ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
"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."
Maybe it's just me but I would sooner trust the "nine wise souls" on the Supreme Court to craft a workable solution to campaign financing that I would trust a backroom closed door deal laden with pork and written by special interests....But that's just my $0.02.
Last edited by Patsfanin Philly; 01-29-2010 at 11:21 AM..
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Would not go around calling people Idiots without doing spell check.. they do not have to attend, it is a pro choice thing.. they chose to be there..
The right will dwell on this one issue, instead of the bigger one and somehow paint no dialogue as a unique idea of the left..
Perhaps our "Constitutional Scholar" president should have aquatinted himself with the Dartmouth College v. Woodward decision from 1819 when accusing the Robert's Court of ignoring precedent per Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion:
A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being a creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties, by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered the same, and may act as a single individual.
Seems the rat congresscritters missed this one.
Again attacking the USSC at the SOTU address is scummy. Which we expect from our chitown thug president.
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
But itís the breach of decorum that most appalls. By constitutional design, the Supreme Court is the non-political branch of government. Like members of the military, Supreme Court justices are invited to the State of the Union event, but they do not stand and applaud when the president makes political points that bring others to their feet. For the president to have singled the justices out for criticism, while others around them stood and applauded as they sat there still, is simply demagoguery at its worst. I would not be surprised if the justices declined next yearís invitation. And Obama wanted to change the tone in Washington? He sure has.
America's liberals and the biased left wing media will ignore anything and everything bad that this incompetent arrogant jerk (Obama Paddle Ears) does, when it gets real bad they will all "Blame Bush"
Tea Party's Are Growing
Militias Are Growing
Scott Brown/Sarah Palin Are Growing
Disgust For Congress Is Growing
The Closed Door Pelosi Gang Of Grinning Thugs Are Starting To Get Scared
NOVEMBER IS COMING UP FAST
GOD DAMN BASTARDS
OBAMACARE IS *****
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Funny. The super-smart guy at the Cato institute evidently is not aware that there's no explicit ban against the president referring to a SCOTUS decision, whereas there is an explicit ban against the justices responding to the speech. The protocol breach was on Alito's part, not Obama's.
Oh and by the way, because Alito mouths "not true," does not make it "not true." In point of fact the door is open for a Corporation with ties to a foreign nation to influence our elections. Citgo is incorporated in the U.S., for example. How do you feel about Citgo influencing American elections? This is part of the nature of multinationals. Their interests are not U.S. interests just because right-wing Americans believe that American and Corporate interests are synonymous.
So, Alito may mouth "not true" based on his arcane reading of the law, and he may have just finished leading is clutch of right-wingers in a 5-4 railroading (Hey, shouldn't they have a fillibuster for anything short of 6-3?), but that does not make him right. Obama, a president, speaks to facts on the ground. Alito, a justice, speaks -- although in this case it is a breach of protocol (I suppose Alito reads protocol as an infringement of his freedom of speech) -- to his reading of legal theory.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't like the court's decision, but it's not one that I think anybody should be 100% comfortable about their viewpoint of.
Think about it. You have the obvious speech issue, and on the other side you have corporations poised to essentially purchase election results that favor them. So, it's a question about accepting a curb to unrestrained rights to spend on campaign materials as part of their freedom of speech versus the principal of one man one vote rather than one dollar one vote.
And while we're on the subject: Had Obama been HIRED by a CORPORATION to say something about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address during an election -- that would be freedom of speech, right?
Nothing TO understand, SDaniels... the usual "instant experts" have now become the Emily Posts of state of the union conduct. Instantly. Overnight. Never knew there was such etiquette before, but by God they're experts now.
And suprise, surprise, they've STILL found a way to be wrong LOL... Reagan and Bush both criticized SCOTUS rulings during their addresses. Oh and by the way, Instant Experts like acronyms - "USSC" means nothing in most conversations among people who pay attention to the Supreme Court. Sounds like a commie version of USC or something. Like, the USSC Red Trojans. But I digress.
If you want to display faux intimacy with your subject matter and therefore need an acronym to mean "supreme court," just use SCOTUS.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
So Bush never criticized the judiciary? Really?
His other speeches, state-of-the-union included, always weighed in on one or another pro-life agenda item before the judiciary. In 2003 it was cloning. Time after time he went after Roe v Wade.
And not once do I recall a member of the supreme court mouthing "not true".
There's no item of decorum I know of that prevents a President from including in his address a mention of a decision by any court.
There is, however, a point of protocol as regards the SCOTUS justices: they do not applaud, they do not rise from their seats, and they do not signal agreement or disagreement with the president's comments.
Just as nobody is allowed to stand and start reading his own speech during the state of the union, each actor does not have the same role. The justices' role, when they attend, is circumscribed by protocol.
A simple "My bad" on Alito's part is the only possible ex-post facto response here. Idiots on bulletin boards, and on Fox of course, can tsk tsk all they like. But when the Supreme Court does attend the state of the union message, they are supposed to answer to different decorum from that the legislative branch answers to (and by the way, you'll notice even they refrained from shouting "you lie!" in the middle of the speech.)
As to etiquette breaches in general... "dictator-like conduct"? Are you sh1tting me? "dictator-like" is confiscations of the peoples' freedoms, as in the Patriot Acts I and II, with the excuse of an external enemy. It's not saying "yeah I think the court got that one wrong -- we're introducing legislation to move forward from the dangerous position they put us in."