Welcome to PatsFans.com

State of the Union--dictator-like conduct

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by State, Jan 29, 2010.

  1. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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
  2. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    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.
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3



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

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  6. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

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


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


    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    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..
  8. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Obama should have done a fact check.
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    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..
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,505
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

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

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Cupofjoe1962 is correct. By assailing the court in such a blatant, shameful ways shows an active disrespect of the separation of powers doctrine that's the premise of our governing system. And he did it on national TV in an obvious attempt at intimidation; however, it may backfire, esp. since the president didn't have his facts right.

    Sessions: Obama was wrong to assail Supreme Court | Washington Examiner
    I think it's a very dangerous precedent which is shared by many thoughtful Americans.
  12. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Darryl, how does saying "freaking" every time you characterize conservatives or Republicans--they're not always synonymous--help the debate? It's a sub-intellectual whine.

    Here are the facts not in dispute:

    1) President Obama insulted the attending justices.
    2) He got his facts wrong.
  13. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    The only good news from the State of the Union....

    Enzyte fired Smiling Bob and replace him with Chris Mathews as their
    pitchman...

    Attached Files:

  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Dangerous?? Interesting choice of words... have you been reading David Baldacci again??..

    The reality is that the right frames this type of thing as unique, when it is not.. a very small segment of the SOTU address was about this, so you have to hang your coattails on it..

    My reaction is "DICTATOR LIKE CONDUCT".. which is a bunch of BS which is about as disengenuous as you can get..

    If a decision was made by a majority from the left, then it would be labeled a "activist decision"...what makes is not an activisit decision, is how the right frames it??

    By your logic, Congressmen and women could never say anything bad about the executive branch, the President could never question Congress, Congress could never question the SCOTUS and on and on..

    Not sure what you mean by shared by many thoughtful Americans, are you talking about the mediots at Fox, Limbaugh and the rest.. does that mean if you are not one of these chosen few.. then your opinion is not considered valid.
  15. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    David Balducci? the fiction writer? No, I haven't.

    But I have discovered a wonderful writer of thrillers recently, Brent Ghelfi. Author Brent Ghelfi
  16. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,582
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    I think it was a low point in the address and was not only inaccurate it was inappropriate. Do you think it was a good thing to do?
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    obama was factually wrong in what he said and he was a piece of sh!t for doing it the way he did. Par for the course on both counts.
  18. BSR

    BSR Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,903
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    "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."

    Above are the actual words he used. During the speach he did seem to come off as arrogant. It isn't his place to question the actions of the supreme court although it did seem like he was doing such. After rereading it, I take it more as him saying that if the supreme court is going to rule it like that then they will just have to change the law.
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Hey obama - it's still the American people who are voting. However much money is put into ads, at the end of the day ELECTIONS ARE DECIDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. You stupid idiot.
  20. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    "A century of law..."

    When was McCain-Feingold passed? 4 years ago? I'm prertty sure neither one of them is over a hundred years old? Right there, out of the gate, HE IS LYING!!!

    Obama is becoming unhindged. Lets face it, he has never had to deal with anyone who wasn't a radical socialist like himself, and he is finding it very hard to cope. Obama has never run a company, never balanced a budget, never had to deal with opposition, and all these things are now coming to bare, and frankly he can't handle it. Soon someone will find him curled up in a fetal position on the floor of the oval office. Hopefully America can survive 3 more years.

    On the bright side for us in Georgia, Jimmy Carter is qucikly becoming the 2nd worst US President evah!
  21. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    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: Jan 29, 2010
  22. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3


    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:


    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.
  23. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Roger Pilon is a super-smart guy at the Cato Institute who runs their legal affairs program. Here's his take--An Appalling Breach of Decorum:
  24. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,505
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    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 SH!T
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2010
  25. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    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.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2010
  26. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    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?
  27. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I don't understand, since when is it wrong to bash activist judges?

    I thought legislating from the bench was about the worst thing a judge could do?

    Goes to show just how full of schit this board's righties are.
  28. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    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.

    PFnV
  29. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,505
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    It wasn't very "Presidential" but we have to remember it was coming from a Chicago Sh!t Bum.

    Bush would never have done it..............:singing:
  30. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    From Bush's 2005 state of the union address:
    CNN.com - Transcript of State of the Union - Feb 3, 2005

    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."

    PFnV

Share This Page