Obama insults Supreme Court with uncivil remarks

Democrat partisans largely cheered President Barack Obama’s state of the union speech Wednesday night; Republican die-hards pretty much panned it.  Most Americans probably tuned out the far-too-long speech.  The media analyzed it six ways to Sunday because, well — because that’s just what they do. 

As with most such speeches in recent years by Republican and Democratic presidents alike, Obama’s first state of the union address was nothing more than a laundry list of sound bites and self-congratulatory remarks crammed into the ceremonial box of  a “state of the union address.” 

There was, however, one part of the president’s 70-minute speech that is deserving of serious opprobrium; and this has nothing to do with partisanship.  In a truly unprecedented display of incivility, Obama in his speech explicitly criticized a particular, recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, and then called on the Congress to pass legislation overturning the decision.  He did this with the nine justices of the Court sitting directly in front of him.  Not only did the president display a gross lack of grace in doing this, but many members of Congress in the audience surrounding the seated justices threw fuel on the fire by standing and pointedly applauding the preident’s remarks directed at the justices.

This unpresidential display of rudeness far exceeds in infamy last year’s outburst of ”you lie” made by one Republican congressman during a less-weighty address to a joint House-Senate audience.  Obama’s remarks Wednesday night were hardly a spontaneous outburst in response to something that happened during the state of the union.  The words were deliberately and with premeditation inserted into the speech by Obama’s speech writers; done obviously with his approval.  He knew exactly what he was doing.

What the President was doing was taking a cheap, political shot at the Supreme Court – or at least one aimed at the five justices who voted in the majority opinion last week overturning a portion of the federal election laws that had made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to spend money to disseminate political views.  In his insulting remarks to the justices seated in front of him, the President falsely claimed that the High Court ruling would “open the floodgates for special interests” to spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates.  In fact, the ruling did nothing of the sort; it did not even address contributions to candidates.  The opinion with which the Presdient so obviously and vehemently disagrees simply allowed for corporations to be able to exercise their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to spend their lawful money to disseminate political advocacy through such medium as movies. 

In asking the Congress “to right this wrong” of the ruling by the Court, Obama displayed further ignorance of that about which he was speaking.  The fact is, the case last week specifically overturned an Act of the Congress that had taken away the long-recognized rights of corporations to express themselves and their shareholders under the First Amendment.  If Congress were to heed the president’s call, it would be deliberately passing legislation that already had been declared unconstitutional!  Clearly, the absurdity of such an argument didn’t stand in the way of a president all-too-eager to score political points wherever he can — even at the expense of deliberately trying to demean the one institution in our country that should remain outside the arena in which such attacks are so often made these days.  President Obama should know this, and it is disappointing in the extreme that he appears not to.

154 comments Add your comment

Big D

January 29th, 2010
1:59 pm

It’s been a lot of fun today…you guys have made my day. Off to the farm to enjoy all the wonderful things I have been able to do in this great country. Have a great weekend and Will get back on those meds man… your getting a little spooky.

Nuanced Truant

January 29th, 2010
2:00 pm

Too Young: @ 12:59 Very good questions.

Just remember it was a corporation that invented castor oil and convinced your teacher to improve you with it.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
2:03 pm

Stephen Colbert proves that someone can call himself Roman Catholic and yet be a great American, just like a family member of mine who arguably won the fight – according to John Paul Jones – which saved the American Revolution from, according to most historians, imminent defeat.

So “Big D,” are you just a philistine trying to line your pockets the best you know how, or did you vote for Married to the Mob McCain and his inbred whitetrash running mate even though you were perfectly aware that Bush and Cheney committed 9/11?

David Granger

January 29th, 2010
2:18 pm

“…they have made a mockery of what qualifies as an individual and the rights supposedly guaranteed to each and every one of us.”

I agree with you completely, Robert Littel. This ruling was an absolute disgrace.

It was every bit as bad and as incorrectly reasoned as the Keno decision, which allows governments to confiscate private property…not just for public USE, as specified by law…but just because the government can make more money on it by taking it forcibly from one person and giving it to a private corporation.

That’s one of the reasons we independents hold both the Democrats and Republicans in such contempt. There’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between the nutcake conservatives and the giggle-sissy liberals…you’re just on different sides of the see-saw.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
2:20 pm

Will, I’m trying to get out of here and enjoy all the capitalistic joys I can after a good day of lining my pockets will evil ( yet devalued by OBOBO and his miscreants )money. I think that beautiful ” White trash” as you called her has a lot more class,experience and innate intelligence than old Barry has hands down…and again I would like to talk again when you are back on medication… 9/11 Bush, Cheney….right up there with Santa and UFO’s.

neoCarlinist

January 29th, 2010
2:29 pm

Will, now we’re getting somewhere. Where it not for your family (I think you mean ancestors), we’d all be what? not free? Speaking of which – and this was one of the Court Jester’s mantras – we’re not free. You might also be interested to know Stephen Colbert is a satirist. His character is a buffoon who is in fact “owned” by your aforementioned boogeymen in Rome, yet he blindly and ignorantly waves the flags and embraces the faux-freedom we, err… enjoy (he may also be a repressed homosexual, but his Roman Catholic faith would explain that). again, he’s just a character, so let’s not go calling him a great American, because doesn’t actually exist beyond the TV. So you have ancestors who served in the military, and you can trace some back to the American Revolution… whoop-de-freakin’-doo! You keep spouting all this nonsense about “idividuals” and Jefferson. you seem to be pretty good at talking the talk, but it’s others who have walked the walk. one more note re: Carlin. he didn’t chime in on 9/11 because it didn’t matter to him. he understood that governments will do anything and say anything to maintain control (power), and like it or not, the Founders’ were a “government” first and individuals second. they were at best and oligarchy or appointed themselves the Board of Directors of the Corporate States of America. as Carlin pointed out, they were white slave owners who wanted freedom. ’nuff said.

Alaska Mike

January 29th, 2010
3:06 pm

Bob Barr has about as much right to comment on political insults as Osama bin Laden has to comment on murder. This is complete tosh.

DAVID: AJC Truth detector

January 29th, 2010
3:15 pm

R.L……….YOU ARE A NUT CASE…….HUSH YOUR MOUTH

Steve

January 29th, 2010
3:17 pm

Trudy@1:51
If that applies to all our leaders in DC, Obama is in for a lot of insults. Thanks for giving the go-ahead for his impeachment.

Jon but not Jon Voight

January 29th, 2010
3:51 pm

As Repubs would say “Down with activists judges!”

luangtom

January 29th, 2010
3:52 pm

The whole of the 70-minute oral barrage was just another big sound-bite for the Annointed One. In his first year as President of the US, Barack Obama has used every opportunity to get in front of the camera and smile. Air-time equals celebrity and this clown knows it. How many more timely messages from the President will be on the air-waves in the next three years? One opportunity he did miss was being able to congratulate Chicago on their winning of the Olympics for their city. Maybe we should send him off on more such missions and air-time….

Sirlun

January 29th, 2010
4:06 pm

What the Supreme Court needs is Term limits! No more lifetime appointments, that’s ridicules. The Supreme Court reminds me of a old Sinbad (the comedian) joke. Sinbad said at the time (about Ronald Reagan)that our President was 82 years old and has access to the Red phone that could potentially launch us into a World War, Isn’t that scary?, hell my grandfather’s 82 and we don’t allow him to touch the remote control. That should be the consensus concerning the Supreme Court. The Court is comprised of mostly elderly out of touch with the world people whose aides and clerks make most of their decisions (depending on their political leanings).

The Supreme Court as well as the Congressional body should be forced to implement term limits on themselves (good luck with that). New blood in the court as well as in the Congress every 6 years or so would do the country good.

Gerald West

January 29th, 2010
4:07 pm

The political taint of the Supreme Court is contemptible. A ruling that a corporation or a labor union has the same rights as a citizen is preposterous. Obama was right to criticize the Court for their destructive politics just as he was right to criticize the Congress for political bickering and obstructionism.
Actually, one of the extremist right-wing members of the Court did not attend, so half of those attending found against the majority.

Chris Broe

January 29th, 2010
4:17 pm

I did hear Obama insult the Justices a little bit. He insulted them a little.

A little bit.

Joel Fiinegold

January 29th, 2010
4:18 pm

Bob Barr can talk about all the etiquette he can stand to. I prefer my First Amendment Rights. What the Supreme Court recently did to diminish those rights for every citizen of the United States is unbecoming of that body and raises concerns about how many corporate parties some justices have been attending. There is no legal limit nor enough criticism that can be leveled at that decision …yet.

The original intent of the First Amendment did not extend to corporations. Corporations were first regarded as persons 100 years after the First Amendment became part of our Constitution. Even though The Supreme Court still sees fit to leave in place the limit that one human can contribute to express First Amendment Rights.. It has removed any such limit placed on corporations, which were characterized as souless persons in the 19th Century Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the same status as humans enjoy under the 14th amendment.
There are those who argue that a corporation is an assembly of persons and therefore is entitled to petition the government for redress of grievances. If that is so, the officers of a corporation have always had at their disposal the power to distribute funds to members of that body and ask them to contribute the funds(to the extent that an individual can legally contribute) toward redressing any grievances that concern the corporation . This insures that those who contribute to redressing such grievances really feel that they have a stake in them and are willing to be responsible for the issues related to them. By and large corporate officers are not willing to distribute funds in this manner due to the tax issues that arise from it, the difficulties of making their case to those with a stake in the corporation, and the difficulties of insuring that those who would get the funds would apply them as requested, These concerns directly measure just how important a government “grievance” held by a corporate officer may be to rest of the assembly of persons concerned with the fate of the corporation. Five members of our Supreme Court think that such a natural leveling effect already built into the Constitution is unfair to corporations. Their decision has not only elevated first amendment rights of corporations over those of individuals. It has increased corporate powers to arm twist employees for contributions, to hoodwink stockholders about what are legitimate corporate expenses, to diminish federal standards about financial transparency of corporate books.
It has made corporations into super-persons.

Joel Finegold

Richard

January 29th, 2010
4:27 pm

I think it was improper for the President to critisize the Supreme Court for their recent decision. But, am I wrong, or have other Presidents critisized the Supreme Court before, before, during and after the State of The Union Address on issues like abortion/right to choose. Anyway, after witnessing a congressman call the President a liar during a joint session of Congress – why the uproar about a President publicly disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision? I can understand Judge Alito being upsed by the remarks but, this is politics, he knows this, he should have follow the lead of the other Justices and remain unfazed.

Political Mongrel

January 29th, 2010
4:29 pm

The court deserves it. And let’s not forget the behavior of the judicial pervert Alito.

KK

January 29th, 2010
4:32 pm

I agree with Trudy and Bob I didn’t expect any different thought than the one your wrote.

artatlarge

January 29th, 2010
4:59 pm

This Supreme Court deserves a lot more than mere insults.
They have sold our futures to the highest bidders, which will include foreign-owned companies that will have a voice through their unlimited partisan spending.
This Supreme Court is a travesty, and will continue to sell out the American people as long as the Bush appointees remain.
Insulted? This Court deserves more than that.

artatlarge

January 29th, 2010
5:02 pm

I didn’t like you, Bob Barr, before you turned Libertarian.
I liked you a lot more after you did, because I saw that you had seen the light about the we-got-ours-so-screw-you-right-in-the-ear attitude of conservatives.
But with your support of the selling-out of our Constitution, our People, our electoral process and our Country, you are right back to being a tool of corporations, a shill, and dreadfully, dreadfully wrong on this one.

High Scool dropout

January 29th, 2010
5:23 pm

Will a person’s vote be 3/5 of a corporation? How’s this going to work?

KnowledgeDog

January 29th, 2010
6:40 pm

Robert Littel if you would read the court opinion you would find the court did not select the outcome of the 2000 election Florida law did because they said if I can remember there has to be a uniform process of counting the votes. Bush won Gore lost, Gore created the internet and Gore will solve climate change or is it global warming?

Mike

January 29th, 2010
6:50 pm

The ruling is correct under the constitution that’s the bottom line.

All of you who want to emulate Obama and tell us about Bush on every Obama issue have to look at things with a little more detail. American companies pay taxes (more than any of you), have U.S citizens working in/for them and are subject to U.S. laws (environmental, labor etc…) Since they do they have the right to participate in U.S. elections. You guys act like some mechanical arm protrudes from The Detriot headquarters of Ford and pays politicians. The facts is that it is the owner, district manager or national manager who gives the money—they are people–American people with American rights.

To me corporate contributions ARE a problem but a problem that could be easily corrected by a constitutional amendment, which is all Obama has to call for. Problem is Obama himself enjoyed so much private funding, of his own campaign, he will never call for it. With that said he just wanted to appear as something he is not—hummm that’s a surprise !

UPDATE THE CONSTITUTION, multi billion dollar companies did not exists in 1776 !

Chris

January 29th, 2010
6:59 pm

Smoke and mirrors, Mr. Barr. Let’s be honest: Obama’s statements were not “rude” (e.g., he never called the justice’s character into question as a “You lie!” outburst does), not unprecedented (think FDR), and not inappropriate. Contrary to your assertions, this court decision WILL open the floodgates of corporate political money, making it possible for corporations to buy any federal election they want under the guise of “free speech”. It’s a huge boon for any corporate / Republican / conservative agenda. Any thinking person of any political persuasion can see this. But if you and other so-called conservatives can discredit the messenger, then perhaps you might dilute the message? maybe undermine any efforts to right this horrible wrong perpetrated by the Supreme Court? The president was not out of line — your criticism of him is simply a red herring.

wj

January 29th, 2010
7:39 pm

for all you jackasses who don’t like corporations, go ahead and put ‘em out of business. then try to find a job anywhere other than the government. Ooops – the government does nothing to create or produce, it lives off the proceeds of the private sector (i.e., look at the amount of money paid in taxes by corporations).

get you heads out of your ideological asses and stop bashing the foundtion of employment for the majority of Americans.

wj

Bonnie Brown

January 29th, 2010
8:04 pm

President Obama is one of the most arrogant presidents we’ve ever had. He didn’t have anything positive to say about the SOTU so I suppose his statement to the Supreme Court is not surprising. Shame on America for putting him into the White House!

MikeB

January 29th, 2010
8:37 pm

President Obama is in big trouble………. he bows to Kings/foreign heads of state like servant when abroad, but when it comes to Americans in other branches of Govt. in front of the entire country, he tries to appear tough, and willing to roll up sleeves and scrap?????

As Mr. Barr so elequently points out……….. Mr. Obama please spend more time truely understanding the topic of discussion before trying to engage in a verbal street fight. The uniformed may think your “tough”, but those of us who have more that a superficial grasp of the issues, think you Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and who ever else whispers in your ear (Axelrod, Emanual, ect.) need to stop going for the cheap shots, and staged media aided over exposed photo ops. The election is over. Start to govern and quite blaming everyone for your failures.

If your policies were as well thought out as your taunts/soundbytes, and if you had the experience you are supposed to have to become POTUS, you would understand this.

Your ego would have been stuffed in a box by your “King Maker” handlers by now.

Nobody will follow you if you don’t understand how to lead….. The honymoon is over…..

Edward

January 29th, 2010
9:12 pm

“Insulting remarks to the Justices………..” Good grief. As someone wiser than me once said, these
nine are simply lawyers wearing black robes. And they prove that, decision after decision and public speech after public speech.

Hank Williams Jr.

January 29th, 2010
9:22 pm

” IF HEAVEN AINT ALOT LIKE DIXIE, I DONT WANT TO GO, IF HEAVEN AINT ALOT LIKE DIXIE I’D JUST AS SOON STAY HOME. IF THEY AINT GOT A GRAND OL’ OPRY LIKE THEY DO IN TENNESSEE, THEN SEND ME TO HELL OR NEW YORK CITY IT WOULD BE THE SAME TO ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep Up the good fight!

January 29th, 2010
10:45 pm

Shame on you Mr. Barr. We know you are not ignorant, you twist the truth to make your biased deceptive point. As you well know, law school professors and attorneys question the logic of court decisions daily. It is the function of the legislature to find a constitutional manner to address the issues, just because the court declares one method unconstitutional does not preclude other methods. You are being disingenious to suggest that only money given to candidates is “in support” of candidates. Carried to the logical conclusion, where have you been in telling those who want to ban abortion in telling them that they cannot because of Roe v Wade.

jm

January 29th, 2010
11:51 pm

Just curious, did the four dissenting justices in the case (it was a 5 – 4 decision) also insult the court by their dissent?

Average Joe

January 30th, 2010
5:22 am

Oh the beloved corporations that have brought so much prosperity to this great country. Why should they not have an equal voice? The right-leaning Supreme Court will continue to support them because they provide employment for the people. Maybe I shouldn’t complain. After all, I work for these corporations. They pay me fairly handsomely. I do everything they tell me. I follow all of the stupid HR policies by rating my performance and revising my work goals every six months. I mentor and coach the younger associates. I look for opportunities to outsource American jobs so the corporation will have a better bottom line. I sacrifice time away from friends and family so production will stay on track. I eat to bring comfort to my life. I’m usually on planes, working nights and weekends so that there is always a pipeline of new business opportunities to ensure profits will remain strong. This usually cuts into my exercise time so staying fit isn’t a huge priority. But I guess having a few extra pounds here in the good ol’ US of A is not so uncommon. I usually don’t take all 15 days of my accrued vacation because there is too much to do. Never understood how those countries abroad can force the beloved corporations to provide vacation time.

WAKE UP AMERICA! Corporations are taking over our lives and the country. “We, the People” no longer have a voice because we can’t compete with the wealthy corporations. They own Washington, just like they own you.

BB, you are a disgrace to Independents.

Hank Williams Jr.

January 30th, 2010
8:10 am

” I GOT A SHOT GUN, A RIFLE AND A 4 WHEEL DRIVE, A COUNTRY BOY CAN SURVIVE !!!!!!!!! “

Robert Littel

January 30th, 2010
8:57 am

David Granger – Although I appreciate the compliment on my previous comment and am glad to hear you are in complete agreement, I find it interesting that you then give me the definition of why I find the so-called “Independent Voter” to be so easily manipulated by the mindless sloganism and propaganda of the Right, that they jump back and forth every time the wind shifts, to put the corporatist cabal back in power so often. There is a huge difference between the Left and the Right because the Right is nothing but a collection of idiot fools supporting the goals of people who want complete power (wealth) concentrated in the fewest pockets. When 1/2 of all wealth is concentrated in the hands of about 4000 individuals, there cannot help but be massive corruption, first to attain it, and then to maintain it without absolute control of government. The Republican Party doesn’t even make a pretense of not being totally corporate owned and there is a good percentage of the Democratic Party that have also been co-opted as well. It does not serve your interests, or that of the country if so-called “Independent Voters’ are so disinterested, distracted, or ignorant of what is going on that they keep flipping back and forth between the side that means to do them harm and the side that at least makes an effort to represent your best interests. Perhaps the Left could assert some measure of strength in the face of Right-wing corporate largess, if they got more support through the Democratic Party from people like your fence sitting Independents.

Bill Mackinnon

January 30th, 2010
10:52 am

Corporations are not people. I know, the Supreme Court says they have the same rights as a citizen to “speak” (read that: spend money). A corporation does not vote. It is a large collection of people engaged in the common purpose of fulfilling a corporation’s mission and making money. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that subtle and obvious pressure can be put on employees to follow the corporate party line. The people who run corporations and are able to choose to politically use the substantial financial resources the corporate employees have worked to earn. A very few individuals at the top will make the decisions to campaign for or against issues or candidates they choose (HMMM-sounds like an oligarchy to me). They “speak” for all the other people, not just themselves. Individual voters cannot “speak” with the same impact as moneyed corporations-their voices get drowned out. Thus the corporations become special interest organizations with real clout able to influence elections that individuals are not able to do unless they are wealthy (look at the NRA). The vast majority of the voting populace will have to sort through distorted information and slick media campaigns produced by professional marketing departments that will only present information to support their point of view-that is human nature-do what ever will obtain what you want. This certainly tips the playing field away from the individual voter. As Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” God help the voting populace in trying to get at the truth now. This will certainly give the partisanship we suffer from now a huge boost.
By the way, whatever happened to all the conservative concern about “activist Judges,” writing laws rather than sticking to interpreting existing law In this case, the Supreme went way beyond the narrow issues of the case to rewrite campaign finance law and give corporations the freedom to spend huge sums of money. Corporate resources dwarf the most recent sums raised by national, state and local candidates in the last elections. Corporations are not accountable, despite the arguments to the contrary. The only influence is from very large shareholders, e.g. pension funds, not the individual shareholder.
We live in a declining civilization and this Court decision expands the probabilities for continued political corruption, a big part of the decline. Just consider the current ethics furor in our own Georgia legislation and the special interest “perks” that have been exposed in the last few months. The foxes have been living in the hen house so long, they look like chicken with bushy tails.

Ammy

January 30th, 2010
12:00 pm

Obama as usual says one thing and does another. He came to Washington to change politics and introduce a new level of civility. And during the SOTU he displayed exactly how he goes about doing so. By doing the opposite. He does not “have a right” (the lefts favorite catchphrase) to demean and hector the Supreme Court as they sit right in front of him unable to respond. He was tacky, rude and typical Obama. He is the rudest, most self-impressed Pres. we have ever had. He is a classic narcissist and so is the perfect Pres for the left – who themselves have an overinflated sense of their importance and rightness of cause. They and he go to any lengths to get what they want. Obama just continues to reveal how classless he really is.

Franklin

January 30th, 2010
12:38 pm

Mr. Barr and his friends again are incorrect on their interpretation of just what constitutes an “individual”. But what they or I think on this blog doesn’t matter. What’s going to matter, very seriously, sooner rather than later, is when an overwhelming majority of voters across the country vote ALL these incumbent Republicans and Democrat politicians out of their jobs and establish a true 3rd or even 4th party to replace them. I do have a sincere and well founded fear that when this event occurs, the SCOTUS will move quickly to outlaw any of these new political parties and establish that there only be a Republican and Democrat party.

Larry Flynt

January 30th, 2010
12:51 pm

How many times do we have to go over this? Okay, one more time: Freedom of speech is for all or none. We can’t pick and choose what’s “acceptable” or “nice” or “right”. Who is to decide what is acceptable or nice or right? What kind of a country would not give corporations a voice? A communist country, that’s what kind. It sounds like a lot of people really want communism. Scary, really.

As for those that say freedom of speech is for an individual, not for a large group of people, that’s so ignorant. I will not even attempt to explain how ignorant that is. Just take my word for it. You’re ignorant.

Larry Flynt

January 30th, 2010
12:56 pm

Oh yeah, you will be happy to know you still have the right to ignore any and all commercials or propaganda by any corporation, or any entity for that matter. It’s a great country. Isn’t it?

StevenCee

January 30th, 2010
2:32 pm

I think this, and some of your recent commentaries, serve only to communicate that you have some personal axe to grind, when it comes to the president. You don’t seem to miss any opportunity, however petty or out in left field it may be, to take shots at his “behavior”…
This is quite disappointing, seeing you shift from defending the rights of all Americans, to sanctimonious personal attacks on Obama.

I think he was anything but rude, he didn’t call them names, he simply spoke his highly-schooled legal mind, in support of the views of nearly half the Supreme Court, how is that rude, much less, “uncivil”? Really, your remarks are far closer to hitting that mark.

And come on, it’s not only Democrats, but many Republicans, & especially the growing numbers of Independents, who are outraged at the corporate takeover of our entire government! Thank God he mentioned this decision, one by the way, that made the statements both Alito & Roberts swore to (under oath), mainly that they would respect the interpretations of past decisions, appear to be lies. (grounds for impeachment, I believe, as well). Instead they became the hated “activist judges”, those reviled by Republicans & conservatives for decades. Sorry, Bob, but the hypocrisy, lies, and lack of reflecting what’s best for the country far outweigh any social discomfort the president may have caused, by exercising HIS first amendment rights!

wearealldoomed

January 30th, 2010
3:38 pm

We’ve been had – By (buy?) the Supreme Court in the turnaround decision. JCONSERTATIVE was dead on with his observation that international companies own a lot of (powerful) corporations (you know – like in OIL) and letting them buy media time is selling us out. ‘We the people’ are becoming ‘we the resources’. If you don’t contribute to making them money, or have money they want from you, you are on your own. In short – The Supreme Court has told all US Citizens to ‘bend over’. And if the rich think they’re safe – good. Can’t to see what overseas corporations have in store for THEM.

wearealldoomed

Robert Littel

January 30th, 2010
4:23 pm

Enter your comments here

Hard Right Hook

January 30th, 2010
7:00 pm

artatlarge

January 29th, 2010
4:59 pm
“This Supreme Court deserves a lot more than mere insults.
They have sold our futures to the highest bidders…….”

But it would be OK if they bid on Hillary, more Obozo or other uber-libs, wouldn’t it?

People like you scare me. You probably vote and pro-create, too.

OBAMA

January 31st, 2010
10:29 am

Iv’e just discovered the brillant and tallentd music of one Hank Williams Jr.
I LIKE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I. R. Ony

January 31st, 2010
11:01 am

It’s interesting to note, in a column supposedly expressing “outrage” at perceived incivility, that so many people have used gross ACTUAL incivility, name-calling, finger-wagging, etc. to agree.

OBAMA

January 31st, 2010
2:09 pm

[...] Barr took a shot at president Obama over something he said at his SOTU speech: There was, however, one part of the [...]

C

February 2nd, 2010
2:05 pm

I believe there were only six Justices in attendance, not nine as the piece states.

William Lafferty

February 2nd, 2010
7:36 pm

In figuring out what is wrong with Obama’s attack of the Supreme Court, it may be helpful to focus on what he said. Consider the following:

1. Obama is a lawyer. In fact, he supposedly taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

2. He claimed that the Court’s decision allowed corporations and unions to make unlimited contributions to the campaigns of political candidates.

3. He exhorted the Congress to pass legislation to right this wrong.

Here are the problems:

1. The decision had nothing to do with campaign contributions. It concerned the right of corporations and unions to express political views. Obama, the Ivy league lawyer who teaches Constitutional law, got the holding wrong.

2. In exhorting the Congress to pass a law that would undermine the holding, Obama apparently is unaware that the Congress cannot trump the Supreme Court’s determination of a constitutional question.

Bottom line: it is an embarrassment to have a President attack another branch of government when the facts on which he bases the attack are wrong, and it is more embarrassing when the attacker holds himself out as a constitutional scholar and believes that Congress may overturn a Constitutional determination of the nation’s highest court. What other interesting Constitutional ideas does he have?

http://www.williamlafferty.com

Rockerbabe

February 8th, 2010
5:48 pm

President Obama did not disrespect the SCOTUS. Those justices that voted for this corruption of government by the corporate world had it coming and then some. Who says the nasty lawyers of this country get to lard over the rest of us. These folks are out of touch and apparently have little knowledge of history regarding the creation of the charters for corporations. To equate people rights with corporate rights is plain silly and dangerous. President Obama and Congress were more than on target with this one; I hope both give the supremes a good going over.