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

Joseph W. Fay

January 28th, 2010
2:39 pm

The opinion is on the Supreme Court website, here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Robert Littel

January 28th, 2010
2:47 pm

This court, that selected the clown prince to assume The White House in 2000, has already shown where their loyalties lie. As a corporate owned entity, (just like the entire Republican Party and a good portion of the Democratic Party), they have made a mockery of what qualifies as an individual and the rights supposedly guaranteed to each and every one of us. This corporate owned court has declared war against The Constitution that it is supposed to protect, much the way our corporate owned legislators have in their continuing effort to establish elite autocratic rule by a small, but extremely wealthy ( as in powerful) “Uber-Class” whose only concern is gaining more power for themselves. When about 4000 individuals control 1/2 of all the wealth in the country, it cannot help but become totally corrupted and, Mr Barr, you are in their doing your bit, in service to those who own your butt too.

ugaaccountant

January 28th, 2010
2:55 pm

This was Obama’s version of the “you lie” incident.

T Heil

January 28th, 2010
3:21 pm

Ok Robert…. I’m not sure I agree with you completely but supposing you are correct — what do we do about it?

sprylie

January 28th, 2010
3:48 pm

Since when was disagreement and argument in government a horrible sin to be labelled “uncivil”? Debate is the heart of democracy, of civilization. Good grief. He didn’t call them names. He opined.

Indigo

January 28th, 2010
3:55 pm

Sorry Bob, but you are wrong on this one.

Corporations are not people, regardless of the amendment that supposedly gave them “Personhood”.

I dislike Obama, but I dislike Corporations even more.

“The term ‘free market’ is really a euphemism. What the far right actually means by this term is ‘lawless market.’ In a lawless market, entrepreneurs can get away with privatizing the benefits of the market (profits), while socializing its costs (like pollution). Uncomfortable with the concept of a lawless market?

The far right will try to reassure you with claims that the market can produce its own laws, either as a commodity bought and sold on the market, or through natural market mechanisms like the “invisible hand” or the Coase theorem. But it is interesting to note that even if the entrepreneurs don’t take the more likely shortcut of creating their own state, this type of law removes the creation of law from democratic legislatures and gives it to authoritarian business owners and landlords. And since you get what you pay for, “purchased law” will primarily benefit its purchasers.

Society might as well return to aristocracy directly”

-Steve Kangas

YouAreUnCivil

January 28th, 2010
3:57 pm

UNCIVIL???? You have got to be kidding. I’ll give you UNCIVIL – those “idiots” are selling out our country to big corporations. A little more uncivil would be “STUPID IDIOTS”, “Paid For Idiots” and “Incompetent Clowns”.

Your column is more UNCIVIL than anything said last night.

WOLF 182

January 28th, 2010
3:59 pm

Speaking to the comments by Robert Little. The court to which he alludes did not annoint George W. Bush. They made a ruling that Robert disagrees with so he villfied them. Mr. Barr wrote a well expressed column that Mr. Littel disagreed with, so according to Littel, Barr is doing his part to establish a plutarchic autocracy.
It takes a big person to engage in civil dialogue, not a Littel.

WOLF 182

January 28th, 2010
4:09 pm

Orwell was right when he envisioned socialists redefining words to control avenues of understanding.
“Free Markets” are not unrestricted in the way it has been defined above.
“Corporations” are recognized as not being people but as being “Corporations”(which by law have some rights and abilities in law to act as a person).
The”Far Right” is a term that was thrown in and then defined by a less than fair person who stooped to a straw man attack on capitalists and I suppose Republicans.
I am a poor multi-ethnic unemploYed Libertarian. While I don’t like Republicans, the attacks being expressed these day force many of us in the middle to recoil.

And yes, Obama was extremely uncivil. There are well established traditions of decorum and they have value. You must not destroy what you cannot replace. And Obama cannot replace civility, so perhaps he should show respect. There are appropriate avenues of expression that we should use before becoming hostile. And sometimes, just because people disagree, they don’t have the right to fight.

WOLF 182

January 28th, 2010
4:10 pm

Sorry if I was uncivil. Let’s just try to talk fairly, okay?

David

January 28th, 2010
4:12 pm

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr. Barr, blah, blah, blah. I applaud the President for standing up to the Court and against its bone-headed decision. This is just further evidence of something I have often thought, that there must be some unwritten requirement that arrogance be a prerequisite for sitting on the bench, at any level.

Allen Lewis

January 28th, 2010
4:20 pm

A corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals (shareholders) who voluntarily associate with each other to achieve a common goal. Typically that goal is to make money. The real problem is not that corporations or rich people or special interest groups make political contributions; the problem is that we have a political system where the people allow the government (and its criminal politicians) to divert resources away from the people and towards their friends and contributors.

Telling a group of individuals that they may not act in their own self-interest and exercise their right to collective free speech is exactly the same thing as telling an individual that he cannot act in his own self-interest and exercise his individual right to free speech. Individuals do not give up their rights simply because they choose to freely associate with other individuals.

If the government were properly constrained to its only legitimate function – the protection of individual rights – political contributions would not matter one whit, because politicians would be powerless to dispense political favors and graft.

jconservative

January 28th, 2010
4:36 pm

The decision by the Court allows a domestic corporation, one chartered in the US, to spend whatever it wants on political advocacy. This means CITGO, a US chartered domestic corporation owned by Venezuela to
advocate for a particular candidate or issue. They can’t vote for Hillary but they can spend $20 million on a TV campaign to adnavce her election. That is what Congress needs to change.

DirtyDawg

January 28th, 2010
4:50 pm

Bob, one would think that you’re planning to run for office again. I mean all the decision by this SCOTUS means is that the money politicians can make while in office will multiply enormously. The only thing that will save this country is public financing of campaigns, combined with drastic limits on both the length of campaigns and the types of advertising allowed. Until we make it unnecessary for politicians to solicit campaign contributions they’ll have all the ‘cover’ they’ll need to get as much as they can for as long as they can – regardless of what they may actually spend.

Lynn

January 28th, 2010
5:09 pm

The irreverence and arrogance that President Obama displayed in his remarks about the Supreme Court decision in his State of the Union speech should be a “wake up call” to all Americans. In order to guarantee the checks and balances of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court must always faacilitate their decisions in political neutrality.

If President Obama would stoop so low as to criticize, judge and disrespect the Supreme Court…..what are we Americans to be believe he thinks of us?

Chris Broe

January 28th, 2010
5:14 pm

Bob Barr is…..RIGHT! Obama got a little out of line. a little insulting. I heard things.

I heard things.

Tricky

January 28th, 2010
5:38 pm

The speech is called the State of The Union for a reason. President Obama has every right to discuss the current events that affects the country as he, the POTUS sees it. Just because the Supremes were in attendance means nothing. He simply stated that their recent decision was wrong, he can do that. Just because you don’t agree with his stance on this issue is irrelevant. He is giving the “State” of the union because he is President of the United States. Now compare that to Joe Wilson who interrupted the president during his speech to congress, now that was rude. You were so close, you switched parties, started using logic, and then someone “erased” you. Was it Limbaugh?

tipster

January 28th, 2010
5:39 pm

Lynn @ 5:09 “the Supreme Court must always facilitate their decisions in political neutrality.” Are you kidding me? Did you actually type that with a straight face, or were you laughing as hard as I am now at that line?

Otto

January 28th, 2010
5:43 pm

Nothing uncivil – let alone insulting, irreverent or arrogant – about a simple statement of disagreement. The Supreme Court chose to vacate decades of precedent and the President called them on it.

Robert Littel

January 28th, 2010
5:49 pm

T Heil – Recognizing the problem is difficult enough without having to come up with a solution all by myself. To think that I would presume having the answer, having once posed the question, would be the height of arrogance. I can no more turn this dinosaur in the bath-tub around, than the discoverer of AIDS could, upon that discovery, then instantly produce the cure.

We have already been co-opted, and with a basically distracted, disinterested, ignorant electorate (what else can you call “Independent Voters” who jump from one side to the other in the theater that is political discourse in this country) and they are predisposed to not rocking the boat. There are things that must be done, but whether they can be done may determine if we can wrest control away from the “Uber-Class” and again give meaning to the ideals of our founders. When 1 out of every 2 dollars sits in the pockets of so few people, there is not a snow-ball’s chance in hell that institutionalized corruption was not responsible for that accumulation, or that they will stop at anything to maintain that advantage. The Constitutional Republic has already been overthrown, right under our noses and without the awareness of our supposed highly educated citizens. It may require a counter-revolution and a deconcentration of obscene wealth to to put teeth back into the system our founders strove to establish, but we are definitely not prepared for the taste of blood the usurpers are going to require of us in the attempt. As long as the abused symbols of our heritage are being wielded by mindless drones (teabagger types), I don’t think reason will get off the ground.

What Me Worry

January 28th, 2010
5:51 pm

McCain-Feingold does nothing to address the real corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. All it did and does is protect incumbents from competition of ideas. If a group can’t express it’s political beliefs 60 days prior to an election then who benefits? Likely the incumbent from name recoginition.

If you want to keep corporate money out of politicians hands then you should be looking at their Leadership PAC’s.

Chambliss spent $500,000 on golfing and the like for him and his buddies in 2008. This seems especially odd since his net worth is under $500,000. Rangel(NY) spent $64,000, of his PAC money, on a portriat of himself. Reid(NV) spent $65,000 on casinos out of his PAC account. Schumer(NY) spent $47,000 on the Yankees and Giants, PAC money of course. The list goes on and on.

Lynn

January 28th, 2010
6:14 pm

To Tipster:

Under the constitution, the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to “invalidate legislation or executive actions, which in the court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This is to ensure that Rule of Law, under interpretation of the Constitution is followed. The Supreme Court decision was a “reversal” of legislation previously passed but never challenged in the Court.

Under your interpretation, the President, Senate and Congress are free to violate laws as they chose, which by definition is government tyranny.

Should President Obama decide to take possession of your home/property because he wants to build a 4-car garage to park his limos in (ignoring the law of eminent domain) …… Should President Obama decide that you make too much money, should he be permitted to reduce your salary to 50%….. Should President Obama decides the average family will be limited to two children and therefore any child in excess becomes a property of the government…….

Would you want the existence and power of a Supreme Court to protect your rights as an American?

We are Americans first…..forget the D’s, the R’s and the I’s behind our names. If America doesn’t wake up soon, this President and this Congress will evoke anarchy on our beloved nation.

ugaaccountant

January 28th, 2010
6:19 pm

Otto

January 28th, 2010
5:43 pm
Nothing uncivil – let alone insulting, irreverent or arrogant – about a simple statement of disagreement. The Supreme Court chose to vacate decades of precedent and the President called them on it.

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court followed the precedent in this case. The constitutional point here was whether coprorations had rights. As usual, they said yes. This is a case where a neutral justice following the consitution and precedent would rule in favor of the corporations.

I don’t think any justices particularly “wanted” to allow this. They know it makes them look bad. But as supreme court justices they had an obligation to act as they did. Honestly, it’s embarassing that this was not a 9-0 decision.

Rational Person

January 28th, 2010
7:43 pm

Let’s remember that Scalia is the same skuzzball who said a month or so ago that it was perfectly okay to execute an innocent man–if “due process” had been observed. Thank God, he didn’t win that one.

You’re not supposed to be civil to people like that.

joan

January 28th, 2010
7:46 pm

Well, the Supremes were only following the statutory law. If there was a problem with it, you have to understand that the drafters of the Act in Congress were the culprits. Congress doesn’t do a whole lot right, so I am not surprised. On the other hand, corporations will have to declare and limit their contributions. How are corporate contributions any different than those of the thousands of PAC organizations, or Unions, who take member money and use it according to the management of the PAC or Union decide? Obama was complaining that foreign corporations will be able to contribute, but the decision expressly excludes them. You need to read the decision, and then opine.

Hank Williams Jr.

January 28th, 2010
8:21 pm

” THE PREACHER MAN SAID IT’S THE END OF TIME, THE MISSISSIPI RIVER IS A GOIN’ DRY,
THE INTEREST IS UP AND THE STOCK MARKETS DOWN AND YOU ONLY GET MUGGED IF YOU GO DOWNTOWN.
I LIVE BACK IN THE WOODS YOU SEE, MY WOMAN AND THE KIDS AND THE DOGS AND ME, IV’E GOT A SHOTGUN A RIFLE AND A FOUR WHEEL DRIVE, A COUNTRY BOY CAN SURVIVE!!!
BECAUSE YOU CANT STARVE US OUT, MAKE US RUN, WERE THE OL’ BOYS RAISED ON SHOTGUNS,
WE SAY GRACE, WE SAY MAM, IF YOU AINT INTO THAT,WE DONT GIVE A DAMN.
WERE FROM NORTH CALIFORNIA, SOUTH ALABAM’, LITTLE OL’ TOWNS AROUND THIS LAND, WECAN SKIN A BUCK, WE CAN RUN A TROT LINE, THEY AINT TOO MANY THINGS THESE OL’ BOYS CAN’T DO.
A COUNTRY BOY CAN SURVIVE,COUNTRY FOLKS CAN SURVIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH, AND ABOUT LAST NIGHT……………
BELIEVE THE LIES IF YOU WANT, I DO NOT.

Bob Adams

January 28th, 2010
8:53 pm

It would seem we all watched and heard all that was stated in the state of the union given by president Obama.
We however differ on what was said and how it was percieved.
There is however one area that we should all agree on:

The greatest danger to this country of ours is not from terror but from the 500 + – people that were in attendence including some in black robes that put there interest and the party interest ahead of the interest of the country. Any member of the supreme court that felt insulted by the remarks only does so because he or she is not sure that they did the right thing.

chazz

January 28th, 2010
9:37 pm

Barack Insane Obummer = the “gringo” version of “el loco” Hugo Chavez.

What Me Worry

January 28th, 2010
11:09 pm

Bob Adams is right on. I could see the justices, in the majority decision, being annoyed if they thought they were right.

Jath

January 29th, 2010
12:57 am

The man who is charged with the great responsibility of defending the Supreme Court chastised them in the “State of the Union.” If that is not uncivilized it is at least irresponsible. It sends the message that the Supreme Court is at the service of the President not the American people. He has every right to express his opinion on the ruling, but not with them sitting at his feet. Never mind whether the President’s opinion is right or wrong. Very irresponsible.

FloridaHopeful

January 29th, 2010
4:26 am

I can’t fathom why you can’t understand that your savior Barak Obama has just discounted our judicial system from the highest level. It is the people’s decision where they want to spend their money and if they want to dump it on a democratic or republican candidate, it is their right. The Supreme Court made that quite clear on the grounds of the Constitiution. Does anybody remember the Constitution? This is the early steps of dictatorship..Open your eyes. The Supreme Court is comprised of different beliefs from different parties. It is bipartisainship at its best in this nation. The president just chastised them in front of the entire nation. This is in turn an insult to the peolpe of the United States of America.

Leigh

January 29th, 2010
5:50 am

It doesn’t matter whether the ruling of the Supreme Court was right or wrong, what matters is that the Supreme Court members were invited guests of the President and the White House and were seated at the “best seats in the house” directly in front of the President. This was not the time or place for a “tongue lashing” by the President to the honorable Supreme Court Justices. It was tactless and rude. I give Obama an “F” on this one.

Captain America

January 29th, 2010
6:57 am

“It sends the message that the Supreme Court is at the service of the President not the American people. ”
The Supreme Court just sent the message that they are at the service of corporate criminals.

Captain America

January 29th, 2010
7:04 am

Before all of you right-wing corporatists get too happy about this ruling, consider this: the ruling also gives the same rights to unions and advocacy groups like PETA and Moveon.org.

Bubba

January 29th, 2010
7:35 am

Even the NYT says Obama lied in his comments on the SCOTUS decision. You guys defending him must REALLY be in lockstep.

Eric

January 29th, 2010
8:06 am

Mr. Barr, I’ve almost always been in agreement with your views, but not this time. Obama was right to express outrage in the Court’s decision. “Corporate rights” are artificial, not natural as with humans. Legal or not, I’m glad someone (Mr. Obama) is finally taking a stand and giving power back to the people. I’m so very surprised you’re not on the same page, given all the other “Big Brother” and other corporate-driven policy-making in this country that you so well critique.

Glenn

January 29th, 2010
8:21 am

I have not been a fan of President Obama either but on this issue he was right . Democracy & politicians should not be for sale . Unfortunately he as well as all politicians are self serving hypocrites .

3rd Party Guy

January 29th, 2010
8:21 am

Captain America, good point; there are plenty of organized (crime) groups who will get to “advocate” again. But then, all those little groups just roll right up into the same two crappy organizations we’ve enjoyed for decades. Of course, those two corrupt organizations are just puppet organizations themselves.

Bob

January 29th, 2010
8:26 am

rlittlemind, This court has several new members since they ruled 7-2 that democrats had to treat all voters in Florida equally, don’t be such a dunce, learn the ruling.

Bob

January 29th, 2010
8:29 am

Obo lied when he said this opens up the elections to foreigners. The same rules are in place making it illegal for foreign donations like the ones algore got from china.

tipster

January 29th, 2010
8:35 am

Uh, Lynn, I don’t know how to break this to you, but I didn’t argue for or against the Supreme Court ruling. I just had a great chuckle at your line saying the Court must act in political neutrality. Do you honestly believe they do? If so, can you explain why most of their decisions about politically hot issues, i.e. guns, abortion, campaign finance, etc., are made with 5-4 splits along political lines according to who appointed them. Every election it is an issue. There are exceptions, but not many. But the part of your last post at 6:14 pm that puzzled me was this “Under your interpretation, the President, Senate and Congress are free to violate laws as they chose, which by definition is government tyranny.” I have re-read my post several times and have tried to figure out where I made an interpretation like that. So I can only come to two conclusions: either you are so rabid in your right-wing beliefs that YOU misinterpreted what I wrote, or you just made it up. I know what I believe.

Fred Smith

January 29th, 2010
8:58 am

Littel (above) provides a justifiably emotional insight into what are the actual data concerning the moneyed power and their control of the world. The court DID open the door to even faster destruction of what little is left of a democracy. Barr, it would be rather clear you do not support free speech, so one can only conclude you’re either a dupe or a tool of the elitists.

Freedom Line Blog » Morning Links

January 29th, 2010
9:08 am

[...] – GDP Expands at 5.7% Rate Rep. Bob Barr – Obama Insults Supreme Court National Review Online – Is this Administration Carteresque? The Daily Caller – The State of [...]

joe cur

January 29th, 2010
9:17 am

Now maybe we will be able to buy better politicians. Everybody pays.

sam

January 29th, 2010
9:31 am

boo hoo!….a decision that is so obvious a nod to big money and their interests deserves to be called out in front of everyone. where are the complaints of judicial activism? what if i work for that company or am a shareholder and happen to disagree with their ‘free speech’ ? in affect it’s my money they’re using…..this is just plain wrong and to cloak it in ‘free speech’ is a joke. And hey, how about a little nod to the president for standing up to the labor unions who benefit from this decision? not bad for a guy who is supposedly in bed with unions..

Chris

January 29th, 2010
9:41 am

Look for the left to start articles of impeachment against Samuel Alito. Given that John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is just as radical as Obama, it will come soon.

Intown Lib

January 29th, 2010
9:51 am

I don’t think this rose to the level of the “You lie!” incident but, it was uncomfortably uncivil and felt inappropriate to this moderate liberal counselor.

sam

January 29th, 2010
9:55 am

why is it uncivil to point out a decision they made and say why he disagrees ?

Harry

January 29th, 2010
10:30 am

Most of these comments are populist rhetoric and display a grotesque lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers, and the U.S. political system. The case in question had nothing to do with a corporation making direct political contributions. That ban remains.

The case in question dealt with a non-profit corporation spending money to make a disseminate a film that was critical of a presidential candidate. That is the non-profit advocated against a candidate. What can be more basic to free speech than that? Individuals may choose to form a non-profit to ban together and raise funds to advocate for or against a candidate. Meanwhile, Oprah, Inc. has only to endorse a particular candidate to garner the candidate millions in free publicity and the votes of her legions of fans. What is the difference? Wasn’t it Mr. Cheap Shot himself who got the benefit that? Should we outlaw Oprah?

Meanwhile, the real corrupt influence in DC is the millions that politicians make in honorariums and the invites to weekends at resorts where lobbyists have them captive. Millions are raised from “individuals” by putting the squeeze on executives at corporations to “personally” donate to the candidate of the company’s choosing. These bundled “individual” checks are then passed to the candidate as coming from XYZ Corp. Wake up people! You are all missing the real corruption while focusing on the side show thrown for you by Congress.

Mr. Barr was right.

The Supreme Court is supposed to act independently of political influences, which is why they’re appointed for life and can’t be “fired.” In fact, many a Justice has bitten the hand of the faction that got them appointed. The Supreme Court is, in fact, an anti-majoritarian influence that protects the rights of the individual against the will of the many, as they did in this case.

"Dave

January 29th, 2010
10:36 am

Did anyone here read the decision or the complaint? This ruling has nothing to do with financing from corporations. That is the blurb this Administration has shot out to the media and you have obliously taken the bait. This is about free speech. This is about cencorship. The corporation in the complaint was not a Wall Street financial giant, it was a small group of concerned citizens that had formed a small Corporation to make a film about a political candidate they were not in favor of. They were not allowed to express themselves and voice their beliefs. I am sure that most of you are opposed to political censorship and are supportive of the first amendment. I see the ruling as not a ruling of politics but rather one that upholds the constitution.

Ryan V

January 29th, 2010
10:46 am

I just think of all the times W and every other republican criticized every court opinion affirming gay rights and there was no outcry then. It was a big decision and the President didn’t agree with it. He didn’t tell the legislature to ignore the ruling or circumvent it. He asked the legislature to come up with laws to help fix the flaws he felt were present in the ruling. That sounds like government working, not incivility.

Gman

January 29th, 2010
10:51 am

I appears to me that no matter what President Obama does some people just will not agree. If he spoke against abortion, there are many so-called pro-lifers that would be against that. To many of you, He’s damn if he does and damn if he doesn’t.

Johnny

January 29th, 2010
10:53 am

Bob Barr is a fu****g idiot

Rational Person

January 29th, 2010
10:58 am

If Obama cured cancer, Republicans and Libertarians would come out in favor of cancer.

sam

January 29th, 2010
11:00 am

its the loopholes that make all the difference…like the one that will allow foreign owned companies with u.s. subsidiaries to buy political ads and finance campaign movies….like every other law, the details are in the loopholes…

Hard Right Hook

January 29th, 2010
11:05 am

Wolf 182, you are right on.

If anyone had bothered to listen to Obozo’s speech, he said that the ruling would allow “foreign” corporations to infulence our elections.

It is now, and has been, illegal for foreign entities (idivduals or corporations) to donate to American elections, a fact lost on some.

Of course, the liberal elite were quick to run & hide when the Chinese tried to fund the Clinton campaign in ‘96. Then during the investigation, some 105 people fled the country, and 20-some were convicted.

We all remember Charlie Trie, the Chinese restaurant owner in Little Rock who tried to “donate” $450,000 to the DNC.

Union City

January 29th, 2010
11:11 am

It really doesn’t matter what the issue was, the president wasn’t wrong. It felt a little ackward. However, he did mention that there are separation of powers. If the Legislative doesn’t like the interpretation of law, then they have a responsiblity to change it. That’s all the president said.

Dan

January 29th, 2010
11:27 am

Irrational person is has the innane notion that conservatives or independents hate anything Obama does or will do, not true we are waiting to see if he proposes or promotes anything with sense. He still believes people just don’t understand. We get it his proposals are untenable, not simply because of the cost but because the real world is much different than academia or politics. As for leadership ability, if he can’t get a his own parties super-majority to do what he wants, that is a clear display of zero leadership. But anyone who actually listened to his campaign and studied his history is not at all surprised.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
11:30 am

Veteran of the Knight of Malt-led, JFK-assassinating, Roman Catholic CIA comes to the defense of the Roman Catholic bloc of the SCOTUS, which is selling America “down the river” to the fascists/corporatists to destroy the whig ideals which were “our Light from the West which ignited a volcano under the thrones of Europe,” after having cheated Hitler’s draft-dodging, closet-queen grandson into the White House to commit 9/11.

Big surprise.

Swede Atlanta

January 29th, 2010
11:36 am

The President was fulfilling his Constitutional obligation in providing his assessment of the State of the Union. Decisions of the Court are fair game.

Now I would have approached the subject a little differently if I was giving the speech but this issue is essential to the preservation of our system of government for it not to have been raised.

Transparency?

January 29th, 2010
11:40 am

He insulted the American people during that speech too. No lobbyists? Work together with Republicans? If anybody has alternate ideas let me know? “Not True” – Justice Alito.

neoCarlinist

January 29th, 2010
11:40 am

Captain America, I think that’s the point (moveon.rog, PETA, ACLU et al have rights as well). I will repeat what I posted on Kyle’s blog yesterday. the POTUS should worry about the Constitutional powers of the Executive Branch. Prefacing his comments with “…with deference to the separation of powers…” is insulting to ME as an American. speaking of insults, who cares? both the POTUS and the SCOTUS have thick skin. as far as the POTUS’s take on the ruling, as I said (yesterday) the SCOTUS merely removed the 800 lbs. gorilla from the basement and placed it in the parlor (where ALL can ignore it). Obama doesn’t want to eliminate campaign contributions, he simply wants to control it (based on his skewed take on “the law”). It’s not like “special interests” don’t already run the show. the SCOTUS just (rightly) pulled back the curtain to expose the true wizards of DC. if Barrack Obama and the Legislative Branch want true “campaign finance reform” they should pass legislation to ban ALL contributions (personal and corporate). OR, regardless of the law, let’s see the President refuse the hundreds of thousands of dollars his 2008 campaign received from Wall Street, Big Insurance and DoD contractors. Justice Alito might have bitten his lip, but I don’t think he was out of line, the POTUS was out of line. He’s a lawyer; he should know better.

Jims

January 29th, 2010
11:42 am

Bob, way to go. Very eloquently put. obozo is an idiot and you made him sound so, so , well so decently stupid and uncaring in his quest for glamour. if he would only quit, take peonlosi and reid with him we would be in much better shape. Unlike “Union City”, “Ratonal Person” and their ilk, I believe that obozo probably had a good idea or two in his life – just not during this excuse for an administration. barry and his babe surely know how to spend our money on nice vacations and good health care for the politicians, that’s a plus – right?
Get a grip folks and stop drinking the Kool-Aide!

V. Powell

January 29th, 2010
11:45 am

President Obama should bring to task the Supreme Court. Their decision to rule in favor of the Connecticut Firemen and thier reverse discrimination case.

When we all know that the firefighters are the most discriminatory organization.

We ,also, know that it is impossible for a test where one race of people can not pass.

The fight that the firefighters put-up makes a person wonder how much did they pay for the passing grade.

The Supreme Court should not have touched the case.

Jefferson

January 29th, 2010
11:47 am

I thought the court was for free speech. He said “I Think” .

GDRLA

January 29th, 2010
11:48 am

No Bob, the Supreme Court was rude to the American People! Obama just told it like it is. Corporations are NOT People – they are a necessary legal fiction but they are NOT people – our ability to be ‘we the people’ is being steadily usurped by these special interests and now the highest court in my country, which is supposed to protect me from special interests, has given the SI’s unfettered ability to outshout me.

Obama was right on in this case.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
11:51 am

The Roman Catholic bloc cheated Bush into office.

The Roman Catholic bloc opened the floodgate to fascism last week.

The papists know what they’re doing.

Thomas Jefferson called it “the real Anti-Christ” for good reason.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
11:52 am

Bob, you are EXACTLY RIGHT, but to try and convince the left-wing nuts of the semantics of free speech let alone the charge of the Supreme Court in this endeavor is tantamount to teaching a cat to bark. For those on the left this is not about free speech of corporations it is about what is now before the court…his true citizenship. This is his infantile way of intimidation to the Supreme Court. My take…it’s like cussing out you waiter before you get your meal.

HDB

January 29th, 2010
11:55 am

Excuse me, but didn’t the Republican annointed saint, St. Ronald of Reagan, come down on the Supremes when they issued a ruling he didn’t like…..and no said anything about it?? What’s good for the Gipper is good for Obama!!

Bubba

January 29th, 2010
12:04 pm

BigD, did you see the prank video on YouTube of the guy going around getting people to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment? And people are just signing right up. Wish he’d asked who they voted for, but a big part of his spiel was to “stop all this negative talk about the president.” Most of the Obama fawners on this blog would’ve signed in a heartbeat, I’m sure.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
12:06 pm

What is really sad in these postings is the jealousy of people against success. They as Obama have bought hook line and sinker into the notion that Corporations are EVIL. If that is not Marx I don’t know what else there is to convince an idiot. Corporations are made up of PEOPLE who work,pay taxes just like all you little minded people. Obama can…from his bully pulpit say any stupid nasty thing he wants about capitalism, free market and of course EVIL corporations without worrying about the repercussions. He’s pissed on that subject because now they can legally make him pay for his asinine communist assault on our country.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
12:07 pm

Tory then – we burned them out, hanged them, or ran them out of Our Country.

Tory now, represented by the “king and pope” papists on the Supreme Court who cheated Hitler’s banker’s draft-dodging closet-queen grandson into the White House to commit 9/11 and to destroy the Middle Class, and have now signaled the supremacy of Fascism over American Exceptionalism’s individual sovereignty – get a rope. Nazi necks will stretch even without a swastika carved into their foreheads. We can know them even without their pretty uniforms.

The Gay Old Pervert party behind papists Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia, is the Nazi Tory false-elite and must be expropriated and extirpated.

Americans worthy of the name shall cast the Beast into the Pit. Our help is needed as the Beast won’t be doing the casting itself…the L-rd provides.

Death for Treason

Big D

January 29th, 2010
12:11 pm

Bubba, I did see it and you are right these idiots would sign right up.
HDB, yes several Presidents have, but when you look deeper into the subject matter you will see that all were a mater that could not construed into a political statement for future gain.

Cutty

January 29th, 2010
12:12 pm

There were only 6 Justices in attendance Barr. Get ALL the facts straight first.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
12:17 pm

Philistines and fascists measure “success” by the size of the wallet, but G-d is not mocked.

Annuit Coeptis is the first motto of The Creed and those who serve the Old Sectarian Order of king and pope, which America’s Founder identified as “the real Anti-Christ,” rather than the New Secular Order (Novus Ordo Seclorem) – need to fly their true colors for they are papists and not Americans.

Draft-dodging Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court are supported by draft-dodging Roman Catholics here.

None of you is worthy of the name “American” for you, and they, are traitors against The People, the Constitution, and against G-d.

nowayoutta here

January 29th, 2010
12:22 pm

Com on SON!!! He said what needed to be said, what the SC has done is criminal in itself. You hear the cries of allowing illegal to vote and I say this is far worse. That single votes and entire ballot boxes have a way of going MIA. However, once ACME BIG Box Company starts to pour monies in local, state and federal elections where does it stop…talk about paving the way for the Manchurian Candidate????

OneFreeMan

January 29th, 2010
12:31 pm

The court is partisan…repuiblicans wvote one way and democrats vote another….The latest decision was right out of the the republican playbook.

Hillbilly Deluxe

January 29th, 2010
12:37 pm

While I was opposed to the Supreme Court decision, you don’t have to be a “Constitutional scholar” to know that barring an amendment, they have the final say.

neoCarlinist

January 29th, 2010
12:47 pm

civics quiz: what is the essence of ANY law? to protect property. the SCOTUS simply re-affirmed this Consitutional principle. it’s bad enough we just had a President (and Legislative branch) who saw fit to unilaterally unilaterally protect us from “terrorists” with a war in Iraq AND to protect us from ourselves with a war on freedom (Patriot Act). NOW, we have a Chief Executive who believes restricting Constititional freedom is necessary to protect Americans from “special interests” (a/k/a corporations). we have endured un-constitutional wars on drugs, terrorism, and maybe even “poverty” and now the very politicians who accept BILLIONS of dollars from “special interests” are now warning of the undue “influence” of said “boogeymen”. that’s not to say I am “all in” with judges (state, local or federal), but in this instance, the SCOTUS got it right

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
12:58 pm

George Carlin, another victim of Roman Catholic abuse. His followers should try America’s Founders’ writings and learn to be American.

Too young

January 29th, 2010
12:59 pm

I am only 12 yrs old but what is the big deal with the hating of corporations? I thought they provided many with jobs and such. Do corporations have investors? Who gives corporations the go ahead to give money away? Where could I learn more about corporate behavior.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
12:59 pm

The Roman Catholic bloc on the Supreme Court can get nothing “right.” No wonder it’s made up of such failed non-men.

neoCarlinist

January 29th, 2010
1:10 pm

WJ, thanks for the advice. I can’t speak for the departed, but Carlin was not a “victim of Roman Catholic abuse”. furthermore, he liberated himself from the Roman Catholic chuch, we refused to allow the Church to imprison him. I while I have probably read/studied Carlin to a greater degree, I have read (some) of the America’s Founders’ writings (Common Sense, The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Poor Richard’s Almanac, Washington’s Farewell Address). Our nation was founded by white European property holders (some who owned slaves), who viewed themselves as “victims” of a tyrannical monarch, so they “declared independence”. they simply wrote laws to protect their property (and maybe rig the deck so as to ensure that weatlh – a/k/a PROPERTY remain under their control.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
1:12 pm

Too young – Look up the definition of fascism in the dictionary. Public corporations are a legal fiction. They were created in America to serve the sovereign People’s interests. Fascism, and the Roman Anti-Christ which uses “corporation” to fight the individualism upon which America was founded, is the system and political economic dynamic used under Nazism. The Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court expressly condone the universal pedophilia of their Babylonian priesthood and their interests are aligned with the families in Europe which has managed to sit in the same castles, and on the same hills, for two and three thousand years. It is “the real Anti-Christ” – unless you think you know someone more intelligent than Thomas Jefferson.

Bush committed 9/11. Go to Google Scholar and read a free copy of “The New Pearl Harbor.” It proves Bush and Cheney committed the treason the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court wish to further. It’s the only way their “team” can beat the American People.

Free and independent individuals raising righteous children are a threat the rich perverts who control Rome…known as the Black Aristocracy.

We came here to escape them but they pushed their “white” serfs/slaves over here (Irish, German, Italian) after Thomas Jefferson refused to import from the slave trade they’d been running out of Rome for 2,000 years, and that became the Union Army to destroy the Protestant, Jew-loving, Jeffersonian South. Watch Scorcese’s “Gangs of New York” to get an idea.

Rome’s agents in America assassinated President Kennedy and Dr. King to keep us dying for their pope in Vietnam. Their “A” team is the Rockefellers and the Bushes. That’s why the Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court cheated George W. Bush into office even though what they did was against the Constitution (read Breyer’s ‘Bush v Gore’ dissent to know the truth of the law).

It’s the same Roman Catholic “bloc,” cursed by G-d (learn of Roberts and look closely at Vietnam law school draft-dodger Alito’s face), which has now tried to put corporations (fascism) over the sovereign individuals which is the Electorate, sovereign under G-d, direct, which distinguishes the American Nation from all others in world history.

Those who disagree with President Obama’s position on this matter are nothing but Nazis: traitors against The People, even if they have yet to get a swastika carved into their foreheads.

But their day shall come.

Death for Treason

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
1:16 pm

America was founded by White, Black, Jew and Gentile “WHIGS.” Whig means “anti-Roman Catholic,” by definition.

The Founders, many of whom were Freemasons, knew “the engine for enslaving mankind,” “the real Anti-Christ” more than a century before the same evil committed the Holocaust after financing the rise of Nazism from the collection plates of the Roman Catholic church in America, through Prescott Bush, a lieutenant of the Rockefellers who had built Roman Catholic “Big Oil” on unredressed murder and arson in 1870’s Cleveland.

Try Lenny Bruce. Carlin never made the grade.

Steve

January 29th, 2010
1:30 pm

Right or wrong concerning the SC’s decision (I’m not an expert on the constitution), I believe Obama was wrong to bring this up during the SOTU address. That is something he can relay to the SC & Congress off camera. Doing it during the address was inappropriate. Also very inappropriate of the Democrats to stand and clap at this.
I also thought it inappropriate when he chided the democrats for having a non-filibuster majority in office and being unable to push through health care.
Alienating everyone in DC may not be the way for Obama to get any of his agenda passed.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
1:31 pm

Will, My God …you have to much time on your hands…Time out.

You Distort/We Deride

January 29th, 2010
1:33 pm

The right-wingers vilify the Supreme Court every time they bring up Roe v. Wade.

I guess it’s only disrespectful when the shot is taken by a Democrat. Hypocrites.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
1:34 pm

Sounds like “Big D” is jealous of the success of America’s whig, utopian Founders, and would like to see The Creed abolished in favor of Roman Anti-Christ’s fascism/corporatism. Jefferson and Lincoln were right about you traitors against the People.

neoCarlinist

January 29th, 2010
1:34 pm

WJ, sounds like you were “abused by the RC church”. re: Carlin, he was a fan of Lenny Bruce and Lenny Bruce was instrumental in Carlin’s crossover from mainstream/TV-friendly comedian to counter-culture social critic. and not as an influence, as in Bruce saw him perform in LA in the mid-60’s and said; “call my manager, you’re good”. I’m not even going to touch your conspiracy theories, and I don’t care how many members of the SCOTUS are papal stooges. in this case, they came down on the side of freedom. if you think there should be an asterisk after freedom (as Carlin believed, we really don’t have freedom or choice), your ramblings are moot, and people like Carlin (and Lenny Bruce) did more to expose this fact, then any of your long-winded missives. A true patriot doesn’t care who “controls” the game (Catholics/Rome, Whigs, Seven guys in a bunker in Switzerland, the Rockefellers, the Bushes), he simply refuses to submit to the control of others.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
1:41 pm

Sounds like you’re a “papal stooge,” “neoCarlinist,” And your idol was nothing but a court jester.

He was alive to know Bush and Cheney committed 9/11 and, as I recall, he failed to mention it even with the audience he had available.

Know why Lenny Bruce wore the gold electric chair on the chain around his neck? You certainly have no idea why America’s Founders called themselves “whig.”

To you and Carlin: ignorance is “bliss” as long as it pays.

True Americans are fine with: Death for Treason…and let the Devil take the hindmost.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
1:41 pm

No will, I run one of those evil Corps. and I don’t sit in my mothers basement in my underware writing the crazy crap you write.

Get Real

January 29th, 2010
1:42 pm

Well, Stupid is as Stupid does and that is all we are going to get for Obozo’s 4 year term. Can’t wait for his time to end as acting Presbo! Watching this moron talk down to everyone that disagrees with him and act so full of himself makes a grown man want to throw up!

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
1:43 pm

So, “Big D,” are you a witting fascist and traitor, or just a self-justifying philistine?

You Distort/We Deride

January 29th, 2010
1:44 pm

I’d like to know the corporation Big D is running (into the ground, no doubt).

The guy can’t even spell “underwear”. What a joke.

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

January 29th, 2010
1:44 pm

P.S. “Big D”: My “mother’s basement” is the dirt beneath her in Our National Military Cemetery at Arlington. Thanks for taking the shot, fool.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
1:47 pm

GR, the man and the party are in the death kick, as if Scott Brown wasn’t enough. I love what I am seeing from the left wing kooks…if a man is committing suicide, don’t waste your bullet on him.

Trudy

January 29th, 2010
1:51 pm

If a Justice makes a partisan decision, he deserves insulting. Impeach the Supreme Court.

Big D

January 29th, 2010
1:55 pm

Will, it was metaphorical…calling someone a fool will get you sent to hell..but I’m sure you already know that…YDWD, now I am laughing… that’s the best you idiots can do… spelling…I’m reading this and send e-mails running reports and making lots of evil money while the rest of you poor Basterds worry about how OBOBO going to screw you next. Oh the spelling of Basterds was intentional.

neoCarlinist

January 29th, 2010
1:56 pm

Will, I am far from a Papal stooge, and I think Carlin proudly wore the “jester” moniker (he was, after all a “Class Clown”). and yes, I know about Lenny Bruce and the “little gold electric chair”. were I that other Papal stooge Stephen Colbert, I would ask you “why do hate freedom”? you keep ranting about all these evil Papists and stooges who run the world, but methinks you protest too much (you seem to be comfortable being the Pope’s bitch – it’s like some sort of Stockholm syndrome or something. You keep crying about being abused, but you’re more comfortable being a victim – and telling anyone who will listen why they’re victims). you need to go hang out on one of the “Mommy” blogs or something.

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.

ian

June 20th, 2010
10:26 am

How was it you run as a libertarian and do not recognize how unlimited ability for corporations to make campaign contributions takes away the rights of each individual? A corporation can give much more than the average person which does dictate policy. Yes a corporation is considered a person, but that must change. I am for smaller government, but special interest groups are far to much in politics and this will increase that. This supreme court ruling is horrible. The bottom line is the supreme court are great at rationalizing their own perosnal politics and it has been that way for years.

Whatever

June 29th, 2010
4:40 am

Whatever Obama’s time is over after 2012 with End of the World :(

Barack Needs To Grow A Pair [Reader Post]

September 8th, 2010
11:01 am

[...] Obama insults Supreme Court with uncivil remarks [...]

[...] Obama insults Supreme Court with uncivil remarks [...]