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

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:34 am

“The most PARTISAN President in recent history, called for bipartisanship”

thus sayeth the Party of No

:roll:

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
11:35 am

oh my goodness, oh my goodness

a different opinion on swoonish judges….

Justice Alito’s conduct and the Court’s credibility

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/28/alito/index.html

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

January 28th, 2010
11:35 am

This reflects a larger problem, which is his belief that economic growth springs mainly from the genius of government. Thus Mr. Obama presented a vision of an economy soaring to new heights on “high-speed railroad” and “clean energy facilities” and 1,000 people making solar panels in California. He seems not to appreciate that what really drives growth are the millions of risks taken each day by millions of individuals, far from the politicking and earmarks of Congress or the Department of Energy.

Which is also the delusion that Bookman suffers.

Corporations are entities formed by individuals to represent their interests, not some mindless hulk that emerged from outer space.

Congress has an implicit right to regulate interstate commerce, thus directing individuals and corporations alike, on the propriety of their business dealings.

Further, individuals and corporations alike provide the wages and benefits that government in turn confiscates and fritters away on the whim of a few psychotics, well, at least until this coming November.

And you want to claim they have no constitutional right to redress their grievances?

Odd, isn’t it?

Paul

January 28th, 2010
11:37 am

AmVet

That’s not the first activist decision by a conservative majority, by far. The gun control case is a fine example. And a favorite cite for the liberal court trampling the property rights of citizens is permitting government to take private property and give it to a developer so the politicians can increase their revenue take.

It’s amazing – we get it from both sides. And it isn’t a good ‘it.’

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
11:38 am

Congress Hack Attack: House Member Web Sites Hacked With Anti-Obama Language

Guess the nerds that did it don’t realize Obama hasn’t repealed the Patriot Act. If deemed enemies of the state they can be imprisoned without a trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/congress-hack-attack-house_n_439906.html

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:41 am

“He seems not to appreciate that what really drives growth are the millions of risks taken each day by millions of individuals, far from the politicking and earmarks of Congress or the Department of Energy”

what a steaming load of bollocks.

what part of “We should start where most new jobs do – in small businesses, companies that begin when – companies that begin when an entrepreneur – when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it’s time she became her own boss.” seems to have escaped the write (and, thus, whiner’s usual cut/paste job)???

I think that’s a double dose of bollocks – one for the original writer and one for whiner for cutting/pasting … thanks for the 2fer, whiner!

Paul

January 28th, 2010
11:42 am

Report/Whine 11:35

[[This reflects a larger problem, which is his belief that economic growth springs mainly from the genius of government.]]

From the President’s address: “Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.”

Jenifer

Clarification on the fascist comment?

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

January 28th, 2010
11:44 am

Paul- Exactly, and some of us our saying that these same businesses have no input as to how they are regulated.

md

January 28th, 2010
11:45 am

“If deemed enemies of the state they can be imprisoned without a trial”

What country do you live in? In this one, enemies of the state are lawyered up by the state and pampered with kid gloves so as to not hurt their feelings and cause undue duress.

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
11:46 am

Obama Takes Crack At GOP For Not Applauding Tax Cuts

It is these kinds of moments when the President can expose the republicants for what they really are. Corporate toadies with little concern for real American Citizens. This needs to be the norm. Create legislation that will directly benefit all Americans not just Corporations and let the repubs vote against it.

It’s time to stop letting the republicants define everything. Start naming bills that hint at what they are, like the coming Jobs Proposal. The moment republicants are seen as voting against creating jobs their doom will be sealed. Their current agenda of NO has not been exploited enough by Democrats and needs to be so Americans can understand why nothing seems to be happening in DC. It is a platform with one purpose, making the President fail and therefore the country fail. The President had it right, there is no excuse why the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world in recovery from this recession.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/obama-takes-crack-at-gop_n_439610.html

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
11:46 am

GG, thanks for your Greenwald link, interesting read.

Particularly appreciated this, because he raised a point that I should’ve remembered myself:

Seriously: what kind of an adult is incapable of restraining himself from visible gestures and verbal outbursts in the middle of someone’s speech, no matter how strongly one disagrees — let alone a robe-wearing Supreme Court Justice sitting in the U.S. Congress in the middle of a President’s State of the Union address? Recall all of the lip-pursed worrying from The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen and his secret, nameless friends over the so-called “judicial temperament” of Sonia Sotomayor. Alito’s conduct is the precise antithesis of what “judicial temperament” is supposed to produce.

@@

January 28th, 2010
11:46 am

jay, you post too fast…

and FURIOUS? my, but you seem rather at odds today. I can understand why though.

I think your guy “O” has some serious issues. I had no intention of watching his SOTU last night but the viewing was thru osmosis (my husband’s viewing of said SOTU). I tried to ignore it but MY GAWD! that man is delusional.

I expected him to start out with the blame game….he didn’t disappoint. At some point he begins talking about leadership as though it wasn’t his?

Obama has some serious issues. He appears to be suffering from dissociative identity disorder or at the very least, dissociative amnesia. I think he’s created an imaginary friend for himself. Lord knows he has very few left.

He acknowledges there was a disconnect. He then attempts to reconnect by “Staying the Course”…..the same course that disconnected him from the people in the first place.

This dude’s weird!

The Chris Matthews comment? It was only last night that “He forgot he was black?” What does that mean exactly? He rose above being black last night? He’s better than your average black? Up until last night he seemed rather dark, but now he’s more white and Matthews is pleased with that?

I still don’t understand this obsession with the SCOTUS ruling. It was a ruling that protected the free speech of ALL as it should be. Your side seems to have a concern about foreign donors. On the rare occasion that I donate to a politician, I must acknowledge that I’m not a foreign national. It would appear that for the longest time MoveOn failed to meet that strict requirement.

In late 2003, Moveon.org became the subject of controversy when it was discovered that websites outside the United States had been set up for non-US citizens to make donations to MoveOn for the explicit purpose of defeating Bush in the 2004 presidential election. Under U.S. law, a presidential campaign cannot legally accept foreign donations (although the U.S. government has itself given money to support electoral candidates that it favors in other countries, such as Nicaragua). While MoveOn is not bound by this restriction, it nonetheless chose not to accept any more funds from overseas to avoid the perception of impropriety. It has not disclosed how much money it received from overseas before shutting these avenues down.–Sourcewatch

but with ^^^ that you have no problem?

I’m gonna post this same comment over at Kyle’s. I’ll change the name, “jay” to protect the innocent. /snark/

You need a vacation, jay…..rally you do! Kyle came in on his “live blogging” thread with his personal play by play. He didn’t take on a superior attitude as you’re oft to do. He wasn’t combative.

Maybe another “fishing” trip?

thomas

January 28th, 2010
11:47 am

UsinUk @ 11:41

Did you notice how when Obama said that about small business and jobs Nancy Pelosi did not want to satnd and was maybe the only time all night she was not the first to spirng out of her seat like a pogo stick?

Seems as if she wants that source to be the gov.

Obama may have more problems with members of his own party than with some republicans on many issues.

Matilda

January 28th, 2010
11:47 am

AmVet, I’m with you at 11:32. The whole “We the people” thing is history. As a middle class working woman without the wealth to purchase shelters and loopholes, I’m taxed to the max. Represented? No way. The “we always cave anyway” Democrats will never consider the opinions of “we the people” over the advertising purse strings, and the “rhymes with not true” Republicans never did care what we think or need. IMO, it’s over.

Midori

January 28th, 2010
11:47 am

Justice Alito’s flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court’s role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow — a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President — with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

The Justices are seated at the very front of the chamber, and it was predictable in the extreme that the cameras would focus on them as Obama condemned their ruling. Seriously: what kind of an adult is incapable of restraining himself from visible gestures and verbal outbursts in the middle of someone’s speech, no matter how strongly one disagrees — let alone a robe-wearing Supreme Court Justice sitting in the U.S. Congress in the middle of a President’s State of the Union address? Recall all of the lip-pursed worrying from The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen and his secret, nameless friends over the so-called “judicial temperament” of Sonia Sotomayor. Alito’s conduct is the precise antithesis of what “judicial temperament” is supposed to produce.

Right-wing criticisms — that it was Obama who acted inappropriately by using his SOTU address to condemn the Court’s decision — are just inane. Many of the Court’s rulings engender political passions and have substantial political consequences — few more so than a ruling that invalidated long-standing campaign finance laws. Obama is an elected politician in a political branch and has every right to express his views on such a significant court ruling. While the factual claims Obama made about the ruling are subject to reasonable dispute, they’re well within the realm of acceptable political rhetoric and are far from being “false” (e.g., though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that; moreover, it’s certainly fair to argue, as Obama did, that the Court majority tossed aside a century of judicial precedent). Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree — Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms — and Obama’s comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice. While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either. And, as usual, the disingenuousness levels are off the charts: imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush’s State of the Union address.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/28/alito/index.html

md

January 28th, 2010
11:48 am

Jay,

If all corporations in this country created a subsidiary company such as “Corp XXX News”, would you object, or agree that they then should have freedom of the press under the constitution??

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:48 am

“Paul- Exactly, and some of us our saying that these same businesses have no input as to how they are regulated.”

yay! because that’s exactly what we need to do … let coal mining regulate itself … banking regulate itself … insurance … tilities … the lot of ‘em! … and, while we’re at it, let’s let children educate themselves!

thomas

January 28th, 2010
11:49 am

Are we saying that all elections are bought?

If not why does it matter if coorporations are now given free speech?

chuck

January 28th, 2010
11:49 am

USUK, why would Republicans who are traditionally AGAINST big government (with the obvious exception of Bush), vote FOR a government healthcare bill? Why would Republicans vote FOR a bill that they were not allowed to even debate much less have a hand in its formulation? It isn’t “bipartisanship” when you have no seat at the table, are not allowed to even offer amendments or debate it?

Since you believe that the democrats are so sensitive and inclusive, can you explain these things to me? Can you tell me WHY a bill supposedly SO IMPORTANT to the welfare of all Americans was crafted behind closed doors? Can you tell me WHY a bill supposedly SO IMPORTANT to the welfare of all Americans had debate limited to just 3 hours? Especially since it involves one sixth of the American Economy? Can you explain to me WHY a bill supposedly SO IMPORTANT to the welfare of all Americans was so flawed that they had to BRIBE members of their own party to vote for it?

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:50 am

thomas – 11:47 – no, the speech was a little past my bedtime … I read it this morning when i came in (because, frankly, I have very little patience for the theatricals of the “who clapped the loudest” game played by both sides of the aisle)

Paul

January 28th, 2010
11:50 am

Jenifer

Hello? Hello?

Hi Midori!!! :-)

getalife

January 28th, 2010
11:51 am

Senator Leahy on the Senate floor on the SC outrage:

“That is not the America I grew up in.”

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:52 am

chuck – can you tell me why a bunch of people whining about transparency voted AGAINST posting the text of the bill online?

maybe if you read the news a bit more, you’d stop parroting BS talking points

“with the obvious exception of Bush” – yep. he was all by his lonesome on that one … he wasn’t aided and abetted by a Republican congress.

md

January 28th, 2010
11:52 am

“Obama Takes Crack At GOP For Not Applauding Tax Cuts”

I hope you noticed that Barry was very deliberate to say “income” tax, knowing quite well that he raised taxes on consumers.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
11:53 am

Midori

That first paragraph sounds like a pretty extreme portrayal.

The Court does not ‘insinuate’ itself into the event.

His response was flamboyant?

The argument about Justice Alito breaking protocol is the same argument leveled against Pres Obama. And rejected by his supporters. And even some who aren’t his supporters.

Just a tad hyperbolic to my way of thinking.

Where you been?

Drain The Swamp (NIF)

January 28th, 2010
11:53 am

Jenifer

Yet another post which you will not answer, but that just tells me that you CAN’T answer so:

1) vote as a block, against any legislation of the opposing party, or else suffer the consequences

They are patriots. I would no more want them to capitulate to the intimidation of the fascist than I would have wanted George Washington to surrender to the British.

2) support corporations and large businesses (which “represent” America),

We are a capitalist nation. Our industries are not our enemies, but a government that continues to cripple our industries is our enemy and should and will be sent home. Be brave. Read about how the world’s socialist dictators all did the same thing. You may need the government to survive. There are safety nets for people like you, but the rest of us are free thinking, creative capitalist that want you to get out of our way.

3) be extremely critical of anyone who opposes your positions – call them anti-American, or even terrorists,

Are you kidding me? Have you bothered to see what the conservatives are called on here for not “going along” with what the government controlled media is telling us?

4) and now this “purity” test

Purity test my a**. Is there anything that you are fed by these criminals that you won’t swallow?

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:55 am

thomas – “Are we saying that all elections are bought?”

have you heard of the expression “you got to dance with the one what brung ya”??

thomas

January 28th, 2010
11:55 am

Try to google it or see if it is on You-tube yet.

It was a very odd moment for her. The botox almost slipped and you could for a brief second see an emotion on her face and it didn’t appear to be a happy one.

What you think though, from some of what was said last night it appears our Pres. may have more trouble getting some of what he said he wants from his own party than from the opposition.

Another odd moment was when Obama acknowledged the republicans not giving a standing ovation for one of his ideas.

Not sure I have ever witnessed that before in a public speech.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
11:56 am

Matilda

January 28th, 2010
11:47 am

Take on a second job. That may assist your financial situation.

thomas

January 28th, 2010
11:57 am

USinUk,

Yes i have heard that so you are then saying that elections are bought.

If they are not bought then how did anyone bring you there?

Doesn’t that already happen?

getalife

January 28th, 2010
11:57 am

Alito needs to man up and own his unAmerican decision.

It’s radical right activism.

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
11:58 am

Matilda, thanks. I think.

I almost feel like I want to go throw up for saying what I have. I’m pretty down about all of this, but I’ll come around though. And I promise as long as I breathe I will never stop fighting for what I believe in – liberty and justice for all (people).

No it isn’t good, brother Paul.

These multinationals have an army of lobbyists to represent them. They have ungodly amounts of money to curry favor with the politicians. They testify before Congress endlessly on their own behalf and yet some still contend that they have no input as to how they are regulated.

We (the people) are f’ed.

OK, gotta go and do my part to help pay for the bailouts.

It’s getting close to that time boys and girls…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhIH5D-vrCA

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
11:58 am

Let the dims whine, scream and cry all they want cuz come Nov 2010 the party of maturity, responsibility and candor will be swept back into power.

Midori

January 28th, 2010
11:58 am

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
11:59 am

PS…OboboCare is DEAD!!

Paul

January 28th, 2010
12:00 pm

NIF

[[Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

I thought I'd get some applause on that one.]]

I guess at that point he could have looked at the Democrats and said “I thought I’d get some boos on that one”?

I notice whenever a Republican says “cut taxes” it’s bad, yet here we have a Democratic president extolling the benefits of tax cuts….

thomas

January 28th, 2010
12:00 pm

getalife,

what was un-american about it?

I understand you may not agree with it or even hate it as do many. But un-american. How?

And who set the rules for what is American and what is not?

Please don’t say the constitution either, because that is the beauty of that document. It is never and end, the constitution continually grows and adapts to the needs of the people.

DettafromATL

January 28th, 2010
12:01 pm

Hmm…it’s always amazing how conservatives can find something negative out of anything. I guess if President Obama said it was a beautiful sunny day, conservatives would rant that it’s miserably hot and we’re in a drought! And after eight years of listening to Bush President Obama is a breath of fresh air.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:01 pm

When will Obama and Company be submitting plans for all these nuclear energy facilities and offshore drilling operations?

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:01 pm

thomas – I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that they are bought – but I do think that the specific positions that a candidate will take (on, for example, banking regulation) are.

and, now, what the SCOTUS has done is open the door for unlimited influence by corporations with infinitely deeper pockets than you or I

chuck

January 28th, 2010
12:02 pm

so what you are saying USUK, you CAN’T EXPLAIN THOSE THINGS.

md

January 28th, 2010
12:03 pm

“Another odd moment was when Obama acknowledged the republicans not giving a standing ovation for one of his ideas.”

Noticed that as well. I got the impression he was trying to show them up, same with the SC.

Neither a strategy of co-operation. One keeps poking the bear, one will eventually get bit.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:03 pm

“It was a very odd moment for her. The botox almost slipped and you could for a brief second see an emotion on her face ”

just as a side-note … you really damage your argument when you go after someone for looks / make catty comments on Botox, etc – particularly when it’s aimed at women but never men …

getalife

January 28th, 2010
12:03 pm

thomas,

“But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” President Obama.

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

January 28th, 2010
12:04 pm

5) One more thing that ought to irritate folks. Obama blames the economic crisis of 2008 entirely on banks. True, they bear some blame. But there were other culprits, government ones. The trouble that started with a housing stampede prompted by the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates was compounded by the federal government’s pressure to provide loans for unworthy investors, and worsened by the packaging of these bad into securities marketed around the world. Banks erred, but so did government. But Obama chose to demonize banks. How can that help the economy?-FredBarnes

It’s like we don’t know.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:04 pm

chuck –

“so what you are saying USUK, you CAN’T EXPLAIN THOSE THINGS”

nope – what I’m saying is that you’re very selective in your poutrage.

Midori

January 28th, 2010
12:04 pm

Maybe O’Keefe can appeal this to SCOTUS?

Judge Orders 25-Year-Old O’Keefe To Live With His Parents

http://tinyurl.com/y8s27mt

:lol:

Paul

January 28th, 2010
12:04 pm

Outhouse

Sen Durbin noted the other day Democrats had incorporated 170 Republican-proposed amendments into their health care bill. Republican leaders, such as Sen McCain, have stated they’re ready to negotiate.

So while it appears the current proposal is dead, the desire to bring reforms to our health care system is not. And it will likely enjoy bipartisan support, greater public favorability, and could benefit Pres Obama politically. Yet Republicans are still going along.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
12:05 pm

Factor this decision in your ideology and see if it changes your opinion.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:05 pm

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:03 pm

Some people are just plain ugly.

thomas

January 28th, 2010
12:06 pm

USinUk,

Wouldn’t they cancel each other out though, or does that mean we will no longer have a 2 party system, just a 2 name system?

You know kinda how we do now, except for the extreamist in each camp.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:06 pm

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

January 28th, 2010
12:04 pm

Obama thinks we are as stupid as VP Biden.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:06 pm

gotta say … my big shock for the night was when Obama said the n-word.

nuclear … as in power. it’s time and it needs to be done.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:08 pm

“And it will likely enjoy bipartisan support, greater public favorability, and could benefit Pres Obama politically.”

Uh…yea, and Nancy Pelosi could win the Ms America pageant.

Delta Sierra

January 28th, 2010
12:08 pm

Rude? What’s rude about telling the truth before all the nation and shaming a whole panel of store bought judges. However, asking the congress to pass a bill to overturn the not so supreme court, is like asking the fox to guard the chickens.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:08 pm

outhouse – 12:05 – funny how it’s always wimmen-folk with you guys … it’s never men …

thomas – “Wouldn’t they cancel each other out though, or does that mean we will no longer have a 2 party system, just a 2 name system?” — ?? what would cancel corporate interests out?

getalife

January 28th, 2010
12:09 pm

USinUK,

Yes, he threw the kitchen sink at energy including drill baby drill.

It is his main job creator.

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
12:09 pm

“When will Obama and Company be submitting plans for all these nuclear energy facilities and offshore drilling operations?”

I almost got excited about this one until he mentioned that the House addressed it with “Cap & Trade”. Nevermind. For all the lipservice they pay to “energy independence” it sure is hard to get liberals to actually go with proven technologies to allow us to do so. I am all for green sources too, and don’t even mind some subsidies for it, but don’t tax the hell out of the average American family (who have no choice but fossil fuel power) by essentially doubling or more their energy bills.

thomas

January 28th, 2010
12:10 pm

getalife,
1st,

Foreign companies are still banned as far as I can tell.

2nd,

Still doesn’t answer unamerican. What was unamerican about it?

Seemed as though the SC made a decision and now Congress will try and pass a law to overturn( go around) it. Then the SC can try again if they choose.

Seems as American as it gets to me. Kinda how the balance of powers is said to work.

Just because you do not agree or like the direction it leads does not mean that something or someone is unamerican.

Some would view your stance of saying so as unamerican, not me, but some.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
12:10 pm

Outhouse

[[When will Obama and Company be submitting plans for all these nuclear energy facilities and offshore drilling operations?]]

He’s going to have to – ’cause it sure ain’t gonna come from the Democratic Congressional leadership!

USinUK

[[gotta say … my big shock for the night was when Obama said the n-word.]]

No kidding. Spkr Pelosi’s reaction confirmed my theory: she puts earplugs in her ears, gets a big smile on her face and keeps it there. Then she looks at Steny Hoyer for cues on when to clap, when to stand up and when to sit down.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:10 pm

“The trouble that started with a housing stampede prompted by the Federal Reserve’s low interest rates was compounded by the federal government’s pressure to provide loans for unworthy investors”

never let a good lie die …

may I suggest that Fred revisit what was going on in the economy to prompt low rates? (g’head … we’ll wait)

and, as for the loans, as the song goes “although it’s been said many times, many ways” BANKS WEREN’T THE PRIMARY LENDERS OF SUBPRIME LOANS. Nor did the government mandate that they ignore prudential lending guidelines.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:11 pm

“However, asking the congress to pass a bill to overturn the not so supreme court”,

Can the Congress do that? WOW!

Matilda

January 28th, 2010
12:12 pm

Outhouse, are you telling me there’s something WRONG with being a middle-class American? Or are you agreeing that I should have no representation unless I become, via whatever means, a wealthy American?

BTW, I work full time and then take care of a family when I’m not at work, taking personal responsibility for ensuring my children learn right from wrong, do their homework, participate in sports, and find suitable part-time work when they’re old enough. Were I to neglect them for the love of money, you’d no doubt blame ME for the decline of our society, right? (Hey, thanks for CARING!)

md

January 28th, 2010
12:13 pm

It matters not what Barry says in relation to nuclear power as the dems control congress and they don’t want it.

They”ll just pretend they didn’t hear that one for a few years until it goes away.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:13 pm

“Nor did the government mandate that they ignore prudential lending guidelines.”

True. However Im sure the lenders wouldnt have made these loans to the great unwashed had DC not gave them a wink and a nod.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
12:14 pm

Outhouse

[[And it will likely enjoy bipartisan suppor]]

Republicans were involved in the last go-around, but Democratic talking points wouldn’t acknowledge it. The fact Sen McCain and others have indicated they’re on board meets the definition of “Bipartisan.”

[[greater public favorability]]

’cause it couldn’t be lower than that last attempt

[[and could benefit Pres Obama politically.]]

He’s the only president to have made significant reforms to health care and he did it with Republican support. That’s gotta be a plus.

Uh…yea, and Nancy Pelosi could win the Ms America pageant.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
12:14 pm

thomas,

“Even foreign corporations may now get into the act”

chuck

January 28th, 2010
12:15 pm

Still no explanation USUK. I will be glad to explain YOUR assertion if you will explain the ones that I asked you about. The truth of the matter is that there is NO EXCUSE for the way democrtas conducted themselves in the crafting of this bill and they paid the price for it in Mass. last week.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
12:15 pm

[[Uh…yea, and Nancy Pelosi could win the Ms America pageant.]]

must… resist… commenting…..

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:16 pm

Matilda

January 28th, 2010
12:12 pm

WOW…did I say all that?

@@

January 28th, 2010
12:17 pm

Oops! didn’t mean to reference Obama’s serious personal issues twice although it does warrant repeating….

what with his wounded inner child thing going on.

Curious Observer

January 28th, 2010
12:17 pm

Georgia’s state agencies spent $457.4 million in federal stimulus dollars over the last three months, funding 20,007 jobs, says a state report.

AJC, 1/29/2010

I say again, let these Jeebus people pay for their own wants. Don’t use federal government money (that doesn’t provide any jobs anyway, say our local trolls) to allow them to avoid a tax increase.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
12:18 pm

thomas,

If you think this decision is good for your country, I can’t argue crazy.

It’s not and you know it.

thomas

January 28th, 2010
12:18 pm

Differnet coorporations have different interst. Not all banks want the same regulation and not all coal wants the same regulation.

They obviously want some of the same things done, but there would be some bickering.

Also I give the voters more respect and assume they would notice if all of the sudden there is mass legislation passed benefitting only coorporations.

Sorry I noticed how unclear the prior post was, just too disappointed in my self to change it. :)

md

January 28th, 2010
12:19 pm

chuck,

usuk quits replying or deviates when s/he can no longer answer the question without looking bad. Its all false logic and very rarely looks at the big picture.

thomas

January 28th, 2010
12:19 pm

Actually I don’t know it.

I like to see how things will work before i judge them. Just that not liking prejudice thing in me.

Plus i usually give peole that I know are smarter than me the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Still does not good for the country equal Un-American.

I mean I don’t think its good for the country to openly make fun of, not diasgree but make fun of, our president as i feel it weakens our stance on the global stage.

But I wouldn’t call it unamerican.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:22 pm

Mati, if you are experiencing financial turmoil then perhaps you might be interested in dinner sometime. I know a quaint yet private little hideaway that serves gourmet fish sandwiches, french fried potatoes and frosty beverages. : )

Jay

January 28th, 2010
12:23 pm

md asks:

“Jay,

If all corporations in this country created a subsidiary company such as “Corp XXX News”, would you object, or agree that they then should have freedom of the press under the constitution??”

They would have all the protections of others in the press.

md

January 28th, 2010
12:24 pm

Get,

I favor equal protection under the law. Plain ole consistency.

I would be fine with reversing the decision as long as the news corporations are held to the same standard.

As it was, they weren’t.

NJ

January 28th, 2010
12:24 pm

The primary cause of the economic crisis which actually started in 2007, but was not admitted until 2008 was in fact the Bush Tax cuts. Half of this was directly pumped into “mortgage backed securities” by the top two percent of people getting them and much of the bottom half was used by people buying homes to buy them. And of course the government did not get the money to pay for the tax cuts by removing 200.1 billion dollars a year from government spending. It BORROWED the money to finance the tax cuts from projected Social Security surpluses. Every year the government was taking in a bit more than 200 billion dollars in payroll taxes than it paid out. Bush simply used these projected surpluses. Later on, Bush said these surpluses did not exist. Basically a lie by telling a partial truth. They no longer existed because Bush gave them away.

So this year alone, 200.1 billion dollars of the deficits in the 2010 budget are the result of the Bush tax cuts. The government is still borrowing to pay them. Next we have the two to three supplementals for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars that Bush was asking for every year. Those were also borrowed money. Bush was borrowing between 100 and 200 billion dollars for seven years to finance those wars. This never showed up in the “Bush Deficit budget” because they were supplementals. These wars were funded above and beyond the regular defense budget. However, these wars made up about 17 percent of all the money spend every year of the Bush presidency.
This made Bush deficit spending look much less than it actually was. Obama has chosen to INCLUDE the spending for these wars IN the Defense Budget, making his deficits look larger than Bush’s by comparison.

When we look at total tax cuts in both 2009 and 2010, we get 400.2 billion dollars in Bush Tax Cuts and another 288 billion in tax cuts for the Obama stimulus package. For 2010, over one third of the budget deficits are the result of borrowing for tax cuts. 200.1 billion for one year of Bush Tax cuts that are still running. and 288 billion for Obama’s “stimulus” tax cuts. For a grand total of about 490 billion in tax cuts.

Then we have to look at war costs for another 190 billion alone. 680 billion of this years deficit. Tax cuts and two wars Obama inherited.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:25 pm

outhouse – “True. However Im sure the lenders wouldnt have made these loans to the great unwashed had DC not gave them a wink and a nod.”

bahahahaha … do you realize the interest they were collecting on these loans??? hellsyeah, they’d make the loans – it was too much profit not to

Jay

January 28th, 2010
12:25 pm

But md, the First Amendment EXPLICITLY gives the press that additional protection. It’s right there in the text, plain as day. If you want to add other types of corporations to that protection, you better draft another amendment doing so.

You can’t say it’s there because you think it ought to be.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
12:26 pm

later taters! late for the 5:45 …

md

January 28th, 2010
12:31 pm

“They would have all the protections of others in the press.”

So, do we really want every corporation to have to create that simple corp to have the same rights, just a mere processing of documents.

That doesn’t make sense in reality.

Kamchak

January 28th, 2010
12:34 pm

Sam

January 28th, 2010
12:36 pm

is sam alito not the biggest dork you’ve ever seen?

chuck

January 28th, 2010
12:36 pm

Thanks md. Long history with her on other blogs. She thinks her avoidance techniques are effective. When pressed too much, she just makes stuff up. Not much integrity in her approach.

Matilda

January 28th, 2010
12:40 pm

Outhouse at 12:22, you’re not engaging in class warfare, are you? If I weren’t so trusting that you actually want the best for our nation, I’d suspect you were belittling a middle class working person for not being super-successful like you. You know, the middle class upon whose backs this country subsists…. Nah, you’re too good a guy.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
12:41 pm

They could have done so at any time in the past had they thought it necessary and useful to do so, md.

chuck

January 28th, 2010
12:43 pm

Jay, you never did answer my question about INDIVIDUAL campaign contributions. Dou you support limits on campaign contributions by individuals? If so, how can you justify that in light of your admitting that the 1st amendment applies to PEOPLE?

md

January 28th, 2010
12:53 pm

“They could have done so at any time in the past had they thought it necessary and useful to do so, md.”

Many did, such as GE.

Why should are laws be such that one must search the loopholes to play the game?

Wouldn’t it be easier to allow all or none?

md

January 28th, 2010
12:57 pm

our, not are

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
12:58 pm

Mati…Just because Im able to afford the occassional Gourmet Fish Sandwich by no means should imply Im Super-Successful…Somewhat successful, mmm…at times, maybe. Im middle class just as you.

Whitehat

January 28th, 2010
1:36 pm

The Supreme Court has visisted on us the worst disaster in the history of the US. I just re-read the Constitution. It constantly refers to “persons”. The only reference to businesses is to grant Congress the right to regulate commerce. But I guess that it is unreasonable to expect that a bunch of SC justices appointed by the administration that let businesses run amok and almost destroy the country would make any other decision.

ITP Conservative

January 28th, 2010
10:48 pm

President In Over His Head really showed them last night. He is an embarrassment to the Republic. You guys who voted for him – how is that hope and change working for you? 17.3% real unemployment -massive debt – impressive.

John-Paul

January 31st, 2010
11:34 pm

I can’t believe that there are still morons out there that think the media is liberal…where do they live?As for the Supreme Court, I have never seen such blatant hypocracy and out right disrespect for the average American citizen by this obvious right wing, fat cat court. They have put corporations on equal footing as a human being. HELLO !!! Corporations are not human and therefore do not have the same constitutional rights as people. What idiots! Well, we really shouldn’t be too surprised by this, after-all, the neo-cons are out to make special interests the ruling class in America. I can only hope people get in touch with their representatives and Senators and get some legislation going to stop this obvious abuse of power.
The supreme court …what a joke.!

bee

March 26th, 2010
7:57 pm

The only robes he likes , are the ones in Muslim countries.