Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 28, 2010, 11:32:15 AM
-
Adam Winkler
Professor at UCLA School of Law
www.huffingtonpost.com
Posted: January 28, 2010 10:51 AM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
Alito Was Rude (But Right)
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made headlines last night when he nodded and mouthed "It's not true" in response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. Facing six of the nine Justices, who were sitting right up front, Obama criticized the recent landmark Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate political speech.
Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision. 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."
Halfway through this sentence, Alito started to nod vigorously to express his disagreement. Then he mouthed, "It's not true." Some people are saying that Alito is this year's Joe Wilson, who infamously shouted, "You lie" during an Obama speech to Congress.
There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don't support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.
But the Court did not overturn "a century of law." The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.
There is "a century of law" restricting direct corporate contributions to candidates. Last week's decision didn't address that law. While the logic of the opinion -- which says corporate speech is entitled to the same protection as individual speech -- calls into question the corporate contribution ban, it doesn't overturn it. And the Court has traditionally treated direct contributions differently from so-called "independent expenditures" -- ads that discuss candidates but financed by private parties without the candidate's help.
Alito may have been right on the facts, but his nodding was still remarkably bad form.
Longstanding tradition holds that Supreme Court Justices sit silently during the State of the Union. Unlike the senators and representatives, they don't stand up and clap for things they agree with. The Justices are supposed to stay about the political fray.
If Justices shouldn't stand and clap when they agree, they shouldn't nod vigorously and mouth their disagreement when they think the president is wrong. Staying above the fray goes both ways.
You know Washington has become way too partisan when Supreme Court Justices can't even control themselves.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _________
And the Reader-in-Chief shouldnt be making up lies with a capitve audience he knows cant directly address his lies.
Obama was his usual crude self with that phony remark.
Good for Alito.
YOU LIE!!!!
-
::)
get a grip man...
-
::)
get a grip man...
I have a very good grip. CFR was one of my biggest issues with the Bush admn who knew at the time that McCain Feingold was clearly unconstitutional at the time he signed that farce. Everyone with a "grip" and any semblence of knowing Con. Law knew that CFR was going to get overturned.
It was a political hack move by GWB and McLame against the Constitution.
-
::)
-
NYT Linda Greenhouse says Alito is right and Obama was wrong...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/?scp=5&sq=supreme%20court&st=cse
-
::)
Right wing croonies
::)
-
::)
You don't even believe in the Constitution so what do you care?
Its utterly amazing to me, liberals think there are Constutional rights to abortion, gay marriage, health care, etc, NONE OF WHICH ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION,
YET
Have no problem whatsoever imposing restrictions, mandates, curbs, and infringements on rights clearly elucidated in the BOR.
-
You don't even believe in the Constitution so what do you care?
Its utterly amazing to me, liberals think there are Constutional rights to abortion, gay marriage, health care, etc, NONE OF WHICH ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION,
YET
Have no problem whatsoever imposing restrictions, mandates, curbs, and infringements on rights clearly elucidated in the BOR.
Yes lets torture, kill without trial and enact patriot act laws because they are all in the constitution too ::)
-
::)
Right wing croonies
::)
So now the NYT and UCLA are part of the VRWC?
BTW - even the ACLU sided with the Supreme court in this case, not that you care since you dont even believe in the Constitution to begin with.
-
So now the NYT and UCLA are part of the VRWC?
BTW - even the ACLU sided with the Supreme court in this case, not that you care since you dont even believe in the Constitution to begin with.
::)
-
::)
Your argument has been blown to shreds.You say "right wing cronies" then report what the Obama administration says about Obamas words.Are you joking?
-
Your argument has been blown to shreds.You say "right wing cronies" then report what the Obama administration says about Obamas words.Are you joking?
There was no argument to begin with, the whole thing is based on some dumbass who wrote an article that didn't bother to fact check anything. Am I surpised that the libs jumped all over this without doing any research themselves? Of course not, the best we get is 10 post of ::)
-
There was no argument to begin with, the whole thing is based on some dumbass who wrote an article that didn't bother to fact check anything. Am I surpised that the libs jumped all over this without doing any research themselves? Of course not, the best we get is 10 post of ::)
::)
-
::)
Good response
Now
(http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/lt1-lt4-modifications/199471d1254366770-4th-gen-3rd-gen-front-end-sit-corner-dumbass.jpg)
-
::)
KC, do me a favor educate yourself. Start with these.
1. Economics 101 by Hazzlett
2. Road to Serfdom by Hayek
3. Basic Economics - Sowell
4. Crash Proof - Schiff
5. Liberty & Tyranny - Levin
-
Rude is the president bitch slapping the supreme court right in front of them and the nation. Inappropriate.
-
Rude is the president bitch slapping the supreme court right in front of them and the nation. Inappropriate.
It was rude because he knew that they could not properly respond to his false attacks in that forum.
He is a coward, a punk, a bitch, a fraud, and little fag.
-
kc, you think it was appropriate for the president to insult the supreme court decision in the state of the union address?
-
I find it hysterical that the former constitutional law professor who went to HARVARD that some of you guys are so impressed with, got the law wrong during his state of the union address in front of the Supreme Court justices with the entire country watching.
I don't think Alito was rude at all-- He didn't jump out of his chair and yell. Just because he's a Supreme Court justice doesn't mean he has forefited his right to disagree with the president-- especially when it comes to an issue in which he clearly has superior knowledge.
-
I find it hysterical that the former constitutional law professor who went to HARVARD that some of you guys are so impressed with, got the law wrong during his state of the union address in front of the Supreme Court justices with the entire country watching.
I don't think Alito was rude at all-- He didn't jump out of his chair and yell. Just because he's a Supreme Court justice doesn't mean he has forefited his right to disagree with the president-- especially when it comes to an issue in which he clearly has superior knowledge.
GW - one of my biggest complaints with GWB and McCain was CFR. I knew when they passed that mess that it did not pass constitutional muster as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Obama is a punk for doing what he did since he knew that they could not refute his lies in that forum.
Typical left wing cowardice.
-
Agreed George, I don't think Alito was rude...not when someone attacks you like that in front of the nation. If he stood up or yelled, that's going too far.
-
Agreed George, I don't think Alito was rude...not when someone attacks you like that in front of the nation. If he stood up or yelled, that's going too far.
I don't think he was rude but Obama was is complete nonsense. What a joke you are shoot. Just come out and say it. You do not like the president and never have. You try to pretend to the world you are 'moderate' but you are anything but. It wasn't rude from Obama, it's not his job to please the supreme court. Alito's job is to stfu and not comment on political issues during a presidential speech. That much is obvious.
-
I don't think he was rude but Obama was is complete nonsense. What a joke you are shoot. Just come out and say it. You do not like the president and never have. You try to pretend to the world you are 'moderate' but you are anything but. It wasn't rude from Obama, it's not his job to please the supreme court. Alito's job is to stfu and not comment on political issues during a presidential speech. That much is obvious.
More BS from you what a surprise, the SC justices are not required to attend the SOTU address, it is done out of respect for the office of POTUS. Now the least the POTUS can do is show the same respect. Funny how you asshats always try to turn the fact the Obama either doesn't know constitutional law or is fucking lying through, his teeth into some you don't like Obama BS.
I am feed up with you fucking assholes, 99% of the time you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about and just come in a throw shit on the wall like a monkey at the zoo.
-
I don't think he was rude but Obama was is complete nonsense. What a joke you are shoot. Just come out and say it. You do not like the president and never have. You try to pretend to the world you are 'moderate' but you are anything but. It wasn't rude from Obama, it's not his job to please the supreme court. Alito's job is to stfu and not comment on political issues during a presidential speech. That much is obvious.
There are three equal branches of government.Its not Obamas job to comment on another branch of government on a subject he is out of his league on.It was outrageous and disgusting but expected from this community organiser.Thats what community organisers do,they rabble rouse.
-
More BS from you what a surprise, the SC justices are not required to attend the SOTU address, it is done out of respect for the office of POTUS. Now the least the POTUS can do is show the same respect. Funny how you asshats always try to turn the fact the Obama either doesn't know constitutional law or is fucking lying through, his teeth into some you don't like Obama BS.
I am feed up with you fucking assholes, 99% of the time you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about and just come in a throw shit on the wall like a monkey at the zoo.
Why is it disrespectful to disagree with the SC justices? You're making this an issue that it isn't. Obama and his admin (and the dems) interpret the ruling one way, the SC justices another. If they pass the amendment it's not going to matter. Problem solved. There is no lack of respect here at all, just people wanting to stir sh*t and Alito making a bad judgement call on his part.
-
Why is it disrespectful to disagree with the SC justices? You're making this an issue that it isn't. Obama and his admin (and the dems) interpret the ruling one way, the SC justices another. If they pass the amendment it's not going to matter. Problem solved. There is no lack of respect here at all, just people wanting to stir sh*t and Alito making a bad judgement call on his part.
No its never an issue when Obama makes a mis-statement ( lying like a rug), and you try to turn it on the SC justice.
-
No its never an issue when Obama makes a mis-statement ( lying like a rug), and you try to turn it on the SC justice.
So when someone makes a statement about roe v wade they are disrespecting the sc too right? The white house interprets it as one thing, SC another. An amendment will likely be passed. Fact is Obama isn't in the wrong for disagreeing with the SC that's democracy and human nature. But to break protocol and mutter during the speech is a bad judgment by Alito
-
So when someone makes a statement about roe v wade they are disrespecting the sc too right? The white house interprets it as one thing, SC another. An amendment will likely be passed. Fact is Obama isn't in the wrong for disagreeing with the SC that's democracy and human nature. But to break protocol and mutter during the speech is a bad judgment by Alito
Yeah OK, Obama made it a point to put this in his address and didn't even have the common sense to check his statements for accuracy.
Politicians can pass what ever crap they want, and unless there is a suit filed the supreme court isn't going to hear it.
You just can't admit the the POTUS was wrong
Further more your lib tactics of trying the turn the issue from the POTUS being wrong/lying whatever to Alito being rude isn't going to work.
-
Why is it disrespectful to disagree with the SC justices? You're making this an issue that it isn't. Obama and his admin (and the dems) interpret the ruling one way, the SC justices another. If they pass the amendment it's not going to matter. Problem solved. There is no lack of respect here at all, just people wanting to stir sh*t and Alito making a bad judgement call on his part.
It is not disrespectful to disagree with the SC. But, to do it in that setting and in public is out of line. It was even more disrespectful to urge politicians to pass a bill to "correct" the court's decision. Obama was acting as if he knew more than the court about this issued. Which as it turns out, he doesn't and neither does his administration.
There is a place and a time for everything. That wasn't the place, nor the time for Obama to put down the SC.
-
Obama Was Wrong and Alito Was Right
Friday, January 29, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor attend the president’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama was wrong and Justice Samuel Alito was right.
During his first State of the Union speech on Wednesday, President Barack Obama incorrectly stated that foreign nationals and foreign entities can now contribute unlimited amounts of money to U.S. political campaigns because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling lifting certain campaign finance restrictions.
This prompted an immediate reaction from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who, sitting directly in front of the president, shook his head and apparently mouthed the words “not true” when Obama made his remark.
The high court’s 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.
The court decision, however does not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.
In his speech, Obama also claimed the court reversed 100 years of law when, in fact, it overturned a 1990 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, parts of the McCain-Feingold reform bill from 2002 that restricted independent political advertising in the closing days of an election were struck down.
“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,” Obama said.
“I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities,” the president said. “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.”
Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”
Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.
In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”
Responding to a reporter’s question Thursday, White House spokesman Bill Burton did not assert as firmly as the president that foreign corporations can contribute to U.S. political campaigns.
“Well, this issue is something that many have serious concerns about,” Burton said. “It’s something that Justice Ginsburg brought up in her oral arguments. It’s something that Justice Stevens wrote about in his dissent. It’s an issue that the court could have specifically addressed in its findings, but they didn’t.
“And the American people deserve the right to know that foreign corporations cannot interfere with American elections. So this is another one of the issues that the president is looking at in terms of campaign finance reform,” Burton added.
Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith believed the president’s comment was inappropriate.
“The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics – scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” Smith, now chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, said in a statement.
Even a posting on the liberal blog Huffington Post by Adam Winkler, a law professor at University of California-Los Angeles, partly took Alito’s side. Winkler’s piece was entitled, “Alito was rude (but right)” and further said, “Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision.”
-
It is not disrespectful to disagree with the SC. But, to do it in that setting and in public is out of line. It was even more disrespectful to urge politicians to pass a bill to "correct" the court's decision. Obama was acting as if he knew more than the court about this issued. Which as it turns out, he doesn't and neither does his administration.
There is a place and a time for everything. That wasn't the place, nor the time for Obama to put down the SC.
Okay so your stance on Palin and every other right winger on abortion is that the SC got it right and anyone who questions that in public is disrespecting the SC?
-
Okay so your stance on Palin and every other right winger on abortion is that the SC got it right and anyone who questions that in public is disrespecting the SC?
You and 240 must get along well since you seem to have to QUANTIFY EVERY FUCKING THING
We are not talking about abortion, Palin or anyone else, we are talking about the POTUS using the forum of the SOTU address to attack another branch of government and not even be right.
-
You and 240 must get along well since you seem to have to QUANTIFY EVERY FUCKING THING
We are not talking about abortion, Palin or anyone else, we are talking about the POTUS using the forum of the SOTU address to attack another branch of government and not even be right.
attack? give me a break. it's a comment and disagreement. it's called democracy we have that all the time. alito was in the wrong and that's all there is to it.
-
Okay so your stance on Palin and every other right winger on abortion is that the SC got it right and anyone who questions that in public is disrespecting the SC?
Funny,I never saw Palin do that in a state of the union address.In fact ,the amazing part of this is Obama and shmucky schumer are wrong!!!
-
attack? give me a break. it's a comment and disagreement. it's called democracy we have that all the time. alito was in the wrong and that's all there is to it.
Bullshit, you don't even know that we live in a constitutional representative republic not a democracy. Obama was wrong for ever bringing it up and you know it, just you functional retards will never admit Obama was wrong wrong wrong and you can go to hell, hell, hell.
-
Okay so your stance on Palin and every other right winger on abortion is that the SC got it right and anyone who questions that in public is disrespecting the SC?
Hmmm. Did my post state that the SC could not be criticized? They can be criticized but not in that setting. Not in a setting where they have to sit there and take it because they can't even respond. I would have preferred if Obama would have focused only, ONLY on the concerns of the country and not politicize a SC ruling that he, nor his administration understood.
There is a place and a time for everything.
Many presidents have been against abortion, but NONE ridiculed the SC for it while giving their State of the Union speech. Obama is classless and frankly, a coward. He should have given the justices a minute to respond.
If you can't understand how out of place Obama was, then forget it, you are just completely clueless.
-
Okay so your stance on Palin and every other right winger on abortion is that the SC got it right and anyone who questions that in public is disrespecting the SC?
Hey moron - get this through your think stupid head - THE TWO ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Obama was addressing a SC that issued a ruling only a weak prior in a forum where they were not able to respond to his lies.
The issue of Roe v Wade was addressed by a SC body long since expired and none of the justices sitting there were part of that ruling.
Do you are the half- brain-dead 240 understand the difference?
-
hahaha look at all the cry baby repubs. oh no he said something bad about a ruling. it's not rude to question a democrat in office ::) waaah waaah waaah you know with all these tears we could sustain a pretty good river for hydro electricity. Keep it up repubs you may just help save us from climate disaster! ;D
-
hahaha look at all the cry baby repubs. oh no he said something bad about a ruling. it's not rude to question a democrat in office ::) waaah waaah waaah you know with all these tears we could sustain a pretty good river for hydro electricity. Keep it up repubs you may just help save us from climate disaster! ;D
No, he knowingly lied through his teeth and politicized an issue in a forum he knew know one could call him out on his lies.
He is coward and a punk assed bitch. Lets see him hold a forum where he can debate the issue with Alito and Roberts directly for CSPan?
I wont hold my breath waiting for him to do that and we all know about the veracity of about 99% of everything else he says.
-
you babies lost the election you only have 7 more years get over it :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
you babies lost the election you only have 7 more years get over it :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Another useless post.