Chief Justice stands up to White House bullying

As described in this blog on January 28th following President Obama’s state of the union address, the spectacle of a president deliberately and uncivilly criticizing the justices of the US Supreme Court who just days before had rendered a decision with which Mr. Obama disagreed, even as they sat politiely in front of him in the House chamber, was uncalled for and beneath the decorum which a president ought to practice.  This display of presidential bullying was made worse when, at the president’s implied prodding, Democratic House and Senate members stood, encircling the seated justices, and applauded the president’s ill-conceived — and, incidentally, inaccurate – remarks concerning the Court’s recent campaign finance law opinion.

Now, in answer to a question posed to him by a student at the University of Alabama School of Law on March 9th following a speech he delivered at the school, Chief Justice John Roberts politely but pointedly responded to the awkward position in which he and his colleagues were placed during the state of the union by President Obama and members of the president’s party who were present. 

The chief justice answered the student’s inquiry about the incident, first by indicating that criticism of the high Court’s decisions by the president or anyone else, is never out of place.  In our society, as Mr. Roberts noted, people have a right to criticize judges the same as they do members of the other two branches of government.

However, and as the chief justice also  stated quite clearly, criticizing the Court in that forum and in that manner raises serious questions about whether it makes sense for the justices to even bother attending such speeches in the future.  He summarized the situation as “troubling.”  He also accurately described modern states of the union speeches as nothing more than “political pep rall[ies].” 

The White House, preferring consistency to accuracy, once again, shortly after the chief justice’s March 9th remarks, continued to mischaracterize the Supreme Court’s decision that was the subject of the president’s lashing out at the Court on January 28th.

So far in this match between the Court and the White House, it’s “Advantage, Supreme Court.”

134 comments Add your comment

yawn

March 12th, 2010
6:35 am

That all you got, Bob?

Marine

March 12th, 2010
6:45 am

Thanks Obama, for standing up for us.

Mitzymy

March 12th, 2010
6:46 am

Enter your comments here

Joel Edge

March 12th, 2010
6:48 am

I often wondered, why even have a state of the union address. Of course, if you’re going to have one, it could be summed up in one of two ways. It sucks or it’s great. And everybody knows the condition already. They could stay home and save the gas money.

Trey

March 12th, 2010
6:50 am

Bob, it is my understanding that the Justices are not required to attend these events, the only specified attendees are the house, the senate; the presidents minions and other distinguished invited guests. I, as well as most of common sense America, was a tad shocked at the disrespect shown to the Justices in a national, public forum. These Justices; unlike our current ruler, er, leader, whoops, President; have worked thousands of hours to get where they are, made countless decisions for their country and now bear an immeasurable burden. The weight of the Law and the scrutiny of the Public make them accountable to fact and accuracy far more than the current regime, darn – I meant administration. The President and his court, (staff) need to realize that, in this day and age, facts are checked in minutes, opinions are formed in seconds, but the law? The Law in this country will prevail, as it has done for 200 years. The Justices attended the State of the Union out of Respect for Mr. Obama, and I applaud their decision if they opt to not attend for the upcoming 2 years. I very much doubt that Mr. Obame won’t be able to “change” their minds no matter how much he “hopes”. Many of these Justices will be on the bench after January 2013. This president – won’t.

Mitzymy

March 12th, 2010
6:51 am

The decision that the Supreme Court made was very wrong. Now the corporations are going to decide who runs our country, because they will have more money for adverizement than any candidate. It is very unfair advantage. How could they see that this was going to be fair for the citizens? They deserve to be humiliated and if they can’t take it, give that lifetime job to someone with thick skin.

Bubba

March 12th, 2010
6:55 am

I think James Buchanan was probably a worse president than Obama. I can’t really think of any others that are close. Buchanan’s policies helped lead to the Civil War. I hope we get off that easy with Obama. Buchanan did do one thing that Obama should also do: He promised not to run for a second term.

Mitzymy

March 12th, 2010
7:02 am

Trey—-You talk like the President wants to be in that office in 2013. He might be glad to give it up, who knows. He has been called every name in the book, his wife has be victimized in cartoons, his life has been threatened, and heaven only knows what else. He is trying to right the many wrongs that were in place when he got in office, and people like you find something wrong with everything he does. He is trying to get us resonable health care reform, and the very people who need it the most are telling pollsters that they don’t want it. The seniors that you see at the tea party rallies already have Medicare, and most of the others are on Medicaid and Unemployment. How else could they attend all those rallies when they should be at work. The President deserves as much respect as any other President, BUT OH, I forgot, he is Black!!!

An American

March 12th, 2010
7:08 am

The decision by the court being right or wrong, This country’s president is to be a cut above, not one who does the cutting. The presidents true colors are shown. and they are not red, white, and blue.

anOPINIONATEDsob

March 12th, 2010
7:11 am

The court is republican so you can’t be surprised that it leans toward the haves and big business interests or that it cries foul when caught in dog piles of its own making. Any who know Constitutional black letter law understand the serious faults regarding the extension of civil rights to non living entities as it leads directly to business taking money from the working class in order to select “public servants” whose interests are in line with the Chairman of the board and his platinum parachute paydays. It is nothing more nor less than a return to slavery or as known in more recent times as Communism. Now you know exactly how Ronnie the actor defeated communism, he embraced it for all those who worshiped him.

Ward

March 12th, 2010
7:17 am

The Supreme Court just reiterated what all of us should already understand; freedom is messy. Corporations have the same freedom of speech that you and I (and labor unions) do. If the corporations offend your delicate sensibilities in the next election, don’t listen to them. I do the same with NEA advertising. Get over it. And Obama, once again, shows himself as a naive, petulant fool.

Chris Broe

March 12th, 2010
7:17 am

Businessmen incorporate to avoid personal individual liablility that the corporation can absorb.

Road Scholar

March 12th, 2010
7:21 am

Trey: “… I, as well as most of common sense America, was a tad shocked at the disrespect shown to the Justices in a national, public forum. …”

And you aren’t remorseful for the disrespect that you have showed toward our president? Yawn! Two faced!

JB

March 12th, 2010
7:22 am

Hum….one is an unqualified over his head person who is trying to kill the goose, not realizing we will run out of goose eggs or even realize where the eggs come from……..The other is a judge. ” you can not lift up the downtrodden by destroying the successful” Fact:People need jobs……people need to work. Who provides jobs ? This administration is punitive. I own a company. Since Obama was elected, I’ve gone from 208 employee’s to 125…When I’m in the new Obama tax bracket, I will drop 15-20 more. If he cut my tax’s, I would probably hire 20 people….as i did with the Bush Tax cuts. Class envy will destroy the best country in the world.

Howard

March 12th, 2010
7:35 am

Me thinks Roberts has taken the word “supreme” a little to literally. Supreme court decisions have been criticized by President’s, Senators, Representatives, the media and average citizen’s since the court’s first rulings. It was just one administration and majority ago that all we heard was that the court was guilty of being too active and was “making law”. Perhaps he is too thin skinned to be in Washington…if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. And, if he doesn’t want to go to the State of the Union address….don’t go. I’m sure Obama and all future President’s will carry on without him.

neo-Carlinist

March 12th, 2010
7:35 am

Mitzymy, wake up and smell the fair trade coffee. Corporations run the political process now. The SCOTUS ruling, just took makes the process more overt. Speaking of acronyms, the President needs to STFU in this instance. I am not fan of Roberts, but he is the one taking the high road. As I have stated before, if politicians want to eliminate influence, they need to draft legislation which mandates ALL political contributions (by lobbyists and corporations) go into a general fund to pay down the deficit or fund ALL campaigns equally. Or better yet, eliminate the process of (financially) supporting a candidate althogether. Why do you think Big Banking contributed to both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign? Because they “win” regardless of which party has the Executive branch or which party controls the House (see: current erosion of any meaningful “banking reform:). because our government is ultimately controled by Wall Street, not Main Street. Roberts made the right call.

Silverchief

March 12th, 2010
7:36 am

Road Scholar, he is your Prez not mine, if he left office this afternoon that is too late !!!

No More Progressives!

March 12th, 2010
7:44 am

Ward

March 12th, 2010
7:17 am
The Supreme Court just reiterated what all of us should already understand; freedom is messy. Corporations have the same freedom of speech that you and I (and labor unions) do. If the corporations offend your delicate sensibilities in the next election, don’t listen to them. I do the same with NEA advertising. Get over it. And Obama, once again, shows himself as a naive, petulant fool.

Spot on, Sir!

It requires a certain level of inherent crassness to insult the Supreme Court right in front of them. This, coming from an alleged Constitutional “expert” from the vaunted halls of acedeme in Cambridge.

NXS

March 12th, 2010
7:57 am

Hey Bob,
Perhaps you could show us just where in the U.S. Constitution it says that corporations have the same rights as individuals? Funny how you and the right-wing “strict constructionists” don’t seem to have a problem when a far right court legislates from the bench (to the detriment of our nation), but whines like a bunch of spoiled brats when a decision regarding something they disagree with is “making law.” What a bunch of hypocrites… no surprise there there though.

Oh yea, and Obama is the only President to ever criticize a Supreme Court Decision… and I heard pigs can fly!

A True Patriot

March 12th, 2010
8:06 am

Let’s us all bow our heads in silent prayer for our President – Psalm 109:8 “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Obama was using some more of those Chicago Style Mafia Politics; he was trying to intimidate our Supreme Court, plain and simply….most American Citizens are not dummies and see exactly what is happening…..they will let him and his thugs know about it come November. Thank you Bob Barr, a Great American, for keeping this in the limelight.

Bubba

March 12th, 2010
8:10 am

Stupid question, NSX. Where does the Constitution say political parties have the same rights as individuals? Or advocacy groups? Would you favor muzzling them as well? The obvious answer is, it isn’t the corporation or the party making the statement. Entities are unable to speak. Only people can.

Tricky

March 12th, 2010
8:12 am

And really, who cares if they attend the State of The Union. As it has historically been the annual address to congress, by the President about the condition of the nation. It also has been historically done for the President to outline his agenda. Let them stay home. He was right about one thing though. It has become a pep rally, but for some reason that only mattered this year.

An American

March 12th, 2010
8:14 am

Just face it… I never worked for a poor man. He can’t create jobs or pay his workers. I will always work for a rich man, if I want to eat, and live indoors. Go ahead Obama, get rid of the upper class, and come the next election, you will be looking for a job, food to eat, and a place indoors.

Repect

March 12th, 2010
8:16 am

The same respect and decorum the high Court held by telling citizens to their face that their rights are equal to imaginary personhood?

Hell, that just cheapens the constitutional rights for the rest of us.

If corps get the same rights as citizens, maybe they should suffer the same responsibilities? The next time a corporation commits a crime, I’ll be expecting them to serve jail time, none of this limited liability shenanigans. After all, they have the same rights as the rest of us, eh?

Rainy Night in Ga

March 12th, 2010
8:16 am

“Sic Semper Tyrannus” I think thats right….i know Im close.

9maroons

March 12th, 2010
8:19 am

Ohh poor itty bitty baby! Did the big black man hurt little justice Roberts feelings? Should we call the wahhambulance for the cry baby? Aw gonna cry baby? Poor poor put down white man. Why I think he’s so depressed he might suicide (or at least one can hope). WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH he hurts my feelings!

Mike

March 12th, 2010
8:20 am

That’s a pretty weak piece. Advantage: AJC Competitors.

DirtyDawg

March 12th, 2010
8:29 am

I’m shocked…shocked…to hear that political commentary has made its way into the State of the Union address. But what I’m really shocked at is that you, Bob, by your criticism of the Pres’ taking exception to the ruling about corporate spending to influence elections, are tacitly endorsing said ruling. Is it Libertarian to allow corporations to pour money into elections? Because if it is you and your philosophy can go pound sand up that ‘orifice’ for all the good it will do the country.

Steven Daedalus

March 12th, 2010
8:34 am

Roberts should either resign or be impeached, he certainly doesn’t possess the characteristics of a Supreme Court Justice.

Peaches

March 12th, 2010
8:35 am

Obama was out of line. He should not have brought his opinion about a supreme court decision into the State of the Union speech. It was arrogant and condescending.
And typical.

Tired of BS

March 12th, 2010
8:48 am

It was incredibly rude of the president to engage in that type of bullying. As much as it made Obama look small, and it did, it also showed the bullying tactics used by he and his associates and supporters, ACORN, SEIU, Teamsters, and frankly, every other left wing radical group he’s associated himself with. I pray every night that he will gain wisdom, a love for this country, a desire to preserve capitalism, and the ability to look beyond color…. I’m still waiting for that prayer to be answered.
I remember thinking at the time, what a poor reflection Obama has brought on the presidency. I am very proud that the Supreme Court Justice Roberts made his observations in a public way.

[...] MORE… Posted in AMERICA IN EXTREMIS! | Tagged bullying, Chief Justice, John Roberts, Obama, State of the Union speech, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment » [...]

Davo

March 12th, 2010
9:05 am

I hate SOTU speeches. I wish they would seat the Speaker and VP in front of the POTUS and not behind him. I guess it’s symbolic; but with all the interuption with applause it just grates on me. Especially now with the ‘whack-a-mole’ Pelosi cheerleading to every nuance of Obamas monolog.

AP

March 12th, 2010
9:38 am

This is not Republican or Democratic issue…rather WILL impacts our day to day lives in next few years.

I think what President did was out of line but am glad he did bring such an issue to limelight.

Implication of Supreme Court’s decision will have dire consequence. Basically, now any foreign corporation owned by who know who??? (government, terrorist etc…) can influence this country’s politics. I think our countries politics should only be left to US citizens and citizens ONLY. Corporations are NOT CITIZEN and have no business directly influencing voters.

THIS IS WILL GO DOWN AS ONE OF THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE BY US SUPREME COURT.

No More Progressives!

March 12th, 2010
9:57 am

AP

March 12th, 2010
9:38 am
THIS IS WILL GO DOWN AS ONE OF THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE BY US SUPREME COURT.

Why???

luangtom

March 12th, 2010
10:02 am

You may or may not believe that a justice of the Court can have an opinion and express it and you may or may not believe that the President should keep personal opinion to himself within the State of the Union. It is ALL about exposure. Obama does not wish to be known as a good President. He wishes to be remembered as a celebrity. He has had more photo-ops, press-conferences and addresses in his first year than other Presidents have had in their full-term. It is all about exposure and this guy knows how to get it. He knew his comments would get a response and he is there to absorb all of the media attention he can get. He is not a President for the people he is a President for himself and his exposure to the public. Period. He ram-rods health-care down the throats of the nation with no concern for what the consensus of the voters want. HE wants it passed. Period. He will use an ill-conceived means to get it done through “reconciliation”. He gets his exposure and his celebrity is enhanced, if only in his eyes. Respect, he deserves none. So, let’s get on with life and pit the President against someone else other than the Supreme Court and get him more media and celebrity hype.

Sandra

March 12th, 2010
10:04 am

What I really wondered about Roberts comments is why he thought the SOTU hasn’t always been about politics. What an idiot! By the way, the Supreme Court and especially this guy thinks they are above everyone. This decision they made will help finish destroying the normal American’s freedom of speech and the idea that our opinion counts. Washington is nothing but a bunch of bought and paid for by big business bunch of bureaucrats. The reason big business literally hates President Obama is that he doesn’t buy into that.
There is no where in the constitution that says corporations should be able to influence everything in this country but that is what Roberts and company handed them. I hope he sleeps well at night because their decision should disturb the rest of us.

retiredds

March 12th, 2010
10:12 am

O.K. Bob, here is where the rubber meets the road and let’s just see if you will answer this one. Putting the squabble of the President and the Chief Justice aside as partisan politics (which has infected 125% of all issues today), if you were on the Supreme Court would you have voted for or against the decision in question. I will be anticipating your answer (if you answer), or the way you will duck the answer. It is a simple yes or no, without qualifications if you please.

GDRLA

March 12th, 2010
10:13 am

JR deserves to be criticized in whatever arena possible. He is COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH with realities – especially if he believes that the special interests will not overpower the voice of ‘we the people’. Corporations are a legal fiction, necessary to the reality and functioning of our modern society but corporations and special interests should not have all of the rights, privileges, and voice of REAL flesh and blood people. Just as the court was completely on point in the 2000 election campaign in light of constitutional realities but negated the actual reality of the voice of the people JR & this group of Mt Sinai voices have done so again.

I would like the chance to speak w/JR to see if he actually has any conception of what he has unleashed into our political, economic, and other realities for future years. The man is clueless and totally cut-off from modern reality and functionality of our country.

TINSTAAFL

March 12th, 2010
10:17 am

NXS
The constitution only defines what the government is allowed to do. It says nowhere that they can selectively limit speech. The first amendment reaffirms our right to free speech, as well as to our right to association. In no way do I see a way that the government is allowed to limit the free speech of an association.

AP
Let me propose an interesting quandary to you. You propose that this opens the door to foreign corporations influencing our politics, and you implicitly argue that these foreign corporations should not be given the same free speech rights that corporations in America have. I assume, in your thinking that rights should be limited to foreign entities, that you also support waterboarding of suspected terrorists, seeing as our constitutional rights should not be granted to foreigners.

TINSTAAFL

March 12th, 2010
10:21 am

Sandra, “The reason big business literally hates President Obama is that he doesn’t buy into that.”

What with the trillions of dollars that he dumps in big business’ laps, I’m sure they HATE him.

Hypocrites!

March 12th, 2010
10:23 am

I’m curious if Judge Roberts (or anyone else), is critical of President Reagan when he criticized the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address. Prayer in school and Roe v. Wade.

Or the other Presidents who have been critical of the Supreme Court;
Theodore Roosevelt, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt…

So… Free Speech is “troubling”. Especially when critical of the almighty Supreme Court.

Jess

March 12th, 2010
10:24 am

Obama decided to take his shot at the Supreme court as a planned topic in his state of the union address in front of millions of people. Roberts never even made a comment about this until asked by a student at the university of Alabama. Somehow the press has made this out to be a give and take battle, however.

As far as the issue, the liberal responses prove they do believe in the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. This was purely a constitutional matter. It says nothing about their desire to give corporations more power in politics, it simply says there is not a constitutional way to prevent it. It’s easily solved by passing a law, and Obama knows this. Obama was simply bullying in the familiar Chicago style.

Jess

March 12th, 2010
10:27 am

AP,

They could pass a law tomorrow and the problems solved. If we feel the impact of this for years, it will be Congress and Obama’s fault, Not the Courts.

TINSTAAFL

March 12th, 2010
10:34 am

Jess,
No. You cannot just pass a law and solve the problem The ruling STRUCK DOWN an unconstitutional law. The only way you could make corporate campaign contributions illegal is through the amendment process, which would be very drawn out and tough. Not to mention that such an amendment to the constitution would open up a can of worms in the future with respect to it clashing with our right to freedom of association in the first amendment.

Get Real

March 12th, 2010
10:44 am

Obama is the most arrogant president ever. His so-called State of the Union Address should be called the Teleprompter Address! This man is destroying America with his Socialist Agenda while Dimocraps are being sold out by his agenda. His mofia strong arm tactics and deal making behind doors to drum up votes should be enough to call for his impeachment! Thank God Judge Roberts calls this idiot out!

Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 12th, 2010
10:44 am

I think Chief Justice Robert’s rebuttal was better form than the error-filled broadside by the classless and clueless “Constitutional Law Professor” Chauncey. Charles Krauthammer expressed a wish that I have made my own: that after the Republicans take the House of Representatives in November, the leadership ensures there are nine potentially-empty seats front and center for next year’s SotU speech.

Barck

March 12th, 2010
10:57 am

I am always right. I have never been wrong. If you think I am wrong then you are a racist. If there is a problem that I cannot fix, then it was the fault of the people before me. As promised in my second coming, I will give you an idealic society that I will control with the unions. If this makes you sick, then I will make sure you get a new govenment healtcare card so you can go get in line to see a doctor when I schedule you an appointment.

Fix-It

March 12th, 2010
11:07 am

Trey, good job, I agree 100%
Mitzymy, put down the bong and straighten up, then look at the facts. Corporations have been choosing and supporting candidates ever since we allow lobbyist to be a legal entity. The Obozo administration excepted millions of dollars from large corporations.

lmno

March 12th, 2010
11:20 am

In almost every case I think Justice Robert’s take on this is right on. However, this decision was so egregious that the President’s public tongue lashing was not out of place. In fact, it was not nearly severe enough.

The Supreme Court sold our electoral process to foriegn and local corporations for political expediency.

You have probably heard it said in regards to the limitations of free speech, “Well, you can’t yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded movie theatre”, but that is not completely true. You are free to yell, “FIRE” if the movie theatre is in fact, on fire. In this case, the it was and the President should have spent even more time admonishing these “justices” for the decision they made.

funny

March 12th, 2010
11:20 am

So yall support giving corporations unlimited free speech but think the president can’t speak on it? Interesting concept. LOL.

DannyX

March 12th, 2010
11:30 am

Every single national poll on the issue shows overwhelming disapproval of the decision, 80-85% of the American public

Obama expressing disbelief with the decision during his SOTU is being frowned upon by a very small minority. Most of us were cheering him on.

Encore!

Bravo!

Rational Person

March 12th, 2010
11:35 am

The Court’s decision was obscene. He should have taken them outside and slapped them around a little. Well, he should have had the Secret Service do it.

Gavel Grab » Friday Media Summary

March 12th, 2010
11:37 am

[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution/The Barr Code: The Barr Code Chief Justice stands up to White House bullying Bob Barr – 3/12/2010 [...]

DAVID: AJC -Truth Detector

March 12th, 2010
11:48 am

LETs FACE IT……THIS COMMUNITY AGITATOR LOVES TO Rant….Rant…Rant

DAVID: AJC -Truth Detector

March 12th, 2010
11:49 am

YOU LIBERALs…..Every HEARD OF SEPARATION OF POWERS…NO…LIBERALS are IGNORANT……

kitty

March 12th, 2010
12:06 pm

face reality, folks. our country has been sold to the highest bidder. The SCOTUS decision was actually truthful for once. We are owned by big business and those with money. They are the “people”. We are just trained show animals that come when called.

I will be upset with Obama stating this simple fact in his SOTU speech when the right wingers actually get upset with Reagan for criticizing other SCOTUS decisions until then too dang bad.

HDB

March 12th, 2010
12:33 pm

Point is: the President, as does ANY American citizen, has the right to make his opinion known. President Obama made his known in the SOTU!! Since previous Presidents have critized the Court in numerous venues, why come down on this President….unless something OTHER than his policies are driving the debate!!

retiredds

March 12th, 2010
12:42 pm

Bob, just checking in. Still looking for your answer to my post @ 10:12 AM.

Swede Atlanta

March 12th, 2010
12:51 pm

Criticism of the Supreme Court in State of the Union addresses is nothing new. This has been done by both Republican and Democratic presidents. While I personally would have preferred the matter be raised in a less direct manner, the decision consolidates the influence that powerful monied interests have over our elections and political process.

Our political system is in crisis. Legislation is nearly impossible to pass with the Senate filibuster rule intact. Divisions between the two parties are stronger than ever. Elections are historically a rubber stamp for incumbents that have generally done little for the “common good”. Elections are about who can raise the most money. Candidates, especially in the House, believe their one job is to get re-elected. It is impossible for a 3rd party to make meaningful inroads into the political process. I could go on and on.

I disagree with this decision. While corporations have had significant influence over elections in the past, that involvement was at least to some degree contained. This ruling opens the floodgates. I don’t think we will see widespread intrusion. What I see is when there is a single candidate that might be key to passing important legislation, these monied interests will use their influence and deep pockets to favor or disfavor a candidate for commercial gain.

Swede Atlanta

March 12th, 2010
12:57 pm

TINSTAAFL

Corporations are not people. They are legal fictions created to facilitate commerce. The Founding Fathers didn’t say anything about granting rights to corporations. They were concerned about a government that could deprive its citizenry (i.e. people) of rights of men that were articulated during the Age of Reason.

Corporations could disappear tomorrow if the people will it. They have no rights. Their very existence is only at the will of the people through their elected representatives. If all the states eliminated their corporate statutes, these “entities” would cease to exist as a legal matter.

Byron Mathison Kerr

March 12th, 2010
1:02 pm

Argh! I just had another carefully crafted response fail to post — with additional attempts yielding the dreaded “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!” error message. Bob, would you please report this to web support? The comment number is 12055. I had the same thing happen a while back on Cynthia Tucker’s blog. She reported the problem, and my comment was eventually posted. Thanks.

HDB

March 12th, 2010
1:03 pm

Respect: 8:16am – “The next time a corporation commits a crime, I’ll be expecting them to serve jail time, none of this limited liability shenanigans”

This is a key point; corporations have LIMITED liability, so they themselves have placed LIMITS as to what they can or can not do! Isn’t it hypocritical to grant unlimited power to an entity that has purposely limited itself against liabilities???

Miffed

March 12th, 2010
1:07 pm

Obama is not perfect. He’s human, and could not resist venting his frustration over the resistance to his administration coming from every quarter.

Hillbilly Deluxe

March 12th, 2010
1:10 pm

“Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”

Suggestion: Copy the post before you post it. If the situation that just happened to you happens again, change one word and repost it. Sometimes that works but sometimes it’s never going through no matter what you do. They’re never going to fix it

Jefferson

March 12th, 2010
1:13 pm

The robes lost, Bob you got it wrong.

Byron Mathison Kerr

March 12th, 2010
1:29 pm

To Hillbilly Deluxe, March 12th, 2010, 1:10 pm:

Thanks for replying. I had a copy of my comments. I changed the beginning and resubmitted them at your suggestion. Well… I did not get the error message, and the post got a new comment number in the URL. But it still does not show up. Pesky little bug! :-(

joan

March 12th, 2010
1:30 pm

The Justices may come to the next State of The Union speech, but I sure won’t. I can’t stand that petulant, arrogant a-h, we have as our President. I am well and truly ashamed that the diminished level of education and morality in this country led us to elect such an unqualified narcissist. The only way he will be re-elected is to pass the amnesty bill and build up his voter base of rag tag indigents h..bent on getting all they can from the sweat of other people’s brows.

Jefferson

March 12th, 2010
1:37 pm

Feelings can be mutual.

Swede Atlanta

March 12th, 2010
2:25 pm

Joan, are you expecting to be invited to the next SOTU? I am impressed. I doubt I will ever get an invite but if I got one, regardless of who the President is, I would go as this is part of our national tradition.

The SOTU is constitutionally mandated, They will go on whether you attend or not. Personally I don’t get much out of the televised photo op. Democrat and Republican alike use it like a campaign appearance. I would prefer getting real facts about the “state of our union” and a clear presentation of the administration’s proposal.

I am curious though about the basis for your comment about passing an amnesty bill for indigents that survive on the sweat of other people’s brows.

The President did recently say that there is a need to look at Immigration. I can’t imagine any proposal that doesn’t contain some form of “amnesty” or path to citizenship. It isn’t practical to try to deport every undocumented foreigner. Further several respected studies that have been done on the role undocumented workers play in our society reveal that they are net contributors to the economy. Without the low-skilled and low-wage workforce fresh fruits and vegetables, construction, etc. would be much more expensive. Many of them pay social security and other taxes including local sales and federal and state income taxes. But when you net out what they may use of public services against the wage gap between what they are paid for their work and the “market” rate, the U.S. economy comes out the winner.

Eric

March 12th, 2010
2:34 pm

Obama was expressing the will of the people, at this point in time, and I’m glad he did it. Any amendments will take a long time–too long in fact–and the citizenry needed a voice against further corporate control. Court’s criticism was well-deserved.

Dusty

March 12th, 2010
3:37 pm

Thank you, Bob Barr, for supporting the Supreme Court against bullying by the president. The fact that any president would resort to such action only confirms their lack of ability. Obama just doesn’t know any better. His advisors don’t either as they are the ones who write his speeches. We get a continual display of inexperience, poor and partial politics, twisted agreements, and always the prevalent odor of left-bent socialism. Americans don’t like it and are saying it in every way possible. The unhappy clamor is unmistakable. .

ugaaccountant

March 12th, 2010
4:49 pm

“the U.S. economy comes out the winner.”

This isn’t what I’d call winning

funny

March 12th, 2010
5:04 pm

still waiting for yall to bash all of the Reps who have called the Roe v. Wade justices “activists”….

joan

March 12th, 2010
6:18 pm

Those so-called undocumented workers are illegal aliens, and what they contribute to the economy does not pay for what they take from it. Go to any local emergency room, check it out. Go to any local school. If you have 10 illegals renting the same apartment, highly unlikely they are contributing much to the economy. They are low paid, yes, and so pay very little in taxes (if they pay at all). Most likely they take cash from the fools ready to put their gardens above the national interest.

Scout

March 12th, 2010
10:03 pm

One of the first things a budding dictator likes to do is to try to demean and diminish the court system.

Scout

March 12th, 2010
10:41 pm

I’m going to do what my brother always does and when I get to the appropriate blank on my Census form this year I will put “Confederate-American”.

Tired of BS

March 12th, 2010
10:57 pm

HDB….. don’t you go throwing the race card out. Good grief, I hope you can do better than that.

Scout

March 12th, 2010
11:25 pm

Headline: “BROWNSVILLE — The Zapata County sheriff Thursday was questioning why a Mexican military helicopter was hovering over homes on the Texas side of the Rio Grande.”

WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING BADGES !

Miffed

March 13th, 2010
8:21 am

The Right is still manned by reactionary over-compensators. Every single pundit is trying to write Thomas Paine over every single event. Conservatives better pray Obama doesn’t lift his dog by the ears. That would make Beck self-flagellate on his show. (Why not? He’s already self-flatulating). Look, it’s almost Easter, can’t Beck reenact the Passion in an elevator with a plate of boiled cruciferous vegetables? Cruciferfy Him!! (sorry).

I’m only thinking of the ratings….

Scout

March 13th, 2010
9:22 am

Headline: ” Washington (CNN) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN Friday that Israel’s announcement of new settlement construction in disputed territory in East Jerusalem was “insulting” to the United States.”

I guess this means we will now end all further contruction on stolen Cherokee land (after a treaty and a ruling by the Supreme Court that President Jackson ignored) between the Chattahoochee River and Chattanooga?

Scout

March 13th, 2010
9:30 am

“There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of the great and glorious emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder.”

President Theodore Roosevelt

Mrs Nettles English 101 Class

March 13th, 2010
12:35 pm

Too wet for golf today.

I liked Barr’s piece today. Chief Justice Roberts is a decent man.

The whole world was watching as Obama advanced arguments against a decision already made. Justice Roberts lit up the internet about it. Answering questions after a speech at the University of Alabama on March 9th, Roberts admitted that all supreme court decisions deserve public scrutiny, but insisted that Obama fouled when he re-opened the issue during his speech. Robert’s endearingly-frank disclosure of his own embarrassment at the president’s ill-timed arguments complied with the decorum that Obama had rejected.

A gentlemen addresses a wrong and nobody got bullied. I like that.

I like that real good.

Number1ninja

March 13th, 2010
1:03 pm

I love how a rather innocuous comment is seen as some sort of vicious attack by the same phony “conservatives” who make their living comparing Obama to the anti-Christ. Yeah, that’s not ironic at all.

Number1ninja

March 13th, 2010
1:10 pm

And all the parsing and rationalization in the world cannot make a corporation=an individual human, nor make money=speech. Not only were the corporatists using judicial activism, they were twisting reality itself.

Scout

March 13th, 2010
2:21 pm

Number1ninja :

Are you o.k. there buddy? “Sonar to bridge, sonar to bridge ……. range ….. mark”

somewhereinga

March 13th, 2010
4:31 pm

Ragnar: “think Chief Justice Robert’s rebuttal was better form than the error-filled broadside by the classless and clueless “Constitutional Law Professor”

What were those errors that the President made in his statement?

somewhereinga

March 13th, 2010
5:14 pm

Get Real:”Obama is the most arrogant president ever. His so-called State of the Union Address should be called the Teleprompter Address!”

Tell us, Get Real, George Bush had 8 State of the Union addresses. In which of them did he NOT use a teleprompter? Did you ever complain about them? Did you ever complain that his daddy used a teleprompter or that Ronnie used them when he read his speeches? Did you ridiccule Palin for reading off the palm of her hand? Or is your redicule directed exclusively at Obama for doing the same thing everyone else does?

Scout

March 13th, 2010
6:24 pm

somewhereinga:

I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere the other day that Obama’s actual “press conferences” (where you have to answer tough questions off the cuff) are way, way down as compared to other presidents. What’s with that? If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

That said …….. what disgusts me are his (or anyone else’s) far left liberal policies.

As I also read the other day, average liberal and conservative Americans today have less in common than our ancestors who fought against each other in the War Between the States. Think that one through as it doesn’t bode well for the future. We are increasingly becoming two countries.

Numner1ninja

March 14th, 2010
10:46 am

“Are you o.k. there buddy? “Sonar to bridge, sonar to bridge ……. range ….. mark”

Wow, that’s a very compelling rebuttal, unfortunately in adult debate we are constrained by having to make a point.

somewhereinga

March 14th, 2010
10:54 am

Scout: Unfortunately, for you, anything to the left of Rush (or Adolph Hitler) is “far left”. There is no middle ground. You are like Boehner and McConnell. It’s ALL my way or nothing! Take a look at the bias in your postings and tell me that you are not part of the problem.

Take for instance the Healthcare bill. Even though (as I understand it) over 100 of their ideas have made it into the bill, Republicans are not satisfied. At the “summit” each of them parroted the same thing. We want to start over with a “new sheet of paper”. “a new piece of paper”, “a blank piece of paper”, “a new piece of paper” etc. They have to have EVERY one of their ideas in the bill. NOT just most of them or ALMOST all of them…and even then, if there is even ONE Democratic idea in the bill, they will vote against it! Obama has repeatedly offered to work with Republicans but they have always replied with “It’s our way or nothing!” To them, THAT is working together!

Bob Barr smoked Monica's cigar

March 14th, 2010
12:29 pm

Bob Barr, you have been disrespectful to every dem President. You defend the right to “free speech ” for big corporations and their special interests… but no free speech for the PRESIDENT ?
Screw you and the rest of the crybaby republicans. You destroyed America with your policies.
Now when Obama tries to clean up YOUR MESS, you whine !??! F the F off…all of you!!!

Jeff in ATL

March 14th, 2010
12:30 pm

All this feigned outrage from the right. Where was all the outrage when Ronald Reagan criticized Supreme Court decisions during the State of the Union address? And Regan did it twice.

Oh, that’s right — he was a Republican.

More hypocrisy from the right: when a Republican criticizes the Supreme Court during the State of the Union they’re quiet; when a Democrat criticize the Supreme Court during the State of the Union, it’s pretty much the worst thing that’s ever happened.

Reality Train

March 14th, 2010
12:37 pm

He also accurately described modern states of the union speeches as nothing more than “political pep rall[ies].”

Truer words have not been spoken throughout this entire debate. The State of the Union address is a worthless exercise of political self-gratification. This is non-partisan criticism. The GOP and Democrats have both trivialized this address; members of both parties act like trained seals, clapping and whooping whenever “their guy” makes a point or sitting stone-faced on their hands if “their guy” does not happen to be at the podium. Disgusting. Haven’t watched one from start to finish in years and won’t so long as they resemble pep rallies.

skegee51

March 14th, 2010
12:37 pm

WHY is it that we ALWAYS let LOSERS become EXPERTS on topics in AMERICA.If his opinion had any validity he would have been elected President?Romney,Barr,Palin,Huckabee,McCain,all losers and could not communicate their agendas,BUT ARE NOW EXPERTS…..WAKE UP AMERICA…THESE ARE LOSERS,THAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY LOSERS ALSO!!!!!!!!!

The Census Forms are HERE!!

March 14th, 2010
12:41 pm

I have no idea why, but I received a census form in the mail that required ME to list the number of commenters on Bob Barr’s blog.

I want to run the totals by you guys first, in the interests of accuracy. If you detect an error, please contact Bob Barr who will inform me at our ex-cia softball team practice.

I counted 9 droolers, 56 blatant spewers, 6 spitting-dittoheads, 89 projectile prattlers, and 54 mealy-mouthed word mincers.

I think that’s everyone.

Pop-up!

Chris Murphy, Atlanta, GA

March 14th, 2010
12:57 pm

So some think Obama “bullied” the Supreme Court?? He voiced what many Americans think, and to their faces, which many of us wish we could, too.

screwbarr

March 14th, 2010
1:02 pm

Barr continues to be the racist he has always been. If you can’t get elected for anything continue to criticize and try to roadblock anything that may be positive. Should’nt expect anything more from the racist losers from the state of Georgia. No one cares about your comments, that’s why your’e not in and elected position.

Bob Barr smoked Monica's cigar

March 14th, 2010
1:25 pm

Bob Barr is just another of the MANY republican closet queens ! Toe tapping, bathroom stall homosexing, boy page molesters, and ALL of them say gay marriage is a threat and voted against it.
Seems it’s a threat to their precious institution of “marriage” Republicans are all the same. Hypocrites, closet queens and thieves. How do you know a republican is lying? Their mouth is moving… or their keyboard is in use.

The Census Forms are HERE!!

March 14th, 2010
1:33 pm

Okay, good enough, add one to the M-word total.

bwa

Randy

March 14th, 2010
1:46 pm

Hey Mitzymy, your worried about corporations running elections? Where is your concern about Acorn and their dead voters, their multiple votes and outright lying? You talk about his wife being criticized and being compared to a monkey, well excuse me you precious democrats did the exact same thing to Bush except you did it with pictures multiple pictures. Those people you talk about without health care if your party would admit it are the very people too lazy or ignorant to get a college education and get a good job but now that you have bred yourself into overpopulation you have found the means to vote yourself anything you want but all the while have forgotten someone has to pay for it. No we don’t like him because he’s black…… we don’t like him because he is a socialist who happens to be black. Come November we are going to vote him and the rest of you sorry irresponsible lazy useless idiots into oblivion.

Randy

March 14th, 2010
1:50 pm

I was there on the day the monkey came into this world
His face was round and reddish and his hair was slightly curled
He didn’t look too different from the others I had seen
Who’d-a-thought he was the answer to the nation’s dream?

At first he didn’t seem to be intelligent at all
Each time he’d start to walk about he’d stumble and he’d fall
My first impression was to be a most mistaken thought
Lord a’mighty, what’s this little hairy monkey wrought?

Because I witnessed his departure from his mother’s womb
I felt inclined to check his progress every afternoon
One day the keeper of the zoo called in the live tv
Frankly said, I think you’ll be amazed at what you see.

The monkey walked and talked and waved his arms about his head
In the corner was the stack of books that he had read
An educated monkey! said the papers ’cross the land
It was more than weary sociologists could stand

Oh, his fame was universal, he was on the carson how
People talked about him kindly everywhere he’d go
His insight was amazing, his philosophy was fair
He became a politician welcome everywhere

His wit was not to be compared with any mind intact
He’d lace a phrase with irony and blend it all with fact
Conservatives applauded and the liberals were entranced
The bigots and the integrationists were in his camp

Nobody dared to meet him in an open press debate
He was nominated by the folks from every state
Yes, a monkey was the president, though maybe not the first
And there was peace and harmony throughout the universe

The dream I had last night has been related as it came
As for interpretation, well, it’s really very plain
Would you rather have a monkey up in washington, d.c.
Or have those people making monkeys out of you and me?

Banned By Cindy

March 14th, 2010
1:56 pm

@ The Census Forms are HERE!!

Plus you – the truck stop homosexual.

Jeff in ATL

March 14th, 2010
2:25 pm

“Where is your concern about Acorn and their dead voters, their multiple votes and outright lying?”

Who cast more than one ballot in November 2008? Who was dead but showed up at the polls?

Registering to vote doesn’t equate voting.

stw

March 14th, 2010
2:30 pm

Amazing how in 142 short days in the senate Mr. Obama learned all there is to know and now he alone knows whats good for us. How lucky we are that he came around. When do you think Mr. Arrogance will proclaim himself King of the World ??

Alabama Communist

March 14th, 2010
3:06 pm

Wow Bob! You really stir up the Communists with their comments here! However, Your Fascist buddies at this site have once again proven why they love a Supreme Furher in charge of Corporations

Jackson E. Thomasson

March 14th, 2010
3:12 pm

BHO is a vain boor. He is absolutely the worst president of my lifetime and that spans more than sixty years. I am convinced that he is deliberately trying to drive this country into financial ruin to satisfy his socialist desires. I wanted to support him when he came into office because he is our president, but there’s no way I can even pretend to support him after his constant effort to cram health reform down our collective throats. Why disrupt and virtually destroy our current system for 1/10 of the population that doesn’t have health care? What’s up with that? Why not do something to assist those 30 million that need help and quit screwing with the rest of us? He is an awful leader. No, I take that back. He can’t be classified as a leader. He is a bully. And he is ineffectual as the President of the United States.

athcon

March 14th, 2010
3:18 pm

It’s not the content of Obama’s inaccurate comments that rankle, it’s the setting. There’s a time and place for it, during the State of the Union when they are unable to defend themselves is neither. BHO is Al Gore in black skin, incompetent, overmatched, and illinformed

Scout

March 14th, 2010
3:40 pm

somewhereinga :

You “dodged” the press conference thing completely and the rest was typical liberal doublespeak.

“That’s” why we are so far apart as Americans.

Brian Shriver

March 14th, 2010
4:08 pm

Bob:
I hope you’re not this stupid in real life.
Regards,
Brian

We Need A New Start...Again

March 14th, 2010
4:15 pm

The best thing that could happen to our country is for the current Administration to completely resign…along with Pelosi, Waxman, Dodd, Q-Frank, Rangel, Reid, Waters…this is the biggest and worst circus in the history of our County. God help us.

Paulo977

March 14th, 2010
4:38 pm

Bobb Barr , however ‘qualified ‘ he may be doest NOT know the meaning of bully …Who is really the bully here , in the same way way it was in 200O?? Give us a break Bob…

REASON

March 14th, 2010
4:56 pm

A few observations:

1. No one has refuted or commented on the two posts that accurately pointed out that President Reagan (as in the Republican deity) rebuked the Supreme Court, in their presence, twice during his State of the Union addresses. To ensure that he removed any doubt that his first rebuke (school prayer) was that of a naive new president learning Washington’s (and southern) protocal and niceties, he made his second rebuke of the Court during his second term (anti-abortion). I would like someone who is upset with OUR President to explain why it was ok for President Reagan but not ok for President Obama to make comments critical of the Court in the presence of the Court during a State of the Union address.

2. The speech the President gave was a STATE OF THE UNION. One can clearly see a direct connection between the decision of the Supreme Court to permit corporate donations to political campaigns and its impact on the state of the Union. In his role as Chief Executive of the United States, Mr. Obama would have been derelict if he had not addressed an issue of grave concern to over 80% of his constituents (which statistically includes an overwhelming majority of the readers of the AJC which thereby must include a considerable number of conservatives because there aren’t enough socialists readers of the AJC to cover our share of the 80%). The bigger issue is that the Supreme Court has become accustomed to life inside the marble palace such that they were genuinely shocked by the outrage of +80% of their constituents to one of their decisions. Sure the media and other commentators criticize many of their decisions. Do you REALLY believe John Roberts spends any time actually watching Fox News, Bloomberg, or CNBC on a nightly basis? Do you conservatives really want your Chief Justice getting his information from Glenn Beck? He’s far too above those commoners to waste any of his time. His outrage, and that of Justice Alito, is derived from their shock in facing the reality of the impact of their decision.

3. As for the arrogance of OUR President, I have 3 words: “Axis of Evil”. Those three words that set in motion a disastrous course of history that needlessly cost over 3,000 Americans their lives (not too mention the hundreds of wives, husbands, daughters, sons, parents and loved ones) just to settle a score for the President’s father aren’t the pinnacle of arrogance, I hope never to reach that height. If that wasn’t pure arrogance! Yet a President who genuinely believes that his years of studying and teaching constitutional law, as well as in exercising the judgment he was elected to exercise, led him to the conclusion that the impact of this Court’s decision on the state of this Union required his comment is somehow expected to remain silent in observance of our notions of southern gentility. His comments are far from arrogant, but authoritative and representative of his constituency. Can President Bush truthfully say the same about his “Axis of Evil” comment?

4. Mr. Barr, would you kindly respond to “retiredds”

South GA Conservative

March 14th, 2010
5:50 pm

Mitzymy, Chris Murphy, Atlanta, GA , screwbarr and the rest of you blind morons-

You and Obama and everyone else have EVERY RIGHT to criticize this SCOTUS decision until you turn blue- the issue in this blog was not the correctness of the decision (which Obama and his ignorant advisors did not even understand) but the decorum expected from the office of the POTUS.

He will compete with Jimmy Carter for the distinction of being one of the worst Presidents in the history of the US, and they are comparable in the lack of class they demonstrate- Carter since being booted from office for his ineptness, and Obama while in office. Just so this comment is not misconstrued as racist, let me make it clear that Obama’s WHITE mother obvious failed to teach the man ANY social graces. I was raised dirt poor in south GA but my mother had the dignity and grace to teach me that there is a time and a place for everything. The dignity and decorum of the OFFICE forbids an attack on the EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT in a Joint Session of Congress on national TV.

You can fill a classless, tacky person with all of the Ivy League education you want, but if that person has no character all you get in the end is an ARROGANT classless, tacky person. Hail to the chief!

And Jeff in Atlanta- back up your claim with facts- I’m calling BS on you-

Robert Littel

March 14th, 2010
5:52 pm

Justice Roberts (Using the term “Justice” in its most charitable way) is a corporate owned LYING pig, who made a mockery of his confirmation hearings, when he said he would not use the court to write new law. If there was such a place as hell, he would have well earned a special place in the hottest part for handing the government over in a bloodless coup, to the forces of obscene wealth.

Miss Bush yet?

March 14th, 2010
6:26 pm

Mitzymy — are you a moron. This has nothing to do with the President being Black. You know why racism in this country never dies because people like you keep bringing it up. Mr. Obama made a hell of a lot of promises in his campaign as did the other Democrats in preparation for their win. They have screwed the pooch. Forget the BS about what he inherited…blah blah blah…every president has issues when he comes into office.

He promised to stop the war – it is still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why?

He promised to be accountable for the members in his party? All the people he nominated had some issue or another and primarily they did not pay their taxes. Is it that hard to find someone in your cabinet that paid their taxes? Why?

We are on the health care reform, which the country needs. However, in the negotiation of this wonderful plan – will congress and the president himself switch to it? No. Why?

There are many many many more question that could continue. The Democrats have failed. All the bashing of the republicans and what they failed to do when they had control and the Democrats have managed the same thing. Obama lied. We have no change unless you count things being worse.

We bail out everyone for whatever reason, we are still at war, the economy still sucks, the banks are all still getting paid their hoard…and yes people are still spending their time to say it is was bush’s fault. Whine Whine Whine…it is always somebody else’s fault.

None of my comments are predicated on Obama being black. That is just the excuse the you and other morons bring up when someone criticizes your unworthy and unexperienced leader. Obama should go and all of Congress with him.

Leave the race card on the floor and deal with this as an American and not based on race.

Will the American people have the balls to vote people out who make promises that they have no ability or intention of keeping? I promised 10 things and none will come true….would you vote for him again?

Avery Bundren

March 14th, 2010
6:50 pm

It is noteworthy that the Chief Justice chose to make his remarks before that cosmopolitan, free-thinking, definitely not right wing audience at the University of Alabama. I am not certain that the President was entirely appropriate with his comments about the Supreme Court decision, but I am sure that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and the still bitter Clarence Thomas would ever agree with President Obama on anything. They are mediocre and really should not be on the US Supreme Court.

Avery Bundren

March 14th, 2010
6:56 pm

George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al are war criminals and should be in prison now, not making the rounds on talk shows as Cheney so frequently does. If there is justice, and there may not be in this world, but there should be a special place, in the next one, for people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Miller

March 14th, 2010
7:08 pm

Bob is correct. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court there was way out of line and completely low-rent/uncalled for. Obama appears to want to be a dictator with all his attempts at strong-arming those that disagree with him (health care etc.). The beauty of it is that the Founding Fathers set up the system to deal with pathetic Chicago scumbag politicians like he and Rahm Emanuel. I’m just sorry that he was able to con my vote out of me. Hope he enjoyed it because it is unlikely that I’ll vote for another Democratic politician for a long time to come.

Truthteller

March 14th, 2010
7:20 pm

The true Obama is making himself known to America. His stunt at the SOU address was just the latest example of his real agenda. Not at all the post-partisan moderate that he said he would be, he’s turned out to be as petty and spiteful as any of the others before him. No worries, though. With the screwups and scandals that are rampant, he’ll be a one timer for sure. It’s funny- I thought nobody could be a worse president than Jimmy Carter. Boy, was I wrong.

Mandate!

March 14th, 2010
7:33 pm

Remember: obama has a mandate, so the Supreme Court needs to get with the program and stay on message, or Rahm Emanuel will be very angry and likely place a visit to the court to set them straight.

Eric P.

March 14th, 2010
7:40 pm

Quick question. What could President Obama POSSIBLY gain from turning our country socialist? Everyone who says this is obviously quoting Rush, etc., but no one ever explains how that could ever help him personally (or professionally). Think about it. What benefit would he ever get by “turning our country socialist”? Answer-None whatsoever. Think for yourselves, people. Don’t call people names (its not Christian) and decide for yourselves what you believe in.

Oh, and which is it? Is the President Obama strong for standing up for his beliefs and calling out the supreme court? Or is he weak and ineffective as I keep hearing because he wont. Open your mind people, God’s watching (and taking notes).

Scout

March 14th, 2010
8:25 pm

I hope as you various posters read each others comments that you realize just how viciously polarized we are getting. That type of political situation does not go on forever …………… and it ends in many different ways. Just saying ……………..

Tony T

March 14th, 2010
8:49 pm

Bob,

Last time I wrote you it was to tell you to back off the BS Clinton impeachment (I live in your old district.). You sent me a “Thank you for your support” letter.

President Obama spoke the truth. in spite of all his mistakes, I am grateful to have a President that stands up to the constant onslaught from the misguided Right. The Dems spent the W admin cowering in fear of being accusd of hating America.

John Q

March 14th, 2010
8:57 pm

Bob, your combination of a big mouth and a small mind leads you to misunderstand the significance of even the most obvious events. The way you claim to be such a constitutional scholar, you should be screaming about the atrocious and disgracefully dishonest ruling that those GOP bought-and-paid-for justices pushed through. The level of dishonesty in their analysis puts this decision on a level with Korematsu v. United States, which approved the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. It warranted mention from the TOP of our government and, frankly, warranted much more of a rebuke than Obama gave them.

Now why don’t YOU start getting honest with yourself before writing your next article….

Willis

March 14th, 2010
9:32 pm

On what other occasions do Americans get the chance to see the black-robed Supremes all in one place? Why should the President NOT take the opportunity to take them to task over a disagreement with one of their rulings? I was glad to see the President make his remarks to the Supremes because I wish for the opportunity to tell them the same thing but will never have the chance. Thank God we have a President with the guts to confront them directly. So they’re offended? So what.

Jackie

March 14th, 2010
9:38 pm

Mr. Barr, with all due respect, did you criticize Mr. Reagan when he criticized the Supreme Court for two its decisions during State of the Union Addresses?

Secondly, the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of our government. The President can question their decisions but have no sway upon the justices to make a ruling that is to his liking.

icedawg

March 14th, 2010
9:47 pm

It’s too bad that someone hasn’t criticized the SC in previous administrations, especially the courts that actively made law rather than simply interpret it. The SC has for years had a privileged status, that itself is above the law, by some of the verdicts that it has rendered. It is interesting to watch the balance of power in the three branches of the government. But to whom are the appointed courts really answerable?

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

March 14th, 2010
10:05 pm

Capon Roberts is cursed by G-d, he is a tool of fascist plutocracy, and no man. His want of Grace is manifest.

Those who support him are cursed as well: the American “Fifth Column” of the Roman Anti-Christ…so named by America’s Founder, Author, and Prophet Thomas Jefferson.

For integrity’s sake, and for the pleasure of the Hitler Youth alum gay pope, supporters of the pro-corporate fascist Roman Catholic SCOTUS bloc, the same one which led by Rehnquist violated the Constitution and legal precedent to appoint Hitler’s banker’s draft-dodging, closet-queen grandson to the White House to commit 9/11, should be overt about their anti-American, papist, tory sentiments.

The People is sovereign in America. Tory traitors must be expropriated and extirpated.

Death for Treason

Real Athens

March 14th, 2010
10:09 pm

John Roberts is arguably the most unqualified person to sit on the modern Supreme Court. For most of his professional life he has been a political partisan; he has been an operative of the Republican party his whole professional life. His allegiance to a political party instead of precedent makes him, arguably, the most “activist” of judges on the court.

John Roberts was a judge for only TWO years when he was selected to the court. He was then suddenly promoted to justice of the Supreme Court because?

He has earned no exceptional distinction in public service that could justify such an unorthodox promotion. In fact, it took Roberts several failed nominations over 14 years before he was finally appointed to federal court in 2003.

Jackie

March 14th, 2010
10:21 pm

Should a citizen of another country, individual or corporation, have a greater voice in the operation of our government than any citizen of the USA?

It appears the Supreme Court says yes; one is free to spend any amount they choose to support any political candidate in our country. They have a bigger voice because they have a larger bank account than most individuals.

TnGelding

March 15th, 2010
5:38 am

Bully? I’d sure like to see him use the bully pulpit more. The justices are grownups and should be able to take a little public berating when they act irresponsibily. At least it wasn’t in their house. I’m puzzled by the number of 5-4 decisions. Is the Constitution that vague or the court that political?

Will Jones - Atlanta Jeffersonian Exegesis

March 15th, 2010
6:37 am

The “5″ are the Roman Catholics. Thank G-d Sotomayor may be further proof, as with Stephen Colbert, that one may call oneself “Roman Catholic” yet be truly American.

Gary

April 2nd, 2010
9:11 am

Obama has proven, time and again, that he is not the man for the job.
First, he used underhanded tactics, to get into the Senate; then he lied to get into the White House.
Since then, he’s tried to change America’s attitude toward Israel, alienated even the kids, who (stupidly) voted for him.
He pretended to be African-American, which would mean descended of slaves…another bold faced lie.
And now, he’s trashed, long-standing, decorum, to make himself “better” than even those, whom he serves (of course, he probably sees himself as a dictator).

So, I am counting the days until he is thrown out of office…either by law or by election — mark my word of this: he will never win re-election and he will destroy any hope of future black politicians being elected to that high office, along the way.