State of the Union: Reading Justice Alito’s Lips

A disrespectful move by the President, one which sets a disturbing precedent. Very disappointing.
Stop whining and lead — stop campaigning and be our President.

Obama doesn’t get it. There are 3 branches of government to act as checks and balances.
Little Barry is angry; he wants to be a dictator.

Justice Aliton violated Canon 1 and 5 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Shame on him from bringing disrepute to our noble profession. His state bar should admonish him for his clear breach of comity and protocol.

Obama said, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”
——————
Until the Supremes repealed that law, Barry couldn’t meet with anyone or get donations from Goldman Sachs.

I really don’t care what he said, just DON’ RAISE MY TAXES!!! I worked my off to make $200K and it is MY money, no one has right to take it and give to those who don’t contribute!!

$100 Alito is already drafting an apology to Obama.

Obama showed a total lack of respect for an equal branch of government. The man-child is a dangerous, and classless punk!

Justice Aliton violated Canon 1 and 5 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Shame on him from bringing disrepute to our noble profession. His state bar should admonish him for his clear breach of comity and protocol.
__________________________________
*****

This elephant eared, liar with a perpetual hiss admonished the SCOTUS for the sole purpose of intimidation. All while the drunken thieves we call congress applauded. It was shameful alright. He forgets he is not in Venezuela. Alito showed far more respect than Obama deserved.

It wouldn’t be the first time a democrat president bashed the supreme court. Roosevelt told the conservative court of the 1930′s to get out of the way when it came to “unconstitutional” New Deal legislation.

Fellow citizens of the USA, Its time to stop grumbling. The President is one man who is doing his best. Lets pray for the two parties to work together and then work with the president and hope they can solve some of our problems.

Obama lies because the SCotUS didn’t make it possible for foreign companies to “buy elections”. The Supreme Court invalidated a specific section of the law (441a) that bans all corporate financing of “electioneering communications”.
A totally different section of the same bill (441e) bans all Foreign Corporations’ contributions and electioneering. That law remains in place, post opinion.
If Alito said “that’s not true”, then he was merely responding with a fact in the face of a direct accusation of the President and the cheering applause of over half of Congress.
Are people really going to say that a person not quietly disagree with the president when he lies (or shows unbelievable ignorance for a lawyer)? Please.

Wait, is the point of the story…. that alito disagreed? Of course he is the head judge. Fortunately for our country, we can all disagree with any decision of the supreme court (ie abortion) as can our Chief judge with policy and they have a right to reverse it.

2 U.S.C. Section 441e
POTUS should read this before he gets up and lies and demagogues ro the American people about this SCOTUS decision. Foreign corps STILL cannot contribute to US elections.

This was a shocking display of disrespect and lack of decorum on the part of the president.To call out and egg on the congress to jeer at the SCOTUS while they sit with their hands in their laps was …well VERY un presidential…..
Just another example of the Chicago approach to criticism.

worked my off to make $200K—oh quit your crying. Your tax rate is going back to what it was under Reagan. Giving you folks those tax breaks was quite simply a bad investment. You didn’t create any jobs with it. So the folks who actually get the tax credits are those who actually DO SOMETHING that creates a job. As it always should have been. You never had that money before bush, and frankly, bush should never have given it to you. Bush should have done tax cuts the way Obama did _ you get a tax cut for DOING SOMETHING that CREATES A JOB instead of giving tax cuts for doing squat. You want a tax cut??? Then invest in something that gives you the tax cut. He listed a whole slew ofthem. Do something useful.

Good for the President ….the people are NOT our God….we saw what happened when they got involved in our political process before….and it will open the flood gates for the Big Corporations to dictate to the American people who our elected officers are. Republicans such as Alito is Pro-Big Government and NOT people…will someone tell me what did that administration do for this country the past 8 years they were there. …I thought so…Nothing…..sent us to WarS and Scared the heck out of the Cowards in this country as if Terrorist are Supermen that are coming to “get you”….reminds me of “the Russians are Coming”…all was a distraction from the Economy and jobs. Yes, my business started to suffer in 2002, and I was out of business by 2004. This has been a long process of DECLINE… and it seems that some of us wants to not even aknowledge that 8 year span.

Obama showed a total lack of respect for an equal branch of government
Posted by: JoeB | Jan 28, 2010 12:17:30 AM
_____________________________________
I WOULD say the justices are independent… NOT equal, The President is the MOST powerful person on the planet. don’t get it twisted.

Obama showed a total lack of respect for an equal branch of government
Posted by: JoeB
as opposed to say, Joe Wilson…. really..
gimme a break

It’s not like special interest groups, including corporations and labor unions, aren’t already exerting undue influence on our election process via their campaign contributions and their overt and covert lobbying, but I’m pleased that the president raised the issue in his state of the union speech.
Since corporate control of any U.S. corporation can easily fall into the hands of a foreign entity or entities that are actually hostile toward the United States, it would seem that such a case would border on, or be an outright case of treason.
As regards to the current inbalance in our government created by corporate money (as stated earlier), the people’s interest would best be served by reducing, if not eliminating, special interest lobbying by repealing the 17th amendment to the Constitution.

The SC did the right thing… 5 of them anyway. Obama disrespect for the court was pathetic. We the people need to make him a 1 term failure and vote him out in 2012. He is a socialist bordering on Marxist. He is destroying our economy, weakening our nations security, and bankrupting our children.

Obama believes that just because he was speaking to a joint session of Congress, decorum would give him the right to say any blatantly untrue accusation to the face of those who he accuses without being checked.
Anyone who followed the argument in the Citizens United case would laugh out loud at the Government lawyer’s argument that the McCain-Feinfold would rightly empower the government to ban a book if it ventured into electoral politics in any way, shape or form within 30 days of an election. It is a stupid law that is totally ineffective and is an assault on free speech. It is in fact a travesty that the High Court did not strike it down with unanimity!
Obama’s outburst illustrates that he either did not know all the facts (as he did not when spoke of “someone acted stupidly”) or he took his audience for a fool (as he did when he said Obamacare would be paid for by eliminating waste.)

Republican judicial activism from the bench is a danger to america, they should be impeached for treason

This was a shocking display of disrespect and lack of decorum on the part of the president—-he’s the president and he called it exactly like it is. Theordore Roosevelt made that law, before you get your partisan feathers in a hype, so do take note of what the president is talking about. Before the law TR said “we are selling out government wholesale to hte highest bidder” and Teddy Roosevelt, the ‘rough rider”, the guy on Mount Rushmore, the man who made the Panama Canal, one of the VERY few republican presidents who was actually good made that law and it was WRONG WRONG WRONG to repeal it. Obama was spot on. And Alito acted like a baby. Sour grapes. Alito was granted his voice to the public during his ruling and his opinion, now it was obama’s turn. Nothing disrespectful about. That’s how it works. Dont like it, then dont take the job as cheif justice. If you make an absolutely bafoon ruling, you will be called out on it by the sitting president during his state of the union if he must ask for legislation to counter it, as is the case. Unless of course, you DO want foriegn money going toward who should be elected in our government. How in God’s name can ANY American agree to that. It was TEddy Roosevelt’s law, for GOd’s sake! What the #&(*&(*#& are you defending repealing it?????????

The sooner he fails, the better
total socialist pig
Posted by: Garth Webster
as the Pres once said, proved over and over here:
‘ they take pride in their own ignorance’

Obama just contradicted himself over and over during his speech. He has never had transparency, approved millions in earmarks in the Omnibus bill and definitely approved of the sleazy back room deals made in the name of buying off congress to get health care passed—a total disgrace. He said he is no quitter so what other back room sleaziness does he have in mind to pass his agenda? He doesn’t get it “the American people don’t like his health bill.” He lies so easily, which is disturbing, has no clue about national security or the economy. He has wasted one year in office chasing a ridiculous health care bill which no one even knows what it contains. He was also very disrespectful to a judge of the high court–shame on him!

Obama has no right to say those things . . . it is a shame to see our President show such a lack of understanding, honor and loyalty to the very document that has vested into him the rights and powers in which the Constitution and founding fathers have created. There are checks and balances in this country for a reason. One more reason why Obama should not have been elected.
______________________________________
Nonsense, the President can make comment on a ruling by the Supreme Court any time he wants.
How soon you anti-Obama types who rave about the Constitution forget Bush and the Republicans.
(2006-06-30) — Just a day after the Supreme Court issued a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration’s use of military tribunals for terror suspects, President George Bush announced today that he had signed an executive order setting aside the high court’s decision.
“As I’ve mentioned before, I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision,” said Mr. Bush. “I’m the decider and I decide what’s best.”
——————————-

Hopefully, they will let the Reps get a few ideas in some of the bills to help small businesses.
______________________________________
Do you mean like the tax breaks for small businesses the President introduced? Or the small business loans through community banks? Or what did you mean?

Posted by: tierra
ahhhh yes,
‘W’ the great decider, the man of infinite strategery, Mr. ‘Bin Laden wanted dead or alive’, mission accomplished’, the brush clearer,
so much to choose from..
how soon we forget

well for one,, how long has bush been out of office??? grow up mr. obama,, anything that comes out of your mouth is crap and i don’t believe anything you have to say,, iam not a democrat,, but i would have voted for you, just to get bush out,, but you have so lied ,, mr populiraty

uh, let’s play with history here, eh. Bush said, I’m the decider and I decide what’s best in regards to a political appointment, i.e. Rumsfeld and yes, it is true that he had the power to decide whether donald should go or stay. It had nothing to do with a supreme court decision, though the way it was posted would leave you to believe it was.
Bushphobia at work again!

This is to all the idiots that keep bringing up what Bush said. Please show us some kind of proof that we agreed with Bush at the time he said it and you may have something to stand on but for now, shut the hell up about Bush and take the responsibility for electing this total and complete village idiot into office named OBAMA!

Jessie-
AAHAAHAHAHA!!Oh my, Dems don’t believe in the constitution. Oh how soon we forget how Bush trampled all over the Constitution.
And it always made me wonder how a country could vote for the Bush’s when the father of Bush senior, by the name of Prescott Bush was Hitler’s banker during WW2. Absolutely true. Look it up. America froze Mr. Bush’s assets after the war.

NO to President Obama!

“You post made up things about Obama, we’ll post made up things about Bush.”
How juvenile. How baracky.

Jefferson, who seems popular with conservatives, had quite a lot to say about the Supreme Court. He actually moved to impeach a justice.
All this fussing about the poor Justices who were ‘humiliated’ by the ‘classless’ behavior of the President in offering public criticism of a decision seems to reflect a real lack of knowledge and understanding of our political system and history. Or, for some, a desire to deflect criticism by obfuscating the same.
The President’s remarks were almost verbatim from the minority decision – not even a small minority but a close vote and very upsetting for some Justices. They do seem bent on disenfranchising ordinary citizens though. They decided a Presidential election by ruling that votes NOT be counted (a shameful decision) and have now made a ruling, overturning precendent which is not a minor thing and is essentially ‘activist’, which will significantly reduce the ability of ordinary citizens to be heard in elections.
It deserved comment in a national forum.

The polite way of saying “YOU LIE!”

Why doesn’t she expand upon it?
You’ll have to ask her. It’s not as though she works at Newsmax. It’s the Times. They’re no friend of conservatives.
She agreed with Alito.
As I said, Obama is peeved that corporations (and don’t forget that ABC News is a corporation, and so is the NY Times) can do what ACORN and SEIU have been doing all along.
It has leveled the field. The demise of McCain-Feingold was predicted years ago.

Alito responded to something that HAD come before the court, which is VERY DIFFERENT from something THAT MIGHT come before the court. There is no need for appearance of having no opinion, his opinion was captured in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.
Also, you pointed cameras at Justices why, exactly? To catch a reaction they ‘shouldn’t have’ to POTUS’s rebuke of their decision based on current law?! Puh-leese…

“Tonight, I’m calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.”
It’ll be on CSPAN! Honest!

The AP story says, “The proposal is similar to McCain’s.”
Of course. McCain made the proposal in the campaign and Obama bashed him for it.
Now it’s Obama’s idea?
Pure hypocrisy.
Obama called for earmark reform after signing a bill with 8500 earmarks?
Pure unadulterated hypocrisy.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice or more and I am an Obama supporter.

Jefferson, who seems popular with conservatives, had quite a lot to say about the Supreme Court. He actually moved to impeach a justice.
All this fussing about the poor Justices who were ‘humiliated’ by the ‘classless’ behavior of the President in offering public criticism of a decision seems to reflect a real lack of knowledge and understanding of our political system and history. Or, for some, a desire to deflect criticism by obfuscating the same.
The President’s remarks were almost verbatim from the minority decision – not even a small minority but a close vote and very upsetting for some Justices. They do seem bent on disenfranchising ordinary citizens though. They decided a Presidential election by ruling that votes NOT be counted (a shameful decision) and have now made a ruling, overturning precendent which is not a minor thing and is essentially ‘activist’, which will significantly reduce the ability of ordinary citizens to be heard in elections.
It deserved comment in a national forum.
__________________________________
Interesting. I hope we’ll see some good solid research on precedents for this sort of thing – lots of people in here shooting half cocked.

drjohn -
You seem to have confused one or two things. First the giver of the speech is expected to speak – those listening are expected to listen. When the listeners dislike what they hear they might engage in indecorous behavior by shouting, making faces, sighing, giggling and whispering to neighbors etc. So watching the reactions and coming to the conclusion that the speaker was indecorous is – well – a stretch to say the least.
Second you seem to have assumed that all people with whom you disagree hold all the opinions with which you disagree. This is just illogical. If you were able to demonstrate that I had in fact claimed that Joe Wilson was to be condemned for his behavior then you might then go on to try to demonstrate that giving a speech and reacting to one carry the same social expectations.
It might be useful if you could read some past addresses. This was certainly not the first time the Court was criticized.

Four justices of the Supreme Court agreed that . .. decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans” to make certain election-related expenditures.

If Obama was really concerned about foreign and special interests flooding the system with money, he wouldn’t have disabled the AVS system on his campaign website, now would he?
Rules are for other people. Not for Obama.

” This was certainly not the first time the Court was criticized.”
No, it’s not. But I am willing to listen and read of other examples of a President bashing SCOTUS like that in a SOTU speech in the presence of both houses of Congress.

Big deal, he made a speech. Actions speak loader than words and his, so far, stink right along with congress. Socialism is a pit stop on the way to totalitarianism.

What about ACORN and SEIU? Why should they be able to pour money into campaigns
_____________________________
Do you have a list of ACORN donations to political campaigns drjohn?

“Do you have a list of ACORN donations to political campaigns drjohn?”
I have a video of Bertha Lewis saying that “we must elect” Barack Obama. Now you’re not about to suggest that ACORN is something other than hyperpartisan, I hope.

I have Barack Obama payin ACORN $800,000 to work for his campaign.
And the work of volunteers is fungible.

“The embattled community activist group ACORN appears to be collecting charitable contributions through affiliate organizations that it then uses for impermissible lobbying and political activity, says the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee.”
Seattle Times

I have Barack Obama payin ACORN $800,000 to work for his campaign.
And the work of volunteers is fungible.
Posted by: drjohn | Jan 28, 2010 7:08:56 AM
________________________________________
You made the claim ACORN is ‘pouring’ money into campaigns (while corporations couldn’t).
Do you have a list of donations ACORN made to campaigns?

Posted by: drjohn | Jan 28, 2010 7:13:25 AM
Okay so we’ll accept the fact you’re unable to find any information about ACORN ‘pouring’ money into political campaigns, right?
So is this something you just made up?

A list? Right. ACORN keeps a public list of all of its illegal activities.
posted by: drjohn | Jan 28, 2010 7:22:05 AM ********************************
It’s ironic that John McCain also donated to ACORN.Oh…oh,THAT was different. wishful thinking!

More bull by Obama. Another stimulus that is supposed to create jobs. I’ll believe it when I see it.

GEOFFREY GARRETT: Well all the Republicans of course were sitting in stony silence.
SHANE MCLEOD: Doing their best not to applaud.
GEOFFREY GARRETT: Even when Obama announces some they should love like tax cuts for small business. So their strategy has been just to say no to everything . . .
abc PM
———————
Strange, I saw a standing ovation of everyone when President Obama mentioned the tax cuts for jobs.
Methinks someone is trying to distort the truth.

Once again is Obama wasting our money. He should stick to his job.As long as he is on our payroll, he should remember his job, he is not a supreme court justice, nor does he have all the facts. Once again, Obama acts as though he is more than what we made him. Overreaching and making statements such as the “he acted stupidly” remark referring to the police officer who arrested the unruly professor. Obama did not sit in on the hearings, and furthermore, it is not his job to even evaluate the ruling. He is the one politicizing this ruling. He is the one keeping the American people on edge when his inflamatory comments cannot possibly change the outcome in the least. It is reported that his plan is to divide the republicans. He is merely keeping the parties divided and divisive and angry. Again, we didnt send him there to keep the animosity stirred up.

GEOFFREY GARRETT: Even when Obama announces some they should love like tax cuts for small business. So their strategy has been just to say no to everything . . .
_________________________________
The President says “we cut taxes for 95% of working families, we cut taxes for small businesses, we but taxes for first time home buyers, we cut taxes for parents trying to care for thier children, we cut taxes for 8,000,000 Americans trying to pay for college.”
Everybody BUT the Republicans gave the President a standing ovation when he outlined the tax cuts.
It’s quit clear on the FOX network coverage – you can see the Republicans first from the front and then from the back – they sit without clapping while the Democrats stand and applaud the tax cuts Obama describes.

What isn’t true, Sam? It isn’t true that you gave corporations the green light to spend all they want because they are “people” too? Thanks a lot, dude. You and Roberts and the rest of the conservative judges must be getting some kickbacks from multi-national corporations. You gave away the store.

tierra said: when they don’t have any points to make in a discussion – they insult and attack the person. Lowering the bar for behavior and ethics in America . . . weak
————————————–
Just a suggestion tierra but get a clue…the Democrats have pefected this. When anyone has even questioned Obama the first comment has been “well…they must be a racist”. When a plumber asked Obama about his “spread the wealth comment” the first thing Democrats did was to attack the plumber over and over again. It’s pretty easy to tell that you’re nothing more than a political hack.

It’s a sad commentary on the boy who would be President when he attacks the SCOTUS and lies about campaign finance law in order to score points with the lunatic, foaming at the mouth, left.
He should be ashamed of himself.

When did the reporters become lip readers?

How unseemly for a president to scold “an independent judiciary” affirming freedom of speech, charging them with giving “foreign interests” leave to interfere in our voting process when he has so liberally granted terrorists “our” Miranda rights. The man is shameless. Absolutely shameless.

I would rather have a domestic entity like ACORN pouring money into American campaigns than say, UAE, Iran, China.

“I would rather have a domestic entity like ACORN pouring money into American campaigns than say, UAE, Iran, China.”
Posted by: krenz | Jan 28, 2010 9:25:14 AM
Except that ACORN is getting its money from taxpayers in the form of government grants, and then funneling it exclusively into Democrat campaigns.
The DNC calls it “The Circle of Life.”

So Obama does about the best STOU I’ve seen in years and since repulican’s can’t stand it now “scold” is their buzzword to shame him. How funny, when ALL THEY DO is scold Obama. Scold liberals. They are the kings and queens of scold. So I guess they’d know what it means.

I bet if Bush had told the Supreme Court Roe V. Wade was wrong the cheers would erupt.

So Obama does about the best STOU I’ve seen in years and since repulican’s can’t stand it now “scold” is their buzzword to shame him. How funny, when ALL THEY DO is scold Obama. Scold liberals. They are the kings and queens of scold. So I guess they’d know what it means.
Posted by: secondlook | Jan 28, 2010 9:41:24 AM
It was the best SOTU I’ve listened to in a long time. And what’s funny is that while you would think the Right would be recognize “scolding” as they engage in it nonstop 24/7– they misapply it. His tone was energized and good-natured. My husband is an independent– one of those Obama is supposed to be losing– and he doesn’t understand the right’s characterization of him at all. He thought the speech was great and likes Obama a lot, and thinks the Right’s reax are bizarro.

“It was the best SOTU I’ve listened to in a long time.”
Sure – If you have a partisan / what can big government do for you / Obama can do no wrong / Bush did it! viewpoint. For the rest of us it was pretty painful.
“My husband is an independent– one of those Obama is supposed to be losing–”
Um, check the polls – He IS losing independents. If you need more proof, check results of elections in NJ, VA, and MA.

The President overstepped his Executive authority. There are three branches of government that are separate but equal. He used this platform to intimidate our Judicial Branch. All media networks are owned by corporations – ABC is owned by Disney, NBC by GE, Fox by Rupert Murdock. Do you think they get their money from charities? Do you think they don’t reflect the ideologies of the corporation? If you think so, then why does NBC push the green initiative that will tremendously benefit GE?
The question that I leave you with isd, “How can the Supreme Court justices be out of touch with America today when their sole responsibility is to interpret the Constitution?”

Interesting that he scolds the republicans for standing in the way for not accomplishing even one bill that made it to his office. Hello! What about the 11 months he had a 61 seat majority? Why could they not produce one bill? Could it be they were bad bills? Nice way to reach accross the isle to garner support. He reaches accross the isle to slap their face. Why would they support him?

The country is a battle ground of yeahs and nays, historians, its your fault not ours, blame gamers, growlers in unison and every one has an axe to grind, I wish I were in the AXE business.
This is supposed to be a free country?
The people have let politics destroy our lives. We have tried to let wall street run the country, Its there way or no way.
Cheap wages high prices, detest minimum wage raise, what do they do to earn respect of ordinary citizens, close to absolutely Nothing. Supreme court highly political, decisions they make not to individuals, but corporate effects lives of thousands of people. I would like to see them try only minor case, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing, Kings you bet.
Talk about debt, Reagan showed the USA
how to borrow money, to take place of tax breaks for the Rich. When he left office USA Owed two Trillion seven hundred Billion, more than all the presidents combined, before him even two world wars, plus Vietnam, Father of borrowing instead of all paying there fair share of taxes and spending Wisely. Republican?

Progressive Momma: I guess you and your independent husband support hyprocrisy and a liar. Lets look at his speech and fact check his words. He talked about the lack of transparency, lobbyists and the supreme courts ruling on the freedom of speech ruling and fearing big cororporations may influence elections. Lets look at Obamas cabinent and what do we find four former lobbyists appointed by obama himself. Transparency what a joke this is. He was responsible for making deals with big pharma, AARP and the AMA to try to get his health care bill passed. This doesnt even include the deals made to certain senators to get the votes he needed. And if he was so concerned about anybody influencing elections then why does he have no problems with the billions of dollars donated to his party by the Unions and outside influences like Moveon.org which is mainhly funded by an outside influence of Boros’ billion of dollares. Face it he is full of lies and the americaan people are tired of it and his consistent attacks on everything he does not like. He is played out and will be a lame duck president the rest of his term.

He treats this country like garbage. T
—
With all due respect, most of us weren’t watching reruns of past spee he’s not the one treating the country, the constitution, and the intelligence and spirit of the American people like garbage to be exploited and manipulated.
LOL!! Its quite the opposite. He reminded the American people why the majority voted for him and, in fact, most people viewed the speech positively. He also demonstrated a strong and pragmatic grasp of the difficult situation he inherited, the difficulties of the past year, and the difficult position in which he and Dems in Congress find themselves presently. He was sensitive to our challenges. His tone was energized and likable. Rhetorically, he focused on jobs. And while he reached out to Republicans, he, like many of us, recognizes that a scorched earth policy isn’t admirable. He gets it. God help us all if the Republicans end up at the helm again. They have no ideas and no credibility.

I am one of those folks who embarked on the dream of a lifetime, to open my own business. Unfortunately, I signed the lease on my building on April 1st 2007. (Yes, Aprils fools day) By December of 2007 our country was officially in recession. My life savings and mortgage are on the line along with a significant amount of money from a very small investor. I am very good at what I do, and I have lots of very happy clients. I just don’t have enough of them because of the recession. If you have a job, go to a local small business today and buy something! We are struggling out here. I’ve got a wife and four kids to feed. We need help now!!! Can anyone spare some “CHANGE”?!?!

OUR PRESIDENT ACTS LIKE A CHILD PLAYING AT RUNNING OUR COUNTRY. I JUST HOPE WE CAN MAKE IT FOR 3 MORE YEARS WHEN HE CAN BE VOTED OUT.

What is it you would like him to say? Seriously, I just did my taxes and recieved a higher tax refund and paid less taxes. This was after my husband earned the most he has in his professional life. Whether you agree with his idieology, you have no right to think he is acting to drive this country into the ground! Take a step back, take a breath and realize rep or dem, everyone is trying to make this a better place but now because so many people dont get exactly what they want they are going to put their political representive on notice. No wonder they are screaming at each other, they cant make the hard decisions and protect their jobs! Polictical offices should not be a profession but a call to serve your country. Too many people lived high on the horse while others lived pay check to pay check, and now so many want to cry wolf because they finally are feeling the squeeze. Why didn’t you take a step back when times were good and help the less fortunate, no you rode that horse till it was dead and now you want to cry wolf and blame it on the dems for trying anything to make it better. Better watch out, because when the oil is gone it will be the same. Why not try to be proactive now and save yourself the worry (blame) later? My rant maybe disorganized but you all know that the argueing and backstabbing is just costing you more tax dollars and mean while the country and economy is still suffering…..take a step back, think about what you want and tell people what you would like Obama to change so that we can make this work-STOP WITH THE BLAME GAME.

Yeah, yeah, yeah….so he can give a good speech. We all know that. Problem is he does not have the experience to back up his words. He also is an embarassment to this nation in his words of censor toward the Supreme Court. How dare a Jr. Senator with minimal legal experience call into question the actions of the Supreme Court. To all of you saying the SC is no good because of the Bush/Gore decision…you would have been thrilled had it gone your way and you know. Admit it and just quit with that old argument. FYI to all the Bush bashers….he is no longer in the WH…this is a new era. This is all on Obama and he is screwing it up. Not impressed. Looking forward to Hillary challenging him in 2012….that would be awesome!

I don’t think that muttering something under your breath counts as open, public agreement or disagreement with the President during his State of the Union speech. I wasn’t there to see it, but I can imagine that if story-hungry reporters didn’t have their cameras trained on Alito, no one would have noticed his self-comments. Trying to say that an audience to the President has to sit like statues with poker faces violates free speech — not to mention *free thought*, since mumbling to yourself is just one step away from simply thinking a thought. The only audience members I might hold to that standard would be the Chiefs of Staff, since the President is their boss.

It’s not the same as what Joe “You lie!” Wilson did.

the real question is.. barry said WHAT?? how typical of this unpresidential president to deviate from decorum and criticize another branch of govt, all because he didnt agree with the decision (politically motivated of course). this is why we have seperation of power, so no one person or branch controls the entire govt, he should know this supposedly, being a constitutional scholar from the so called esteemed college of hahvard

Say, mama, don’t you have more “Ellie Light” astroturf letters to photocopy for David Axelrod and mail to newspaper editors??
Posted by: Libs, and the Lying Liars Who Elect Them | Jan 28, 2010
One person is the same as Koch brother supported astroturf tea partiers in your world? No wonder you’re so confused and projecting your weaknesses onto libs.

excellent speech im glad he hit the right for kinda blaming him latetly for the mess the left inherited. that seem to be forgotten and i hated the bail outs but honestly we probably would be in a depression had he not considering the BANKS really do run this country on just about every aspect, had they not got there greedy paws on the money unemployment would be doubled for sure bc small business even big businesses at that time were hurting BIG. i just watced a dvd i had from last april and yeh people were scared paranoid our stocks were at 7,000.. WE ARE BETTER OFF so far than a year ago, and i think we’ll be better off next year as well. Hell say what u want about clinton but he had us in a surplus, if obamas following his footsteps we should b ok

the proof everyone is offering
Who’s “everyone”? — if you read the dissents and measured rather than knee-jerk reads of the case and the decision, most are not cut and dried. Try Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Drum and Will Wilkinson, for example. Obama has a point, one worth considering rather than simply being against.

You people who heap criticism on the POTUS for criticizing the SOTUS need to look in the mirror and figure out who is being disrespectful. Or do not you see the irony in the situation? This whole article is a prefect example of what Obama was talking about further in this speech on how the MSM is endlessly whipping up controversy out of thin air to breed discourse. Give it a break, Jake.

seriously, the supreme court overturned federal and state campaign laws…passed by the people-for the people…It certainly was worth a mention-and i whole hearedly agree…something needs to be done to circumvent that decision…Kudos to obama for chastising them

Obama can just stand there and LIE his hind-end off!!! —- No lobbyists in his administration? (try 12)– Transparent? (yeah, healthcare reform was real transparent) — Jobs #1 (where have you been the last year)? — Fiscally responsible? (after a year of pigging out at the deficit trough) — Integrity for the people? (Does that include the LA, NE, and union bribes?) — Come on people, he doesn’t mean anything he says!!!!

Letting Corporations control the political process should be something that the left and right agree on. Corporation should NOT be people!

Who the hell is Obama to stand there and insult the Supreme Court …
Insult? Or dissent? Is dissent patriotic or not so much in your world?
Its President Obama…btw.

cowgirl — The part of the law the supreme court voted as unconstitutional they felt directly interefered with 1st amendment rights! — It only included money used to express their opinions in media outlets, it doesn’t change limits contributed to camapigns or candidates.

I really don’t care if foreign corporations can or can’t contribute. Since a corporation can’t fight in a war or give birth I do not agree with this ruiling whatsoever, and I stand with Obama. We are already the US of big business around here and this just adds to it.

whatsgoingonhere – The funniest thing I’ve just read is the left never factchecks. This from the side of “teleprompter, birth certificate, socialism, elitists, Sarah Palin is so honest, Sarah Palin is “just like me.”

progressive —- I guess somebody has to “earn” respect —- I respect the position, but not this fraud and huckster!!

Peter King, you DO know that “Obama’s eligibility status case” was thrown out of court as having no basis in fact and a frivolous lawsuit a couple of years ago, right? And that there is now nothing even remotely resembling “Obama’s eligibility status case” to even come before the Supreme Court?

secondlook-President Obama’s SOTU speech was the most cogent message to come out of Washington in a long time.He was as the leader of the free world should be-articulate,and to the point.If the rest of the world dislikes us,and I believe that they do,the accolade for that perception belongs on Bush43′s plate.That’s what happens when you invade another country on the flimsy pretext of WMD,which I might add,were never found.Concerning SCJ Alito,he proved,once again,that he lacks the refinement of character to keep his emotions in check.If anyone embarrassed the country,it was Alito.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens—part of the majority in the two previous opinions that were overruled—called the majority opinion “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have…fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.” To underscore his distress, Justice Stevens took the unusual step of reading much of his 90-page dissent from the bench.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent, which accused the majority of seizing on a minor case dealing with the application of McCain-Feingold to upend a long history of statutes and judicial opinions.
The majority’s rationale “comes down to nothing more than its disagreement” with precedent, Justice Stevens wrote, and its opinion “is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents” from those cases.

cowgirl: Wanting to change and seeing how things could be better by PROGRESSING in to the future rather than holding on to the past is not a brain disorder.
What a joke.

adam-since when has been going backwards 2 decades called …progressing…you had better find a new approach if you are going to defend the SC decision…LOL

Obama never complained about stealing UNION DUES for his 08 campaign.
Get real people. Somehow UNIONS SPENDING MONEY ON CAMPAIGN’S is ok, but CORP’s are not???
What is the difference between the SEIU and any major American corporation, like Proctor and Gamble?
Answer: None
Remember Obama told us no lobbyists in the WH? Yeah and how many are on the payroll in his admin? At least 30…
Hmmm…..
Mr Hopefully Changiness is finished.
The only thing transparent about this admin is how woefully under qualified Obama was and is for this job. The media is at fault for that.

The only thing transparent about this admin is how woefully under qualified Obama was and is for this job. The media is at fault for that.
Posted by: halo | Jan 28, 2010 11:32:50 AM
And you can name administrations of the past that were equally or more transparent?
NO???

People, people, Its only men and women on the SC. They are not God. They too are capable of human error and that decision Obama let them know he didn’t like sure was an error. I guess you are all saying you want some foreign person, with a lot of money, oil and clout, making election decisions for you in this country right? Okay, then, get ready for a Tienanmen Square experience, or worse yet, political prisoners locked up for life if they disagree with their governments. Be careful not to let them hear you once they get their puppet in. Shhh, don’t let them hear you voice your opinion which will be a thing of the past for Americans if they get their way.

Can corporations reproduce in their own image? Can corporations feel emotion? Do corporations have hunger pangs? Can they breathe or drink? Do they cry or laugh? Do they go to the toilet? If yes to these questions, then explain how corporations are people.

Its all a moot point america has been sold long ago. The goverment doesnt represent to people and hasnt in decades, they represent their own issues which is usually how full they can get their own pockets in the taxpayers money. This ruling by the so called neutral justices just shows how arrogant the rulling parties of the US have become. Corporations and special intrest groups run this country and always will unless something causes a mass exodus from washington of the rich and privilaged.

Same old same old. Obama’s ‘gift’ as he likes to call it, seems to have faded as much as his policies. I find him a total bore who just keeps saying the same thing over and over like a broken record. He just doesn’t get it.

@progressive mama
Yeah, I can.
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Recently.
Ike
JFK (excluding extra-marital affairs)
Are you willing to acknowledge that in this day and age of the media JFK would NEVER HAVE BEEN ELECTED?
But you really don’t care about facts, do you?
The AMERICAN MEDIA FAILED IN THEIR FAWNING OVER OBAMA. THEY FAILED IN THEIR BASIC MISSION TO INFORM THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO THEY WERE VOTING FOR.
Why: Because the media didn’t want to be labelled “racist” for asking tough questions.
Result: Proof that not only is Women’s Lib dead, but that this country is one hell of a sexist nation.
A man with 1/3 the experience of Ms Clinton was allowed to run and she was pushed aside.
So, Progressive Mama, what do you think about that???

tamcamry…No, it makes the judges look arrogant-for striking down the will of the american people and states rights…being “activist” judges…which is always a complaint of the right

halo, I think you guys love to say the media got a democrat elected to justify a loss. The same media that was there when GWB was elected.

This guy is out of control….he just don’t get it….wont stop till he destroys America….Talks about bipartisanship but is sooo bios and not willing to listen to the people!!!! OBAMA YOUR A FOOL!!!!

Well me see, did he forget to blame anyone?
In anyone’s book, blame is NOT leadership.
This guy is not a leader.
Blame the Supreme Court; he has always thought he was smarter than anyone else – including the SCOTUS, even after he appointed the most bigoted, racist, and sexist to ever sit on the court.
He even blamed voters. Now, I have a problem with that. He does not listen.
He is supposed to be in charge but apparently not. He is apparently not responsible for anything.

And you can name administrations of the past that were equally or more transparent?
Posted by: progressive mama
********
Has anyone else ever promised it in campaigns?

Uh-huh. I was a Hilary supporter to try that one again. You are wrong, plain and simple.
—————————————–
halo, I think you guys love to say the media got a democrat elected to justify a loss. The same media that was there when

So, Progressive Mama, what do you think about that???
Posted by: halo | Jan 28, 2010 11:48:25 AM
To be honest, I’ll have to research you’re so called “recent” presidents as they’re way before my time– and think about media, the news cycle, the role that plays, how the information was disseminated, how to equalize factors for equating transparency. I certainly don’t just take your word for it, but facts are important and I’m glad you didn’t name the presidents of my lifetime cuz I’d know that was a lie. Maybe you’re right. I’ll investigate.
I agree that the media isn’t very good and sexist bias exists but I disagree with your exact take, and find it intriguing that you think your opinion is “fact.”

The OBABBLE attack on the Supreme Court while the Justices were seated in the audience was unforgiveable. This fool thinks he was elected Fuhrer rather than U.S. President.

This guy is out of control….he just don’t get it….wont stop till he destroys America….Talks about bipartisanship but is sooo bios and not willing to listen to the people!!!! OBAMA YOUR A FOOL!!!!
Posted by: IZZY | Jan 28, 2010 11:53:13 AM
***************************************
It’s “you’re” a fool. You are.

wheresmymoney: Your are right, if you are aware of who owns an inerest in what corporation. Do you know who, how many people, and where they are from own an interest in huge organizations that do business in our country right now? If you do, I’ll vote for you for pres next time because you must be the smartest American in the country.

Big labor spends hundreds of millions of dollars on politics every cycle, especially the teachers unions. There are ways for them to get around campaign finance laws that simply do not work for corporations.
What the Supreme Court did was quite honest and straightforward. Instead of a system wherein the FEC decided who can spend what, they simply said that everyone can spend as much as they want in federal elections as long as they do not coordinate their spending with the candidate. Frankly, I don’t think a lot will change. Most of the big players were already getting around the rules anyway. That’s what lawyers and accountants do.

perhaps you may have missed the fact..many corporations are owned by or have connections to foreign countrys????
Posted by: cowgirl | Jan 28, 2010 11:57:18 AM
*******
Are you saying you know more than ABC News and the AP? Both have stated Obama’s accusations on this are false.

Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” In fact, four justices of the Supreme Court agreed that the logic of the decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans” to make certain election-related expenditures.

The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.
I am saying…I don’t look to the media as an expert source of material
Posted by: cowgirl | Jan 28, 2010 12:36:48 PM
Well said. The dissenting opinions are worth a read and some thought.

If he can’t run the presidential side of things and and has been unable to push through his first year legislative agenda, what makes anyone think he knows enough about the law to question any supreme court decision?

I am glad to see Obama step on the Justices. Now the Justices see where they stand and perhaps this will perswade them to stand against this non president.

Posted by: halo | Jan 28, 2010 12:07:36 PM
Unfortunately, you can’t stick to reason but have to exaggerate.
Here’s what I know. The Freedom of Information Act was signed by Johnson, post Kennedy and Truman and all the presidents you named. The Act gave the public greater access to public records. So, I have to do some research to try to figure out where you’re coming from and if you have a point as I’m not just a knee jerk naysayer. If I was I’d mention the whole Dixon Yates thing for Ike, for starters.

Hopefully Citizens United v. FEC will make the system more open for everyone, though it is important that foreign interests not be allowed to influence our elections and I think Alito was shaking his head at Obama because he (Alito) doesn’t believe the court’s decision opened the door for foreign interests.

I prefer to get my legal analysis from Palin, constitutional scholar, lawyer, judge, jury, quitter,.. I was impressed by her revelation that G. Washington was her fav ‘founder’.
if she’s not available, then my analysis of law comes from Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. Tiller who, along with his group of domestic terrorists thinks that anyone who believes differently than they should be killed… yes sir.. ‘true americans all’

WStevens: Decision will “cripple” government’s ability to prevent “corporate domination of the electoral process.” Stevens also wrote:
The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.

Jim Rod — Good point! I viewed it as disrespectful (and it was), but if it “sets the tone” for future interaction, so much the better!

The five conservative Supremes who voted to give corporations the rights of individual citizens should be ashamed. Corporations do not vote, get drafted, get a birth certificate or a death certificate. With 90% of stocks owned by 10% of the population, this ruling gives too much influence to a small part of the population.
We need a constitutional amendment a.s.a.p. to correct this threat to our democracy.

In July 2000, the Oregon Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers filed a civil racketeering lawsuit against two of Sizemore’s organizations: Oregon Taxpayers United and the OTU Education Foundation. During the trial Becky Miller, Sizemore’s top aide, under protection of state and federal immunity deals, testified in detail about the unethical and illegal practices of Oregon Taxpayers United. These included alleged money laundering involving both Sizemore and Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist, as well as falsification of federal tax returns and state campaign finance reports. Additional testimony reported financial deals designed to disguise or hide the sources of funding for campaigns, as well as to allow Sizemore to personally profit from the campaigns[6][7]
After three weeks of testimony and a million dollars in union legal fees, the jury found Sizemore’s organizations guilty of racketeering, and the organizations were fined approximately $2.5 million. Sizemore refused to pay the fines and attempted to avoid the liability by changing the name of his organizations to Oregon Taxpayers Association and carrying on with business as usual.[8] After a post-trial evidentiary hearing Sizemore was found personally liable for his organization’s civil racketeering liability, and the judge shut down his 501(c)(3) education foundation. Nearly a million dollars were added to the fine as a result of Sizemore’s resistance to earlier court orders/decisions. On appeal both sides claimed victory

Lydia —- Here is the first amendment —- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” —– Where do you read that an entity needs the right “to vote, get drafted, get a birth certificate or a death certificate” in order who have the right of FREE SPEECH???

ALINCOLN — You wrote “What if the dictator Chavez wished to influence the next presidential election” —— Ha-ha, like he doesn’t try to influence (and MUCH worse) already??? — Are you a Chavez fan? Why that comparison?

26 states fought to block this supreme court ruling..It is an outrage that every american should protest…overturning a century of state and federal law should be investigated

This president is NOT a bum as Citizen posted…you should be ashamed of yourself. If you don’t like him that’s your opinion, but if you have to call him names you really don’t have a real honest reason not to like him. Second the Supreme Court and Alito should be ashamed of themselves! THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE TERM LIMITS AS WELL AS CONGRESS!

I find it very funny how you all were running your mouths against Bush and I might add saying some very bad things about him. Obama is a lier he has done nothing to help this country not one thing he promised and he has a democratic congress so whats up with that. I think if the justice wants to contridict Obama he has that right and I for one just loved it when that guy called him a lier out loud thats what this country is about you get to have your own opinions except it seems with Heil Obama.

Funny, no one seems to remember that the unions were included in the SC decision and we all know which party benefits from the union support. Obama’s arrogance may have just gotten the best of him.

Hey citizen…you are an idiot. What the courts did was take away your rights and Obama was correct in speaking out against it. Now, there is no control on the amount of spending for any campaign and too much is spent already. We could feed a nation on that money. Also, foreign countries can now give so and you would be the first to complain when this happens. Your rights have been violated and you don’t even know it.

“Funny, no one seems to remember that the unions were included in the SC decision and we all know which party benefits from the union support. Obama’s arrogance may have just gotten the best of him.”
Is arrogance is the new right wing word for uppity?
Did you guys realize the latter made you sound too overtly racist?

Cowgirl – The states argument was not to have the Supreme Court overturn Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which was a decision made in 1990. Once again nowhere close to 100 years.

“This fool thinks he was elected Fuhrer rather than U.S. President”
Ignoring the usual right wing idiocy, you guys know that Hitler was not elected right?

the United States Supreme Court will hand down an opinion that could have vast implications for Montana’s campaign finance laws, potentially altering bedrock rules that have governed the state’s politics as far back as 1912 – an era when it was controlled by the Anaconda Copper Company and the Montana Power Company. Depending on how it rules, the Court could allow corporations to once again make direct political contributions if it decides the free-speech rights of those corporations are currently being infringed.
“Montana has a real interest, a long-standing interest, in putting limits on corporate control and keeping corporate money out of elections,” said state Attorney General Steve Bullock, who co-wrote a July brief for the Court urging it to uphold current laws, and which was signed onto by the attorneys general of 25 other states. “This is what Montanans have wanted and kept in place for close to a century.”
Crabs…you apparently are not educated on the far reaching consequences of this broadly written opinion by the court…It went beyond feingold/mccain..and typically these broadly written opinions(ie: not very consise and to the point being adjudicated)are subject to nefarious intentions and will end up in many lawsuits..a very poorly written decision and i urge you to read it in its entirety

The first amend. only extends free speech rights to individuals…not corporations which is an entity

So some of you believe that money and
speach are the same thing…
The founding fathers did’nt want a
monarchy…but pure unfettered capitolism creates kings who can dominate our lives…The sheltered life
of a supreme court member especially one
who believes in “strict constructionism”
may believe that if the constitution
does’nt contain a prohibition against a
practice then it must be allowed.
I, being a Democrat with Libertarian leanings believe it’s better to have an
elected officials running our government rather than an unknown, unelected business person running things. All our rights have been weakened by the corrupting influence of MONEY$$$. It’s too bad that Scalia and Alito don’t understand that.

as for Cowgirl……the basic wording of the 1st amendment reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
By the very basics, there are no laws governing ONLY individuals with respect to freedom of speech.
There have been acts introduced to forbid soft monies being use to advocate for or against certain parties during an election.
but the argument here is on the basis premise that the 1st amendment was designed for individuals only, which it clearly was note, otherwise they could not have incoprorate the press in the same amendment if that were there intention.

Totally deserved, as the court did something totally distasteful, and not in the interest of the citizens of this country.

believe what the poster was referring to was Obama’s arrogance, nothing more and def. nothing less!
Posted by: UnPoliticallyCorrect2010
what makes Obama arrogant, you and the rightwing don’t agree with him, he speaks differently than the rightwing’, he’s educated’, he has opinions and speaks his mind…
c’mon now,
step up, man up, what exactly makes the President arrogant?

Since the ruling in question was made, I have been surprise at the people I meet in all walks of life who are completely dismayed by it and its negative influence on our democracy. When the founding fathers made our constitution they couldn’t have imagined the wealth that corporations would have. We need an amendment to our constitution making it clear enough for this conservative Supreme Court and any that follow, that corporations are not people; they don’t have the right to vote, get drafted, have a birth or death certificate. So it follows they should not have the same free speech rights that individual citizens have unless we want to kiss democracy good-bye.