Ohmygoodness, Obama was ‘rude’ to those people in robes?

President Obama’s four-sentence dissent last night to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United has drawn an awful lot of commentary and complaint.

Sen. Orrin Hatch says “I thought it was kind of rude” to say such things with justices in the chamber. A headline at CBS says “Obama Hammers Supreme Court;” a blog at Legal Times says Obama gave the court a “tongue-lashing.” He is said to have denounced the court, and to have committed “a breach of decorum (that) represents the worst of Washington politics.” Over at National Review, Marc Thiessen claims Obama “scolded the justices of the Supreme Court in front of their faces and led the entire Democratic side of the aisle into cheering his taunts.”

fainting_couch

Citizens across the land swooned upon hearing the rude tongue-lashing inflicted upon the U.S. Supreme Court.

My oh my, I think we better hang a “No Vacancy” sign on all the fainting couches across the land.

Here’s what Obama said about the ruling in its entirety, word for word:

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Obama didn’t say anything more — and a lot less — than the four dissenters in that case had written. Earlier this week, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a longtime conservative, was considerably more pointed in her criticism than Obama had been. As a former state legislator who also ran for election as a judge, she has a far more informed understanding of the ruling’s real-life impact than her former colleagues demonstrated.

It’s also downright touching to see the Court’s reputation suddenly defended by Republicans who for decades have made Court-bashing a standard part of their rhetoric. The ruling in Citizens United was a direct swipe at the powers of the legislative and executive branches to regulate their own elections. It is perfectly reasonable and under the Constitution even necessary for the latter two branches to make their displeasure known.

You know, free speech and all that?

397 comments Add your comment

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
8:17 am

He was also rude when he made a retard joke, called the police force “stupid”, and flipped off McCain during the election debates.

But hey, he’s the golden boy who can do no wrong.

At least according to you nitwits in the liberal news media.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:18 am

You have to understand that an idiot known for not surrounding himself with people much smarter than himself probably didn’t select the sharpest tools in the shed to be on the SCOTUS.

So we get Roberts and Alito…..for life. Jeez.

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
8:21 am

Nice pic of mike, Jay.

Hef

January 28th, 2010
8:21 am

And who were the ones complaining about “YOU LIE” outburst as being wrong? I guess it’s ok to be a jerk if your the “chosen one”. I guess Barry missed the memo on showin class as Pres.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:22 am

Could someone post a link to what O’Connor had to say??

Thankey

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
8:22 am

8:17 average

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
8:23 am

“I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

But Jay, in Uppity Muslimese, that translates to “Kill the white devils, and the Uncle Tom too!”

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

January 28th, 2010
8:24 am

You know, free speech and all that?

Only on planet Moonbat is silencing political opposition considered free speech.

And defending a thug from Chicago who stepped out of the bounds of political decorum?

Either you respect the decision of the court or you win elections and install your own people on it.

You do not publicly badger them.

Hef

January 28th, 2010
8:25 am

But he’s so well spoken-omg

Josh Lanier

January 28th, 2010
8:26 am

Spot on. Plus link to O’Connor remarks: http://tinyurl.com/ycrwk5x

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
8:26 am

Jimmy62

January 28th, 2010
8:28 am

If the federal government was the size and scope it was intended to be, then this wouldn’t matter, because corporations wouldn’t be able to influence so much by sending money to D.C. It’s only because politicians have taken far more power and control over our lives than they should have that corporate money in D.C. can influence so much. Shrink the government, and it’s no longer an issue.

The Nerve

January 28th, 2010
8:28 am

But buying off votes with taxpayer money and promises of entitlement are ok, right?

ROLLERGIRL

January 28th, 2010
8:28 am

I highly doubt the Justices, who will be there long after Chocolate the clown is back in chicago or indonesia or kenya, care what Obama thinks, anymore than I give a damn what people say about me.

That being said, I Wish Alito had shouted “You lie!”…haha

mmm mmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm barack 1 term obama

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
8:28 am

He actually made quite a few good proposals, at least if I am to believe him at face value. Of course, the problem is that he has to rely on Congress to draft the legislation. Wrapping anything in bacon makes it taste better at first, but in the end you wind up paying for it with extra pounds, and they are hard to work off.

I liked what he SAID about energy, until he mentioned that the House came up with it last year. How in the world would “Cap & Trade” have fulfilled everything he had just mentioned? Expanding nuclear production? More offshore exploration and drilling? The House bill made those more difficult. Mr. President, if you believe what you said last night on energy, please encourage them to be honest to your vision.

Oh, yeah, this was about SCOTUS…uh. Hey, let him complain about them, it does not matter, that is all he can do about them. He gets to appoint new justices, that is the limit of his involvement. Checks and balances, baby…it burns everyone. Beauty of the system.

GeoffDawg

January 28th, 2010
8:28 am

It has nothing to do with defending the delicate sensibilities of the court. Obama mentioned it himself when stating “With all due deference to separation of powers”. It was public intimidation of an equally important facet of the federal government. Especially in light of the fact that the court cannot appropriately publicly respond to the very public and in their faces rebuke. It made a good tv visual for the drooling Obamaniacs but nothing more.

david wayne osedach

January 28th, 2010
8:29 am

Jay – Obama was also rude to the bankers. They are laughing all the way to the bank to cash their fattest bonus checks ever!

Jimmy Carter

January 28th, 2010
8:30 am

It’s kind of like those annual “family reunions” and the speaker of the event trashing a particular family about something he disagreed with. Bush league move.

Manny

January 28th, 2010
8:31 am

LOL at people voting for Bush but complaining about “Political Decorum.”

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:32 am

so … does Nivea do something that will help little Sammy Alito’s thin skin???

ROLLERGIRL

January 28th, 2010
8:33 am

Jimmy Carter does truly love obama, because in 3 years time, Carter will have lost the title “sh*ttiest president ever”, to the new champ!

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
8:33 am

Jay, you know how you feel when you go to a meeting at the AJC, and your bosses rip you a new one in front of all your co-workers about how lame your blog is, and that you better start considering a career in street begging?

That’s how they felt last night. Oblamer should have just kept his mouth shut and stuck to lying about the economy and everything else.

Normal

January 28th, 2010
8:33 am

Granny G,
For your 8 O’clock coffe from downstairs…try a teaspoon of real vanilla extract with your cream and sugar. Real extract is around 35% alcohol and a teaspoon of 70 proof won’t hurt you, and the aroma and taste are quite wonderful…

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:35 am

“he sounded just like Sarah Palin when she pulled that stunt during the Biden/Palin debates”

see? that’s what you miss when you read a speech instead of seeing it … I guess I missed Obama pulling a beauty queen act and winking at the audience, and droppin’ her g’s, actin’ all folksy and all …

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
8:35 am

I am starting to believe that Jay’s pay is tied to the number of blogger posts he gets. So the crazier and more incendiary his blogs are, the more people will gravitate to levy their oh-so-much-better-opinions. More power to Jay if this is the case, even if I don’t usually agree with him! Another case in point for my theory – Cynthia Tucker! Though hers may be tied in also to a requirement to interject race into every argument. Poor Kyle Wingfield, he just is not inflammatory enough, and is lucky to crack a page 2 now and then…

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
8:35 am

Muchado about nothing. Obama hit the standard low lights and high lights. Will give him credit in one area…when speaking of American progress, great people, great land, etc., he sounded just like Sarah Palin when she pulled that stunt during the Biden/Palin debates.

Normal

January 28th, 2010
8:38 am

NRB2, you sir, are a hoot…

neo-Carlinist

January 28th, 2010
8:39 am

with all due respect to the POTUS, I applaud the decision of the SCOTUS. it’s not like influence is not for sale in DC already. if anything, ruling will remove the 800 lbs. special interest gorilla from the backroom and place it in the parlor, for all to see (and still ignore). the POTUS’s language says it all (”floodgates”). he doesn’t want to stop the flood (of special interest money to politicians), he simply wants to control it (think the Army Corps of Engineers/GA/AL/FL “who owns the water?” snafu). if the POTUS does not think “elections should be bankrolled by special interests” then he might want to return the “special interest” (big banking, big pharm, big insurance, big D) ro his campaign, better yet, push for legislation to “outlaw” political contributions of any kind.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:40 am

Republicans are quite OK with foreign money buying our political players. Recall how, within hours of the 9/11 strikes, Bush allowed all the Saudis leave the country on airplanes? including the Bin laden family?

The Bush family is owned lock and stock by the Saudis so “Citizens United”isn’t a problem for them.

Sick&Tired

January 28th, 2010
8:40 am

No Rollergirl the title “sh*ttiest president ever”, actaully belongs to President George W. Bush.

Gale

January 28th, 2010
8:41 am

Normal @ 8:33 A WHOLE teaspoon! That’s as much or more than I put in a whole batch of cookies. And you drink that?

Normal

January 28th, 2010
8:41 am

Gale,Yes I do!..It be yummy and warm in the tummy… ;)

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
8:42 am

Well then it’s o.k. for anyone else sitting out there to call him a “liar” on national television because that is what he constantly does ! I even read that one of the justices “mouthed” essential that.

I wish he would have stood up and said, “Mr. President, you are out of order.”

Mick

January 28th, 2010
8:42 am

I’m glad obama took the court to task, at some point they are actually gonna rule for the people maybe?

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
8:42 am

Normal….

I’ll give it a try this weekend.

Bud Wiser

January 28th, 2010
8:42 am

As expected, it took Obowo less than 1 minute to blame Bush for all of his woes. So typical of the socialist mushroom head with those very large ears, nothing is ever his fault.

Also, he blamed the ‘party of no’ for not being able to get, say, health care, done. Hmmm hmmm mmmm …….. maybe having a super-majority of votes had nothing to do with it; maybe the ability, if properly used, of having all the votes one needed without the ‘party of no’ wasn’t enough; maybe continually pushing forward against the will of the American people had nothing to do with it, despite VA, NJ, and Mass.

I suspect the height of arrogance, the self assumed air of superiority (we can delve later into the psychological aspect, and its comparison to a superiority complex later), and the just plain lack of ability to lead is more responsible. But on the plus side, after just one year of stupidity, it appears that some of the blue dogs at least are starting to get the picture, as opposed to the uppity one.

And then there is the Supreme Court, and certain ‘media’ channels. Hmmmm Maybe the uppity one, since he already has such admiration for Hugo Chavez and how he runs the show in Venezuela, will try to Chavez the SCOTUS and Fox News Channel as well now. Things move so much more smoothly when you attack and/or stifle the ‘opposition’.

The Kenyan is already a 1 term failure, so his musings about being “a mediocre two term President” are already irrelevant.

His party is going down hard in the fall.

Thus sayeth the Bud.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:45 am

Kyle cracked a page 2? I need to go look for that one! wow

Paul

January 28th, 2010
8:46 am

We have three separate but equal branches of government. Many have avoided discussing just what that means, especially during the past few years when some would say the equality was tilted more towards the Judicial.

What is a check on the Judicial? Pres Obama laid it out – Congress can pass legislation, he can sign it… then the Court may decide if it’s okay or not. But the pres offered a solution – legislation to address the perceived problem. Let Congress prohibit foreign-owned or dominated corporations from engaging in the election process. Shouldn’t be that difficult. Hopefully this won’t be another example of Democratic lawmakers complaining, then doing nothing to fix the problem.

But having said that, there are customs of decorum that have evolved over the years. One has to go back to what? Pres Roosevelt? to find such a criticism. And Roosevelt’s criticisms led to some pretty ill-advised and difficult actions.

Do the Justices have a free speech right to engage in political criticisms or endorsements of parties or candidates? Sure. Do they? One can argue they do through their decisions, but that’s pretty tangential. I’m not aware they have. There’s gotta be a reason….

Normal

January 28th, 2010
8:46 am

Gale,
I actually learned that when I was in the Navy. Had a Chief, who was a heavy drinker, who used to drink vanilla extract when we were at sea.
He showed me the coffe thing. One thing I have to say about that chief though…he had the sweetest breath in the Navy, ha ha.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:47 am

david wayne,

(We actually have to do this with some readers….about twice a week on average)

Bankers were bailed out by Bush, Obama is responsible for the auto bail-out and the big spending bill.

Are you on the same page with everyone else now? Try to keep up.

Normal

January 28th, 2010
8:47 am

Well, sitting here reading all of the responses, I think I can say without reservation that one thing President Obama did NOT do was sway anyone’s attitudes toward him. Oh well, back to work…

Mick

January 28th, 2010
8:47 am

**As expected, it took Obowo less than 1 minute to blame Bush for all of his woes**

Then defend what bush left us – it is not defensible is it? Reality hurts when it comes to the bush legacy.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:48 am

Paul –

“What is a check on the Judicial? Pres Obama laid it out – Congress can pass legislation, he can sign it… then the Court may decide if it’s okay or not.”

exactly – which many other presidents have done time and again …

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
8:48 am

I’m glad obama took the court to task, at some point they are actually gonna rule for the people maybe?
————————————————
You don’t even know why you’re made at that ruling, you’re just following the liberal lockstep.

Ask yourself this, if it’s okay for the news media, george soros, and other liberal/communist organizations to pump money into campaigns to further their agenda….why is it not okay for companies to do the same?

GoingBroke

January 28th, 2010
8:51 am

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests”

talk about the pot calling the kettle black.. are libs just pi$$ed because the people that actually create jobs have more money than the useless union leeches in this country?

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
8:51 am

“I guess I missed Obama pulling a beauty queen act and winking at the audience, and droppin’ her g’s, actin’ all folksy and all …”

Ya…thats the only thing he missed from Sarahs speech.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2010
8:51 am

What we need is a pox on corporate funding of legislators… er, um, I mean, a tax. A ninety percent tax with all the revenues going toward paying down the debt.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
8:52 am

The Supreme court is correct on their ruling.

Mick

January 28th, 2010
8:52 am

**You don’t even know why you’re made at that ruling, you’re just following the liberal lockstep.**

Not really, I am just tired of this court always slanting toward corporate interests thats all.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:53 am

“As expected, it took Obowo less than 1 minute to blame Bush for all of his woes”

stating a fact is not placing blame …

whatever product little sammy alito buys for his thin skin, you should look to do the same …

GeoffDawg

January 28th, 2010
8:54 am

What a whiner you are Sick&Tired. I thought her song was quite catchy.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
8:54 am

USinUK

Sure. But there are always the surprises, such as one of the last tribunal-type cases where the Court in effect said “thanks, Congress and President, for paying attention to those past cases we’ve decided and coming up with legislation to address our concerns. This current case addresses that, but…. we don’t want that any more. We’re gonna take a different path, so here’s our decision…”

That would’ve been a case for Congress and the Pres to publicly lambast the Court, but they didn’t.

This too shall pass –

wanna make a bet if the Dems come up with any legislation in the next year or so?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
8:55 am

I thought it was appropriate for the whiner-in-chief to raise his complaints. And that goes for the president too, Jay.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:55 am

“are libs just pi$$ed because the people that actually create jobs have more money than the useless union leeches in this country?”

I would dare speak for “all libs” … I just speak for myself … I’m pi$$ed because corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE. They are NOT endowed with the same rights as individuals such as free speech. The people who work for those corporations are, but the company is most definitely NOT.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2010
8:55 am

Did someone say that the big corporations have been creating jobs. Where! Where is Joe Wilson when you need him, that is.

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
8:55 am

USinUK, in typical DemoRat double speak, conveniently forgets that it’s congress who controls spending…and the Dems have had Congress since 2006.

That’s 4 years.

At which point does it become their fault? Have they done anything in the past 4 years to fix what they’ve done?

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:57 am

Oh, thank goodness we can vote all the Republicans back into office in November.

To hell with this $2.35 gas, I want some REAL gas! I want my $4.50 per gallon gas back, ferchrisake!

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
8:57 am

No dice. Obama owns it.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:57 am

Paul –

“wanna make a bet if the Dems come up with any legislation in the next year or so?”

oh, I definitely think they will – and I think the will of the people would be behind them for it, as well … (particularly if the bankers start lobbying heavily on any reform legislation – that’ll seal the deal)

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
8:57 am

They are NOT endowed with the same rights as individuals such as free speech. The people who work for those corporations are, but the company is most definitely NOT.
—————————————————————-

And how do you feel about newspapers campaigning for candidates, like the Boston Globe did for Coakley….or the AJC and all other newspapers do for Obama.

Don’t bother answering, I already know what you’ll say.

I can reveal liberal hypocrisy all day long. Fish in a barrel.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2010
8:59 am

Obama should have called out the Fleeting 5 for what they really are. With all due respect, they did not deserve any.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
8:59 am

Gonna gas up the Econoline this weekend Finn and help the homeless are ya?

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
8:59 am

To hell with this $2.35 gas, I want some REAL gas! I want my $4.50 per gallon gas back, ferchrisake!
—————————————————-

Hi Finn, gas was at a record price level in 2007, when Dems were in charge. Wanna try again? Better yet, maybe you can explain how the government has any control over gas prices in the first place?

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
8:59 am

“are libs just pi$$ed because the people that actually create jobs have more money than the useless union leeches in this country?”

You might want to be aware that the unions were given the same pass as the corporations. Yep, now unions have inalienable rights too.

Mick

January 28th, 2010
8:59 am

**At which point does it become their fault? Have they done anything in the past 4 years to fix what they’ve done?**

Maybe its all of our fault, our leaders that we elect both dems and repubs sell out to lobbyists, special interests and the people are left in the dust. They are all like little kings and its good to be the king. When you think you finally get someone good its meet the new boss same as the old boss – very frustrating.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
8:59 am

NRB –

“And how do you feel about newspapers campaigning for candidates, like the Boston Globe did for Coakley….or the AJC and all other newspapers do for Obama”

it’s not “campaigning” to endorse a candidate – all newspapers do it across the country, liberal and conservative.

ahem … “I can reveal conservative idiocy all day long.”

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
9:00 am

USinUK, in typical DemoRat double speak, conveniently forgets that it’s congress who controls spending…and the Dems have had Congress since 2006.

That’s 4 years.

um, lessee… 1.2007 – 1.2010.

Koresh deep-fried on a popsicle stick with a side-order of tasty napalmed chyldryn, NRB–you can’t even count?

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:01 am

NRB – 8:55 – to what are you referring?

Citizen of the World

January 28th, 2010
9:01 am

President Obama’s comments seemed more frank and assertive than rude to me. The justices are not above reproach, even if they are above the law.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
9:02 am

USinUK

Well, I too hope the Democratic Congress comes up with legislation in a year or so to address the problem.

It’d make a nice change for them.

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
9:02 am

It’s “campaigning” when you put front page story after front page story glorifying all things liberal, and stacking your op-ed section with Democrat lunatics. Not just the AJC, all papers and media mind you.

I have yet to hear one good reason why that ruling was bad. But it goes without saying, if the Dems are mad about it, it must be good and positive.

Curious Observer

January 28th, 2010
9:02 am

Funny how the Supreme Court can overturn 100 years of precedent and not a conservative on this blog mouthes the word activist.

I’m glad Obama had the courage to say what he did about the decision. Giving foreigners who happen to own majority shares in American corporations free rein to influence American elections is a disaster waiting to happen. Ditto for giving corporations, regardless of ownership, the same or even more voice in elections as human voters.

I seem to recall the charging of an Asian gentleman for organizing and contributing to a Clinton fundraiser in California. The conservatives were all outraged then, complaining about foreign influences and corruption of our election processes. But now, we’re hearing that this Supreme Court decision is “no big deal” or that it’s right and just.

I suppose that opinions about rulings are just matters of where you sit in the political theater.

Me, I’ll be watching for headlines about plane crashes and other accidents, along with diagnoses of dread diseases. Here’s hoping that Obama gets the opportunity to appoint two or three more Supreme Court justices. The seating of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito has been a disaster for the American people.

MAC

January 28th, 2010
9:03 am

Maybe Alito thinks that Obama, a former law professor and alleged constitutional scholar, ought to get his facts right.

From Politico:
January 27, 2010
Categories:SCOTUS
Backing Alito
The former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith writes:

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication. …”

And the NYTimes’s David Kirkpatrick notes a key passage from the ruling:

Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically wrote that the opinion did not address the question of foreign companies. “We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,” he wrote. The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates.

Also, from the NYTimes Supreme Court reporter:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

But we wouldn’t want the facts to get in the way…….

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
9:03 am

Hillary Clinton was not at the SOTU last night.
What most people do not realize is that she was arrested trying to break into Ford’s headquarters.
As she was being apprehended, she was heard repeating “I wanna take those profits!”

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:03 am

Here is the GOOD NEWS. Obama only has 2 SOTU speeches remaining. We are past that 50% mark anyway!

kayaker 71

January 28th, 2010
9:04 am

Gotta go with Bookman on this one. If American politics was a lily white process with dependable, upstanding, honest people running for office and representing the American people as the Constitution describes, we would not need checks and balances on the system. But it is far from the above. Politicians are crooked, not dependable, mostly lawyers, who suck off of the system and spend our money like it was fantasy cash. They are embolden to special interests to keep their jobs and bend like the wind, depending on who gave them the most money in their campaign. They are what is wrong with the country. And now we are going to open the flood gates of cash from big donors to a system that is already so f**ked up that it is pathetic and we are going to call it free speech. What could be further from the truth???

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:04 am

“I’m glad Obama had the courage to say what he did about the decision…”

LOL…that wasnt courageous. It was a simple stunt intended to energize his base, nothing more.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:05 am

Barry and others just don’t get it, they complain about decorum (Wilson) and then don’t practice what they preach.

The SC is made up of real people, doubt pissing them off is a good strategy. A good lawyer will find a loophole if they really want to, and I think Barry has made 5 enemies for the rest of his administration. Good luck with that.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
9:06 am

Better yet, maybe you can explain how the government has any control over gas prices in the first place?

Government doesn’t control it. Backroom, closed door energy policy meetings control it (remember Cheney doing this in 2001?)

Look at a chart showing the average price of gas between January 2001 and January 2009. Kinda sickening.

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
9:07 am

“Maybe its all of our fault, our leaders that we elect both dems and repubs sell out to lobbyists, special interests and the people are left in the dust. They are all like little kings and its good to be the king. When you think you finally get someone good its meet the new boss same as the old boss – very frustrating.”

I could not agree more, Mick! Mark this occasion…LOL!

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:07 am

NRB –

“It’s “campaigning” when you put front page story after front page story glorifying all things liberal, and stacking your op-ed section with Democrat lunatics. Not just the AJC, all papers and media mind you”

wow … you start your drinking early in the day, don’t you …

stacking the op-ed section with Democrat lunatics? Kyle Wingfield is a Democrat? Bob Barr is a Democrat? wow … has anyone told them?

it’s obvious that you don’t read the paper, you just listen to the voices in your head if you really think that the op-ed section of other national papers just employs Dems … ask George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, and Robert Kagan, to name but a few …

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:07 am

The Country is moving back right of center. You dims can come along for the ride or be left in the lerch. Makes no difference to US!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:07 am

what’s a lerch?

is that like The Larch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRKVXG3DV-I

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
9:08 am

Funny how the Supreme Court can overturn 100 years of precedent and not a conservative on this blog mouthes the word activist.

And they’re angry and they want their country back, too? I believe these folks are cornfused again. Perhaps they should just sit back and keep their mouths shut except when someone needs them to say “no”.

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
9:10 am

Mick:

Doing what Obama did last night to the Supreme Court is usually the first baby step of a budding dictator ………. putting their personal “wisdom/authority” above the court. To pull a stunt like that on national television with them sitting there was pathetic.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:10 am

Finn…will we sit back and keep our mouth shut? In a word…NO!

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
9:10 am

Finn @ 9:06

Seriously? Did you not follow crude prices during the same period? What about China exponentially increasing their oil consumption during that period? And oil market speculators trying to guess as to when peak oil would occur? How about the flexing of OPEC muscles? If there is any conspiracy that controls oil prices, it is them, but they are hardly secretive. The only thing that sent our oil prices tumbling was the worldwide recession and sudden drop in demand for crude.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:12 am

“Doing what Obama did last night to the Supreme Court is usually the first baby step of a budding dictator ”

baaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha …

dangitall … where’s Bosch and the screencleaner …

talk about someone who needs to hie to a fainting couch!

Paul

January 28th, 2010
9:12 am

MAC

Thank you for that reference. Most informative. So is it possible we have people repeating that which is generally thought to be true, regardless of what the ruling actually said?

Which gives new insight into why Justice Alito was mouthing “Not true” as the President spoke.

Mick

January 28th, 2010
9:13 am

**The Country is moving back right of center**

There is no center, we are all over the place.

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
9:14 am

I’m not sure why Hillary wasn’t there last night but usually one cabinet member is absent and at a secure location just in case of a national catastrophe at the joint session.

We would still need a president you know – perish the thought of that one also.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:14 am

We have now reached the “Obama is a naive, incompetent bumbler who is going to declare himself dictator and ruthlessly crush all opposition” portion of the discussion.

wyldbyllhyltnyr

January 28th, 2010
9:15 am

“You know, free speech and all that?” I sure do Jay.

Riddle me this, my friend, why should one highly partisan corporation (the owner of the NY Times) be able to spend unlimited sums to push its one sided agenda while other non-partisan corporations are restricted in the amount that they can spend to support issues that are important to them? Once one can answer that, one can say that SCOTUS ruled improperly.

Finally, if the Dark Prince is such a supporter for fair public funding, why didn’t he limit his take to public funds when he ran against McCain. Hard to believe that the donations from the Unions and its member have not shaped his confiscatory policies against the general public, but in favor of the unions.

Obama is an ignorant, arrogant dimwit and the sooner we are rid of his kind, the better.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:15 am

“I’m not sure why Hillary wasn’t there last night but usually one cabinet member is absent and at a secure location just in case of a national catastrophe at the joint session.”

more proof that you people really DON’T read the news – you just like to parrot what the radio (and the voices in your head) tell you …

Hillary is here in London, working with other countries on the Yemen situation …

don’t know what the Yemen situation is??? that wouldn’t surprise me either. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8484257.stm

Mick

January 28th, 2010
9:16 am

**Doing what Obama did last night to the Supreme Court is usually the first baby step of a budding dictator …**

Teleprompters, dictator, socialist my my – I disagree, maybe if he had them arrested and shot, well..

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
9:16 am

USinUK:

And it was “tacky” also.

Peadawg

January 28th, 2010
9:16 am

“To pull a stunt like that on national television with them sitting there was pathetic.”

Same w/ calling that cop stupid. He doesn’t need to stick his nose where it doesn’t belong…

md

January 28th, 2010
9:16 am

“I’m pi$$ed because corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE.”

Then you should have no problem silencing the corporate news media – correct?

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
9:16 am

Government doesn’t control it. Backroom, closed door energy policy meetings control it (remember Cheney doing this in 2001?)
———————————————————————

In other words, you have no proof, so you resort to conjuring up some smokey backroom deal where evil white men in Armani suits and sinister looking briefcases whisper and plot.

Well I’m convinced then!

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
9:18 am

Mick:

Or he could do what President Jackson did:

“Judge Taney has made his decision, now let him enforce it”.

Is that the kind of mess in our Republic you want started? Just remember, what goes around comes around.