2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderEven the NY Times is apparently uncomfortable about the way the President called out the Supreme court in the State of the Union.
How 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html
President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
Fascinating picture attached to the article. Look at Chuck Schumer's enormous grin juxtaposed with the somber embarrassed faces of even the liberal judges who dissented in the decision.
At least Harry Reid had the common sense to keep his butt glued to his chair.
Originally posted by Hugh Glassa lie not without precedent!!!
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. :-)
Originally posted by utherpendragonUtherpendragon, defending such a clearly retarded decision by the Supreme Court merely because you don't like Obama does not do your credibility any good.
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]
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell in the words of Obamas appointed judge Sotomayor, she is an avowed judicial activist who believes the role of the Court is to set policy. Really they are just the political extension to the White House when appointed....unless they do the unthinkable which is uphold the constitution even though it may be unpopular with their cronies. I just hope they don't become intimidated by punk Chuck U Schumer and Harry Reids boy Obama.
Gee, whatever happened to right wing outrage against "activist judges"?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAgain the case was brought to the Supremes because of political censorship. So you agree with censoring political discourse come election time? You apparently have no problem with the ban about Hillary that tried to be released the last election cycle? BTW, it was not released by any large corporation and was a low budget movie. However, the arguements brought in attacking this decision are all about corporations corrupting the system.....as if they ever cared about that in the past. Give me a break.
Utherpendragon, defending such a clearly retarded decision by the Supreme Court merely because you don't like Obama does not do your credibility any good.
Originally posted by Hugh GlassPost Turtle!😲
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. :-)
He lies! Again!
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, it's not about "censorship" or "free speech". It's about keeping special interests from polluting healthy political debate, and more importantly, political decision making. There are many countries where U.S. politicians would be locked up for corruption for doing what they are doing now.
Again the case was brought to the Supremes because of political censorship. So you agree with censoring political discourse come election time? You apparently have no problem with the ban about Hillary that tried to be released the last election cycle? BTW, it was not released by any large corporation and was a low budget movie. However, the arguements b ...[text shortened]... ations corrupting the system.....as if they ever cared about that in the past. Give me a break.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe "retarded" decision was over 180 pages long I assume you've read it and know all about it?
Utherpendragon, defending such a clearly retarded decision by the Supreme Court merely because you don't like Obama does not do your credibility any good.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf it is not about censorship then the laws need to be reworded at best because that is EXACTLY what happened. Obama is concerned about policial corruptoin as much as he is about earmarks that he promised to put an end to. Corruption is ripe in Congress, even before this decision with the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase, with no one on the left to raise an objection. The only ones who should be censored are the politicians accepting campaign donations, not individuals/corporations. I guess corruption is only tolerated so long as it benefits the left.
Again, it's not about "censorship" or "free speech". It's about keeping special interests from polluting healthy political debate, and more importantly, political decision making. There are many countries where U.S. politicians would be locked up for corruption for doing what they are doing now.
Originally posted by whodeyFor that post, we are withdrawing our invitation for you to speak at the Robert Byrd Theater on Robert Byrd Blvd.
If it is not about censorship then the laws need to be reworded at best because that is EXACTLY what happened. Obama is concerned about policial corruptoin as much as he is about earmarks that he promised to put an end to. Corruption is ripe in Congress, even before this decision with the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase, with no one on the left t ...[text shortened]... individuals/corporations. I guess corruption is only tolerated so long as it benefits the left.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf I am for it or against it matters not. If I like Obama or not matters not. The topic of this thread is Obama not only having the audacity to insult SCOTUS at the state of the union address but to blatantly lie about their decision to boot.To their face none the less!
Utherpendragon, defending such a clearly retarded decision by the Supreme Court merely because you don't like Obama does not do your credibility any good.
Originally posted by whodeyAnd that nonexistent political movement is benefiting how exactly?
If it is not about censorship then the laws need to be reworded at best because that is EXACTLY what happened. Obama is concerned about policial corruptoin as much as he is about earmarks that he promised to put an end to. Corruption is ripe in Congress, even before this decision with the Cornhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase, with no one on the left t ...[text shortened]... individuals/corporations. I guess corruption is only tolerated so long as it benefits the left.