State of the Union--dictator-like conduct - New England Patriots Forums

State · 01-29-2010, 09:28 AM

Obama attacks a recent free speech decision the Supreme Court had made in a highly tendentious and partisan way, causing Democrats to stand and applaud--something they did 83 times during the TeleSnooze--while the poor justices are sitting there, helpless, unable to respond.

Obama Hoisted on His Own Foreign Donation Petard - Atlas Shrugs

It reminds me of something Hugo Chavez would do in Venezuela. It shows a President hostile to the traditions and customs of the very country he is leading. It's also bad manners. Has something like this ever happened before in American history? No. Not even FDR attacked the court publicly like that.

The justices are there as guests to honor the president. Why would he have done something like that? I mean you can agree with his point and disagree with the ruling on campaign finance reform. That's not the point. It's respect. Obama didn't show it to them.

Perhaps it might be returned.

Maybe the next time another Birther case comes up to them they'll be less willing to provide cover for our Alien-in-Chief. I also expect the Chicago gun case that's soon to be decided to be very interesting, perhaps giving the Second Amendment the same status as the other rights in the Bill of Rights in the process called "incorporation," meaning it covers all levels of government.

There's even a webpage on it, chicagoguncase.com

State · 01-29-2010, 09:36 AM

Here's a Cato Daily Podcast on the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, the president found so disturbing, including the outlandish attacks on it from both sides:

Right, Left and Citizens United | Allison Hayward | Cato Institute: Daily Podcast

***DarrylS*** · 01-29-2010, 09:37 AM

The "poor" justices had their say last week, this was not a forum for a debate.. here is a solution, do not attend the State of the Union...

Dictator like is a term that was never used in the regime of George, interesting choice of words..

All you freaking righties, look at something that has gone as long as I can remember, and somehow try to frame it as something unique to the Obama adminstration.. keep trying.

***patsfan13*** · 01-29-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

The "poor" justices had their say last week, this was not a forum for a debate.. here is a solution, do not attend the State of the Union...

Dictator like is a term that was never used in the regime of George, interesting choice of words..

All you freaking righties, look at something that has gone as long as I can remember, and somehow try to frame it as something unique to the Obama adminstration.. keep trying.

The USSC Justices are invited by the idiot in cheif, what he did was scummy, which is to be expected from barry i guess.

State · 01-29-2010, 10:04 AM

My point, Darryl, is that it's unprecedented. A brazen attack on the justices to their faces when they are there as guests. No president during his SOTUA has done so.

All one justice could do, Samuel Alito I believe, was silently mouth the response, "Not true."

What if Bush Had Done It?

Does this country's traditions, mores, and political habits mean anything to the Alien-in-chief? Apparently not.

And it's not a political "freakin righty" position. It could be turned around with a conservative Prez attacking a liberal court. Nixon going after the Burger court. That's been the way it could have gone done for the latter half of the 20th century.

I expect in future years for the Chief Justice to require a guarantee from the Oval Office that there will not be a personal attack as occurred in 2010. Otherwise, the justice are fully justified in not attending. I felt bad for them.

cupofjoe1962 · 01-29-2010, 10:08 AM

Obama made a fool of himself second guessing the supreme court, while
not understanding the law.

Quote:

The president has assailed the Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing, and tonight said, "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities."

Maybe you should have your facts checked before you mutter more
lies at your next SOTU Mr President.

Quote:

Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site from the St. Petersburg Times, did some research when Obama first made the claim in his weekly radio address last weekend and found that it was barely true. Obama's statements on whether foreign companies can spend money in U.S. political campaigns "overstated the ruling's immediate impact."

Current federal law prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making, "directly or indirectly," a donation or expenditure "in connection with a federal, state, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."

***DarrylS*** · 01-29-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The USSC Justices are invited by the idiot in cheif, what he did was scummy, which is to be expected from barry i guess.

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..

PatsWSB47 · 01-29-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

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..

Obama should have done a fact check.

***DarrylS*** · 01-29-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

My point, Darryl, is that it's unprecedented. A brazen attack on the justices to their faces when they are there as guests. No president during his SOTUA has done so.

All one justice could do, Samuel Alito I believe, was silently mouth the response, "Not true."

What if Bush Had Done It?

Does this country's traditions, mores, and political habits mean anything to the Alien-in-chief? Apparently not.

And it's not a political "freakin righty" position. It could be turned around with a conservative Prez attacking a liberal court. Nixon going after the Burger court. That's been the way it could have gone done for the latter half of the 20th century.

I expect in future years for the Chief Justice to require a guarantee from the Oval Office that there will not be a personal attack as occurred in 2010. Otherwise, the justice are fully justified in not attending. I felt bad for them.

Your title is a freaking righty position, you make it sound like George engaged in a healthy debate when he lied about WMD's in Iraq.. you all need a refresher course in how all of this works..

It is not a personal attack, a personal attack is against a specific person.. not a group of people.. it is ok to disagree with the SCOTUS... remember the New London Case, people wanted to camp out on Souter's front lawn.. it is what it is, Obama's opinion..

If the Chief Justice wants a guarantee, would not give it to him, tough shyt stay home..no one is beyond reproach or questioning..

***Harry Boy*** · 01-29-2010, 10:21 AM

This Presidents Arrogance will be the major factor in his failure, you can see it coming.