say "Senator X wants to eat your children. Vote for Candidate Y instead on election day."
Either way, there's no real difference between a corporation donating money to Senator Y's campaign and the corporation directly running an ad saying bad things about Senator X.
But I don't know if there's really any way, be it constitutionally or otherwise, to stop wealthy interests from getting their money to the candidates they wish to influence.
Originally posted by sh76How exactly is it "inappropriate" for a President to criticize a ridiculous, partisan Supreme Court ruling which overturned something like 7 precedents and call for legislation to reduce its impact? The fact that Scalia and the crew were sitting there doesn't make them immune from criticism.
It was very strange.
As a lawyer himself, the President should know that Congress can't overturn a Supreme Court decision that's based on a Constitutional provision; in this case, the first Amendment. I suppose there are elements of the decision that Congress could nullify, though.
Using the State of the Union as a platform to go after the Supreme Court i ...[text shortened]... it.
Whether the Supreme Court decision was a good one or not is entirely beside the point.
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo. Apparently 5 partisan judges decided it would be advantageous to the political party they are members of if they adopted the absurd idea that corporations, artificial entities that exist solely by legislative decision, have a natural right.
apparently they were 7 precedents and legislation that contravened the First Amendment.
Obama's exact words were:
”With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court 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. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.’”
Tempest meet teapot.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 29165
Originally posted by zeeblebotThis case is not about the First Amendment - it is about "...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men," - leaving out legal fictions which exist only because some statute breaths life into them. What's next the highschool chess team marries your homeroom teacher?
apparently they were 7 precedents and legislation that contravened the First Amendment.
This ruling is just about the most violent thing done so far to the basis of our republic. This is terminator without the metal suit. This is the death of capitalism for the individual. Have you forgotten what species you are? We should not give up our rights to imaginary beings. We should remain sovereign over our creations.
It is not only the duty of the President to say this - it is a requirement for every patriot.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI just watched that part of the speach again, what made the Supreme Court upset, was his comment they opened the flood gates to special interest groups, including Foreign corporations.
In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision. He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him. Not only did the president d ...[text shortened]... t would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional![/b]
That is what the Justcie was shaking his head about, and voicing the apparent words of NOT TRUE.
The laws were never changed permitting those entities to contribute..
A lie,,,
Obama seems to be a Post Turtle. In that someone stuck him on a post, we don't know why, but now he just wiggles his legs, and goes no where, until someone takes him down. :-)
Originally posted by Hugh GlassGee, whatever happened to right wing outrage against "activist judges"?
I just watched that part of the speach again, what made the Supreme Court upset, was his comment they opened the flood gates to special interest groups, including Foreign corporations.
That is what the Justcie was shaking his head about, and voicing the apparent words of NOT TRUE.
The laws were never changed permitting those entities to contribute..
A ...[text shortened]... now why, but now he just wiggles his legs, and goes no where, until someone takes him down. :-)