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.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:19 am

“And it was “tacky” also.”

I suggest you reread the text – there was nothing tacky about it.

other presidents have criticized SCOTUS decisions – were they “tacky” too? or is it just Obama??

joan

January 28th, 2010
9:19 am

Obama pays no deference to the Constitution, so why should anyone expect him to respect the separation of powers? Frankly, the Supreme Court justices should simply have gotten up en masse and walked out of this diatribe and self-justifying rant. Obama still is not in touch with realities of business, economics, common sense, or anything remotely resembling intelligence, unless of course, he does have as his agenda taking this country down to third world status as quickly as possible.

NRB2

January 28th, 2010
9:20 am

Jay, stop hiding:

————————————————————

Jay whined: “NRB, and how many of those poor children were being sexually abused by your other hero, David Koresh

——————————————————-

Pathetic, Jay.

First of all, was Koresh ever convicted of that?

Second, are those kids better off after Clinton melted their flesh off with napalm and maching gun fire?

Just pointing out the typical liberal hypocrisy, yet again. Just so you guys know where Jay (and other Democrats) are coming from with this I’ll spell it out for you:

Bush wiretaps foreign terrorists, and he’s Hitler incarnate.

Clinton murders 87 women and children at Waco with napalm and maching guns, and he’s the best president ever.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:21 am

After Hillarys recent workout I would imagine she took her Geritol and Milk of Magnesia and was off to bed.

The HildaBeast is looking quite haggard.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:21 am

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

don’t like what the WaPo has to say? don’t buy it. buy the Washington Times (and support Rev Moon) …

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:21 am

UK,

Just obama.

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
9:21 am

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

ooh, ooh, where’s the kill switch? me me me me me!!

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:22 am

“this diatribe and self-justifying rant”

wow. I mean … just … wow.

talk about people who have gone round the bend …

md

January 28th, 2010
9:22 am

“other presidents have criticized SCOTUS decisions – were they “tacky” too? or is it just Obama??”

There is a time and place for everything, last night was not it.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
9:23 am

joan

[[Obama pays no deference to the Constitution,]]

Examples?

[[why should anyone expect him to respect the separation of powers?]]

How did voicing an opinion and calling for another branch to enact legislation which will be reviewed by the Court constitute not respecting separation of powers?

[[unless of course, he does have as his agenda taking this country down to third world status as quickly as possible.]]

Wow…….

Ivan

January 28th, 2010
9:23 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.”

Dang! I’m too late.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:24 am

md, if you want to buy a radio station or start a newspaper or website to spread your views, you are perfectly free to do so. Rupert Murdoch did it successfully; the Moonies tried it and were less successful. Rush Limbaugh is a huge success.

The First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Freedom of the press and the rights of the people. Is the word “corporation” anywhere in there?

You could argue that Congress ought to give corporations the freedoms laid out in “Citizens United.” After all, corporations are an invention of government, so government can limit or expand their powers as it sees fit.

You just can’t claim to find those freedoms for corporations enshrined in the Constitution. Natural rights are for natural persons.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:24 am

“There is a time and place for everything, last night was not it.”

um. I don’t know if you realize … but last night was the State of the Union … it wasn’t a garden party … it wasn’t church … actually last night was EXACTLY the time and place

Lord Help Us

January 28th, 2010
9:24 am

Man, more posters on the right are exposing the depths of their extreme prejudices, irrational beliefs and absolute absence of decency….

A few weeks ago, a poster named Jake posted that a ‘good’ solution to fighting terrorism would be to ‘kill ALL Muslims…just to be sure.’ He was serious…seriously…

Now we have NRB2 and Hard Right Hook who conflate Timothy McVeigh’s intentional murdering of innocent people in OK City with Bill Clinton’s/Janet Reno’s actions in Waco.

FYI – Koresh killed the people at Waco, not Bill Clinton/Janet Reno. Timothy McVeigh killed the people in OK City…

One question, are you serious?

If you are…and I unfortunately believe you actually do irrationally conflate these events…you are truly sick.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:25 am

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

don’t like what the WaPo has to say? don’t buy it. buy the Washington Times (and support Rev Moon) …”

You do realize you are attempting to defend one corporation over another. Either they are all free to speak or none, can’t have it both ways.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:25 am

outhouse – 9:21 – s’what I thought. thanks for your candor.

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
9:25 am

………….. and now he is going to try to repeal “don’t ask/don’t tail” ………. excuse me ……. I meant tell.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:25 am

joan

January 28th, 2010
9:19 am

Idealist never are in touch with anything other than themselves.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:27 am

“it wasn’t church”

It wasnt? And this entire time I was under the impresson if was the “First Church of Jesus Christ Obama”. Lettuce worship the annointed one.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:28 am

It was more Reno being the Waco murderer than Clinton.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:28 am

md –

“You do realize you are attempting to defend one corporation over another. Either they are all free to speak or none, can’t have it both ways”

actually, what you’re talking about is 2 different things. free speech via newspapers and free speech via campaign contributions.

I don’t think that newspapers or ANY corporation should have the same rights of speech as an individual when it comes to campaign contributions. period.

now, if coca-cola wants to place an ad in a paper or leaflet or buy billboards, they can have a ball. but BUY the government – no. absolutely not.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:29 am

“um. I don’t know if you realize … but last night was the State of the Union … it wasn’t a garden party … it wasn’t church … actually last night was EXACTLY the time and place”

If you say so.

I don’t belong to the good ole boy congres club, so I could really care less, but they are the ones that complained about breaking decorum – not me.

Consistency would help, but doubt that will ever happen.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:29 am

Again md, the Constitution explicitly singles out a particular type of corporation, the press, and guarantees it that freedom. If our Founding Fathers meant to extend that freedom to all corporations, they would have done so.

They didn’t.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:30 am

“dont ask dont tell”

Kinda like Obama stance on HCare.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:30 am

Sorry Jay, but your argument only works if all those folks are voicing their opinions on their own.

They are not, they are using a corporate entity to voice an opinion, and not necessarily their own.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
9:30 am

Dear Jay @ 9:24, I respectfully correct you. The Constitution does not “enshrine freedoms for natural persons,” it prohibits Congress from passing laws. The distinction is not meaningless.

Mick

January 28th, 2010
9:31 am

**There is a time and place for everything, last night was not it**

Maybe you’re right, obama broke the first rule of godfather 101 – keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:31 am

In fact, I’d like to ask all the “originalists” and “textualists” on this blog to cite the part of the Constitution that says corporations must be granted the free speech rights of a natural person.

Dave R., you’re supposed to be a Constitutional scholar: Where is the necessary wording in the document?

Lord Help Us

January 28th, 2010
9:32 am

Thanks Turd Outhouse…comparing Janet Reno to Tim McVeigh…

You, Jake, NRB2 and Hard Right Hook (for starters) represent a very small (and small minded) lunatic fringe of American society…Congratulations…

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:32 am

md –

“If you say so”

um. I’m not the only one who says so – it actually WAS the state of the union. heck, Obama even opened his speech with what the state of the union is and its place in the constitution.

“they are the ones that complained about breaking decorum – not me”

“they” complained??? republicans complained … because they were called to the carpet for their behavior last year …

Citizen of the World

January 28th, 2010
9:32 am

There’s a good documentary out there — called The Corporation — that does a good job of explaining how corporations came to become an entity in the eyes of the law in the same way that a person is. And how they exploit that status. Because if corporations are “people,” they are very rich, powerful people, and we all know how rich people seem to be able to get away with (everything up to and including) murder.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
9:32 am

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
9:33 am

Dear Jay, I trust the “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” is sufficient to satisfy?

md

January 28th, 2010
9:35 am

“Again md, the Constitution explicitly singles out a particular type of corporation, the press, and guarantees it that freedom. If our Founding Fathers meant to extend that freedom to all corporations, they would have done so.”

I’d like for you to show that line please.

I recall “freedom of the press”, but nowhere does it say “freedom of the corporate press”.

I doubt seriously the constitution gives unequal rights anywhere.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2010
9:35 am

In a word…NO!

There’s your sign.

Road Scholar

January 28th, 2010
9:38 am

Since corporations have the same rights as people, shouldn’t they be taxed at the same rates and conditions as a person?

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:38 am

“I recall “freedom of the press”, but nowhere does it say “freedom of the corporate press”.”

ohmygod … seriously??? that’s your argument?

what do you think the press IS, if not a business???

good grief.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:39 am

““they are the ones that complained about breaking decorum – not me”

“they” complained??? republicans complained … because they were called to the carpet for their behavior last year …”

Think Wilson – decorum – consistency.

Again, they weren’t my “rules”, but their own.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
9:39 am

NRB hasn’t stopped drinking since last night.

Take a break, fella.

jokerman

January 28th, 2010
9:40 am

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

Good one, Jay.

I think we ought to get three out of storage for NRB2, Ridgerunner, and Ragnar.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:41 am

“Since corporations have the same rights as people, shouldn’t they be taxed at the same rates and conditions as a person?”

Since there is no such thing as “corporate tax”, good luck with that.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
9:42 am

Yeah, the cons freedom argument is pathetic when the SC allows unlimited foreign donations.

cons don’t care about freedom.

That is a lie.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:43 am

md –

“Think Wilson – decorum – consistency”

dude. seriously. stop.

you’re honestly comparing someone who interrupted the president to yell YOU LIE with “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.”

he didn’t accuse them of anything. he didn’t call them names. heck, he didn’t even say he thought it was a bad ruling.

Bosch

January 28th, 2010
9:43 am

USinUK,

Sorry, late this morning – here’s the cleaner.

I think last night was the PERFECT time to call out the obvious judicial activism (hehehehehe – can’t resist) demonstrated by the SCOTUS. Let’s face it, more people watch the State of the Union address than they keep up with Supreme Court decisions, and a majority of the folks watching probably hadn’t even heard of it.

Paul,

I liked your thought about let’s see if Congress will now pass a law prohibiting foreign corporations from contributing to campaigns. I mean, if they really are serious about special interests getting involved, then let’s see if they put their money where their mouth is.

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
9:44 am

Think Wilson – decorum – consistency.

unless I missed where Obama pointed at one of the Five Stooges and screamed “you lie!” at the top of his lungs, this argument makes no sense at all.

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
9:44 am

Alito’s ‘You Lie’ Moment

Those jerks on the Supreme Court who decided on behalf of corporations deserve to be put in stocks in the village square, for attempting to destroy the country, it’s social contract, and enslave every man, woman and child in this country who doesn’t happen to be a billionaire or near billionaire.

Calling them out in the State Of The Union speech is letting them off easy. People died to protect America’s social contract. They ended it with a stroke of a pen. These are also the same people who forced George Bush upon the country and the world as well.

They knew what they were doing when they made these decisions, it was purposeful and they knew it was political.

Well, if they are going to play politics, with professional politicians, Obama let them understand what the field of politics is all about.

Again, they got off easy. The damage they’ve done to the country knows no bounds, AND THEY FULLY KNOW WHAT THEY DID. They aren’t idiots, just very, very, bad people.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/sotu-live-blog.html

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
9:44 am

day-um, I owe USinUK a fizzy beverage.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:44 am

usinuk,

It is actually a very simple argument, do I need to go slower for you.

Decorum is decorum. They established it themselves. Doesn’t matter what the circumstances were/are.

According to THEM, decorum was broken in BOTH instances.

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
9:46 am

Ridgerunner

January 28th, 2010
8:42 am

Good morning, Corporal. I hope you are having a very good day.

Bosch

January 28th, 2010
9:46 am

sfd,

I’ll pitch in halfsies.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:46 am

dB – nah – we’re all singing in the same chorus … but thanks! (and you said it far more succintly)

:-)

Bosch –

“Sorry, late this morning – here’s the cleaner.”

I don’t know about you, but I wanted to nominate his post for Funny of the Day …

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
9:46 am

If you’re wanting to know what the sanitized-for-wingnut-consumption of a “news” site is “reporting”, I went there so you don’t have to:

“Obama took the unusual step of scolding the high court”

and

“A Defiant and Delusional Obama”

and

“Obama’s Claims vs. Reality”

And now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to jump in a tub of bleach.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
9:47 am

Dear joker @ 9:40, with the quality of intellectual discourse here today, I could use one of those couches for a nap.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
9:48 am

The problem with this treason is we depend on a corrupt Congress to change it .

Game over.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
9:48 am

“Obama let them understand what the field of politics is all about.”

Ya…all talk, no action.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
9:50 am

Last night in that Chamber all 3 branches of American government were
represented. It was the perfect time for the President to call out Dems about running for the hills, the Reps for all that no no no nonsense
and SCOTUS for its corporate sell out.

And…..AMERICA LOVED IT.

Why waste nice furniture on the “swoonish”, save the fainting couches, let ‘em hit the floor.

Thud.

DirtyDawg

January 28th, 2010
9:50 am

Don’t know if it’s been addressed, but I wonder just what the Alito (I think that’s the one) ‘that’s just wrong’ comment was referring to? That Obama would claim that the 5-4 ruling was wrong or that he shouldn’t bring it up in The State of the Union Address? I mean if that ruling doesn’t say tons about the state of this ‘Union’ then nothing does.

Also, we make a lot about the ability for foreign-owned corporations to spend money influencing elections, how about all the multi-national ones. Those that are, technically, based here but have at least as much interests overseas and probably hide much of their income there? Or, and this one got me, MSNBC’s crack about Dick Cheney, as CEO, having to ’sign-off’ on any Haliburton-paid spots – I mean, didn’t Haliburton move it’s headquarters to Dubai or someplace? Do they still have a right to influence who’s in Congress that’s keeping them in the lavish, no-bid, contracts to which they’ve become accustomed?

Finally, it really is pretty transparent that the Republicans would take their position in favor of unlimited corporate monies in elections, after all they are, to a person, only in it for the money. We’re talking winning the Mega-Ball and Power-Ball on the same day for these greedy SOBs and DOBs.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
9:51 am

The state of our union is sold to the highest world bidder.

His speech last night was a campaign speech to win Independents.

He gave the dems issues to run on.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:51 am

“ohmygod … seriously??? that’s your argument?

what do you think the press IS, if not a business???

good grief.”

In the time when the constitution was written, the “press” was a solitary guy with a printing press, hardly the mega corporations of the media today.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
9:51 am

What md is saying is that “You lie” shouted out by someone in a crowd at a speaker who has the floor, is just good manners.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:51 am

To paraphrase the poet, Ragnar, if you prick a corporation, does it bleed? If you tickle it, does it laugh? If you poison it, does it die?

For almost 220 years, the First Amendment was understood to apply to persons, part of the theory of the natural rights of man that our Founding Fathers found so influential. Only now do we learn that it applies as well to an inanimate government construct called the corporation.

Jimmy62

January 28th, 2010
9:54 am

Funny, Bush was both an evil mastermind, and a bumbling fool… So similar criticism of Obama is certainly nothing new. Interesting how liberals, who used to talk about how great it would be if Bush was assasinated, act like criticism of the President is some brand new thing, now that Obama is in office. How quickly they forget how much they acted like 2 year olds the last 8 years.

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
9:54 am

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:55 am

In other words, Whack, the Founding Fathers were silent on the issue and left it to the Supreme Court to INVENT this right later.

Thanks for the explanation.

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
9:55 am

Jay,

Freedom of the press would have been specifically included because the founding fathers were writing from their experiences under the British monarchy, which would often go after the press for writing articles that were not under the approval of the government. The founding fathers realized, rightly, that government can get strong enough to try to flex its muscles and silence the press into submission. Corporations were not oppressive nor were they being oppressed in colonial times, so this would not have been something they would have specifically mentioned. It is up to SCOTUS then to decide the Constitutionality of corporate freedoms. Would anybody argue that corporations should have some freedoms? Are we not still a free market economy?

Hmm, and as much as President Obama may demonize FoxNews (that is his right) he has no power to silence them. The way it should be.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:55 am

“In the time when the constitution was written, the “press” was a solitary guy with a printing press, hardly the mega corporations of the media today.”

ohfercryingoutloud … do you honestly think every “newspaper” was Thomas Payne??? good god, man, get your head out of your posterior. Newspapers and broadsheets have been around for hundreds of years, employed full staffs of people (not your romantic notion of one lone typesetter) and were a BUSINESS. they were there to MAKE MONEY. always have been.

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2010
9:56 am

Since there is no such thing as “corporate tax”, good luck with that.

I’m sure they won’t miss all those government incentives then.

The Seeker

January 28th, 2010
9:56 am

How else would you expect a pompous, arrogant jackass to act?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
9:56 am

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do any of our leftist friends assert that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” means “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except for corporations not engaged in media presentation.”

Paul

January 28th, 2010
9:57 am

Jenifer

[[Those jerks on the Supreme Court]]

Would those be the same jerks who gave us rulings on how to treat enemy combatants, permitting the EPA to expand its regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming… those jerks?

Or are they only jerks when you don’t like the ruling?

[[People died to protect America’s social contract.]]

Who died? What social contract? Is it a contract on how to be sociable? People died for that?

Is there a difference between playing politics and rendering a decision that has political implications? Are you saying the Executive should interact with the Judiciary on different levels, depending upon the type of cases under consideration?

[[The damage they’ve done to the country knows no bounds]]

No bounds? Is that like, infinity? Extends into all areas? Affects everything, everywhere, for all time?

[[ AND THEY FULLY KNOW WHAT THEY DID]]

And here I thought the Court doesn’t know they’re the Supreme Court of the land, charged by the Constitution with very specific responsibilities. Golly gee, I didn’t know they knew that!

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
9:57 am

I recognize that at least one “constitutional law scholar” and four supreme court justices read the constitution differently than I. They are just wrong.

RW-(the original)

January 28th, 2010
9:57 am

Who gets to define “the press?” Surely it can’t be somebody employed in the print media that wants to limit the competition.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:57 am

Jay – what I want to know is, if corporations are now endowed with the right to free speech, are they also endowed with the right to bear arms? so, can the coca cola building load up on anti-aircraft guns on the top of its building and shoot at suspected Pepsi personnel???

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

January 28th, 2010
9:57 am

cor⋅po⋅ra⋅tion –noun- any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

Just sayin…..

TaxPayer

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

McCain is rolling over in his bed. After all that hard work with Feingold. Keating 5, meet Fleeting 5.

md

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

“What md is saying is that “You lie” shouted out by someone in a crowd at a speaker who has the floor, is just good manners.”

Do you need a little help deciphering my 9:44, or is that too hard to grasp.

Their silent “rules” were broken in both instances – not too hard to understand.

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

Our “leaders” have all but given up on “we the people” as the ONLY rightful possessors of the supreme and independent power or authority in government.

The money powers now own it, lock, stock and Walmart.

And the SCOTUS says its fine.

Time to start taking those Mandarin classes in earnest…

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

liberals, who used to talk about how great it would be if Bush was assasinated,

We didn’t want him assassinated…we just wanted him to eat more pretzels.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

RW –

“Who gets to define “the press?” Surely it can’t be somebody employed in the print media that wants to limit the competition”

actually, the courts have been doing it, with the onset of blogging and lawsuits against bloggers …

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

McCain Seen Mouthing ‘Blame It On Bush’ When Obama Outlines The Problems He Inherited.

President Obama was not “blaming Bush”.

He was just stating facts that are known in the reality based universe and are consistently ignored in the mainstream media.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/27/mccain-sotu-obama/

Paul

January 28th, 2010
9:59 am

DirtyDawg

MAC addressed that at 9:03 on the prior page.

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
9:59 am

“liberals, who used to talk about how great it would be if Bush was assasinated,”

criminey – we didn’t want him assassinated – then Cheney would have been in charge – we wanted him to remain hale and healthy!

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:00 am

Dear Jay, you err. For almost 150 years the Constitution was read as a constraint on the central government. Abolishing the constraint by fiat is not the appropriate way to change the meaning nor the purpose of the Constitution. We have a means of amendment, when appropriate.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
10:01 am

“”"Do any of our leftist friends assert that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech” means “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except for corporations not engaged in media presentation.””"”

Yep.

md

January 28th, 2010
10:02 am

“ohfercryingoutloud … do you honestly think every “newspaper” was Thomas Payne??? good god, man, get your head out of your posterior. Newspapers and broadsheets have been around for hundreds of years, employed full staffs of people (not your romantic notion of one lone typesetter) and were a BUSINESS. they were there to MAKE MONEY. always have been”

You are actually trying to make an arguement that the Constitution was written to favor one group over another? For unequal rights?

You have got to be kidding me.

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:03 am

“We didn’t want him assassinated…we just wanted him to eat more pretzels.”

Hand over the screen cleaner NOW!

WyldByllHyltnyr

January 28th, 2010
10:03 am

Jay
9:29 am

“Again md, the Constitution explicitly singles out a particular type of corporation, the press, and guarantees it that freedom. If our Founding Fathers meant to extend that freedom to all corporations, they would have done so.”

Now there you go again, Jay. The constitution does not expressly mention any no type of legal entity. Rather, the constitution uses the phrase “press” as a reference to a means of public expression without regard to whether or not the author is an individual or legal entity. Isn’t that true, Jay?

Even if one were to buy off on your perverted and inaccurate characterization of the constitution, one could reasonably extend your view of the constituiton’s protection to Publix, or for that matter, any corporation, that publishes a weekly flyer or newsletter. Now couldn’t one.

Why should the NY Times daily newspaper have any more expression that, if if care to undertake such a project, the WWE’s daily news letter. Pray tell why, Jay?

jokerman

January 28th, 2010
10:04 am

“McCain Seen Mouthing ‘Blame It On Bush’ When Obama Outlines The Problems He Inherited.”

Jenifer actually he was asking Graham if he got the memo that they could pick up some rugs real cheap in Iraq.

Sunshine and Thunder

January 28th, 2010
10:04 am

Instead of bashing the SCOTUS, why don’t you liberals take on education?. Maybe if the government would actually educate our citizens we wouldn’t have to worry about a TV ad brainwashing their little minds.

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
10:07 am

Jenifer,
I’d expect those numbers out of an Obama speech. He is a great orator! I liked it, even if not all the ideas he espoused.
Are there any breakdowns in the numbers as to how many were dem/repub/independent? My guess is many GOP voters did not bother to tune in. Like many Dems could not bear to listen to Bush’s.

I would not go assuming that suddenly 83% of the populace approves of the job he is doing though.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
10:07 am

Maybe if the government would actually educate our citizens we wouldn’t have to worry about a TV ad brainwashing their little minds.

But what would happen to Fox news’ ratings? Someone must protect the O’Reilly ratings!!

What will WSB do without the Boortz and Hannity listeners if people get learned and can think for themselves?

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:09 am

On second thought, maybe McCain was actually cheering Obama on.

Blame it on Bush!

The man would have to hate Bush after what he did to him in 2000.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:09 am

Ragnar Danneskjöld

Ragnar writes:

“I recognize that at least one “constitutional law scholar” and four supreme court justices read the constitution differently than I. They are just wrong.”

And I recognize five Supreme Court justices read the Constitution differently than I do, and that five is more than four. But at least spare me the sanctimonious claims of adherence to originalism, textualism, stare decisis and judicial restraint, because none of those were in evidence in that ruling.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
10:09 am

Whacks Eloquent

Those were Twitter polls. Nuff said -

Del

January 28th, 2010
10:09 am

Me thinks the Commander and Chief Narcissist lost the Supreme Court swing vote. I’ll bet the SUPLIBS were cringing when he made those remarks.

Doggone/GA

January 28th, 2010
10:10 am

“You are actually trying to make an arguement that the Constitution was written to favor one group over another? For unequal rights?”

Yep

RW-(the original)

January 28th, 2010
10:10 am

actually, the courts have been doing it

And they have spoken so why all the uproar?

/Actually that sudden twist in the “logic” that dominates the day shift has my head spinning so I think I’ll head to the forest in search of a little sanity. See y’all on the night shift. Can we get a Palin bashing piece by any chance?

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:11 am

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
9:58 am

No dice sweety. This is Obamas mess.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
10:11 am

Good panel discussion/analysis on NPR’s Diane Rehm show online now.

E.J. Dionne, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, Washington Post columnist, and author of “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right” and of “Stand Up Fight Back.”

Byron York, chief political correspondent, “Washington Examiner,” and author of “The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, White House correspondent, “The New York Times”

Hef

January 28th, 2010
10:13 am

Before last nights off broadway one man show “Blame”, Diane Sawyer was perfect for the red carpet interviews and critique of clothing. I thought I was watching the E network!

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:13 am

Dear Jay, you err. There is nothing more original than the plain language of the Constitution. I do not deny that I am a jerk for all purposes, but that Supreme Court majority ruling did refer to the original language pretty pointedly.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:13 am

“…I would not go assuming that suddenly 83% of the populace approves of the job he is doing though.”

Jenifer and UK would! Come to think of it…So would I!!!!

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:14 am

Republicans Sit On Hands As POTUS Calls On Banks To Pay Back Bailout Funds

It’s so sad to see these prideful self-serving ideologues playing politics while the American people lose because of their lack of leadership. How anyone could vote for these losers is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCcMBT0bg7w&feature=player_embedded

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
10:14 am

Outhouse

You’re right. It is Obama’s mess – to clean up.

It was Bush’s mess to make. ( and a grand job he did indeed)

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
10:15 am

“Me thinks the Commander and Chief Narcissist lost the Supreme Court swing vote.”

Did he ever have it? The SCOTUS has leaned to the constructionist side since Alito, thankfully. This “living, breathing document” crap that Ol’ Billy suggested is nonsense. That’s what AMENDMENTS are for…

Jay, still waiting for you to weigh in on my comment that corporations were irrelevant in colonial times…

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:16 am

“There is nothing more original than the plain language of the Constitution.”

So where, in that original plain language, does it state that corporations must be given the natural rights of actual citizens?

getalife

January 28th, 2010
10:16 am

Of course, the dems knew this was coming and chose to make it a political issue.

They want unlimited donations too.

They will write a bill full of loopholes for their donors.

All Americans should be outraged if they care about their country.

cons have proved over and over they only care about their corrupt party not their country.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:17 am

UH…SCOUSE ME butt unemployment rise from 8 to 10% and many other “bad just bad” things happened under Obamas watch.

No dice sweety. Obamas got this one!

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:17 am

As a strict constructionist Whacks, cite the relevant language that strictly constued confers this right on corporations that even you acknowledge the Founding Fathers never conceived of.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
10:17 am

The repubs are just angry Obama is trying to get the banks to pay back the tax dollars Bush gave them.

“They worked their butts off getting us in this hole. they deserve every penny.”

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:18 am

I addressed your claim above, Whacks. You actually prove my point. The Founding Fathers did not address corporations, as you say. So how then did they grant those unaddressed corporations the rights they suddenly seem to have?

The Supreme Court invented those rights, because as you say, the Founding Fathers didn’t do it.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:18 am

“…American people lose because of their lack of leadership.”

Ya…the American people/dimocrats have issue accepting leadership from anyone. Even themselves.

chuck

January 28th, 2010
10:19 am

Jay, you stated that “corporations are not people”. The fact is that corporations are OWNED by people and the decision as to which candidate to support is made by those people. The truth of the matter is that a “corporation” can’t make decisions of ANY KIND. Only the people who are elected by the owners (stock holders) to RUN the corporations can make those decisions. AND, unlike the unions you so heartily support, if the OWNERS don’t like what the “corporation” supports, they can sell their shares of stock and by shares in a company more inline with their way of thinking. UNIONS on the other hand make those decisions using money from people who are forced to join the union in order to work in that industry.

So Jay, do you support “right to work” laws? OR do you think that everyone should be forced to join a union even if they are philosophically opposed to them? Do you support the proposal for unlimited power of unions to run ads for candidates that the democrats pushed so hard for a few years ago?

Also, since you acknowledge the wording of the Constitution in terms of free speech, do you support the right OF INDIVIDUALS (people) to donate as much as they want to to candidates, or do you agree with the McCain Feingold limits?

You can’t have it both ways.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:19 am

“The repubs are just angry Obama is trying to get the banks to pay back the tax dollars Bush gave them.”

You hit the nail on the head with that one and another personal favorite.

md

January 28th, 2010
10:20 am

“Republicans Sit On Hands As POTUS Calls On Banks To Pay Back Bailout Funds”

You are aware that the consumer is the one paying back the consumer – right.

We paid taxes to bail them out……

They raised their fees……

We paid the fees…….

We paid twice…….

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
10:20 am

Someone send Alito, Roberts, and Thomas a case of pretzels.

Sign it “With Love, 41 and 43.”

RW-(the original)

January 28th, 2010
10:20 am

Oh, one last thing.

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

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 [sic] 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.”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

Good points, but that dude needs spell check worse than I do.

Later!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:22 am

“You can’t have it both ways.”

YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN, YES WE…

FrankLeeDarling

January 28th, 2010
10:22 am

part of the problem is we have substituted the word “money” for “speech”

Del

January 28th, 2010
10:22 am

“Did he ever have it”

My point was that Kennedy has voted with the left side of the court before. I wonder how he might feel now after B.O.’s state of the union insult that of course was also directed at him.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:22 am

Chuck, if Congress passed a law stating that a corporation could “speak” with unlimited expenditures ONLY if approved by the owners of said corporation, the shareholders, I would have less problem with this ruling. The corporation would then be acting more like an association of people.

But the reality is that in the modern corporation, shareholders have almost no power over the entity they are supposed to own. When the corporation speaks now, it is in defense not of the shareholders but of the interests of those managing the corporation.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:23 am

Dear Jay @ 10:16, you confuse language and effect. The Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. When the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, the effect of that prohibition is to give the same rights to all theoretical beneficiaries of Constitutional protection.

We would agree that there is an open question whether the language of the Constitution grants Constitutional protections to non-citizens, and I think the Court reserved ruling on that issue. We probably don’t want to get into that area of jurisprudence, but perhaps we can broadly agree that even domestic corporations have Constitutional protections, e.g., right to counsel, right to trial?

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
10:24 am

Chuck

Joe, my dog, is owned by two persons.

Wait till you see the attack ad he has planned on Republicans who
like cats.

getalife

January 28th, 2010
10:27 am

Yeah, the unions and foreign countries can give them unlimited bribes too and surprised the cons are for it.

Budweiser is a good example of foreign interests. Globalization like the Saudis owning Murdoch.

You will need that gene to determine right from wrong or the common sense gene to care about this treason.

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
10:28 am

So the banksters and casino capitalists, aided and abetted by their paid-off, unindicted co-conspirators in government, came within an eyelash of sending America over the cliff with their orgy of greed and crimes that all came to fruition in September 2008.

And the conned think they need even more power.

They won’t be happy until they let them succeed.

I’m beginning to think the unthinkable and that Lincoln was right… “corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

God help us.

LibraryJim

January 28th, 2010
10:28 am

“A century of law”?? I didn’t realize McCain-Feingold had been around for 100 years already.

chuck

January 28th, 2010
10:28 am

Additionally Jay, In spite of the general lack of class exhibited by Obama, what he said was a LIE. Foreign corporations AND foreign citizens in general are specifically prohibited from contributing to any candidate or issue campaign. This ruling did NOT CHANGE THAT LAW.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:29 am

Dear Jay @ 10:22, I think Congress would still be estopped from abridging freedom of speech. “Congress shall make no law” really means Congress shall make no law. If your proposal would have the effect of abridging speech, it is a prohibited law.

pat

January 28th, 2010
10:29 am

I like how the most partisan president in history, calling for bi-partisanship….That was rich.\

Again he talked to much he could have cut that speech down to 30 minutes. He didn’t say anything of substance for the first 15 minutes. People are hurting? duh. While they were, he was trying to ram a terrible healthcare scam down the throats of the country…
You want these people to have insurance? Get them working again, that would fix most of it. Second, insurance is only part of the problem, he thinks is the whole thing which means he has no clue what the f@# he is taking about.

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
10:29 am

Well Jay, what is SCOTUS supposed to do when there is a gray area in the Constitution? That is where they have to read between the lines. A constructionist would attempt to pull general ideas from other parts to apply. Well the Constitution lends itself to establishing freedoms, so default to the “freer” option would make sense, including extending freedom to corportations, yes. Nowhere in their decision did SCOTUS say that corporations were individuals, could vote, etc. They were just saying that as a collection of individuals they should be allowed freedom to speak, and support whom they want.
The Founding Fathers did a lot more guaranteeing than denying. It makes sense to extend freedom where possible in this nation. At least I like to hope freedom is still the rule.

md

January 28th, 2010
10:31 am

Gosh, now I get it, what Jay and others are trying to argue is that ALL corporations need to start their own publications – which should be easy in todays techno world – and then everything will be hunkydory.

Maybe that is why GE, a corporation that didn’t have any “press”, bought NBC/Universal. So they could comply with the constitution and be considered the “press”.

Normal

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am

cor⋅po⋅ra⋅tion –noun- any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.

Gosh, I never knew my Boat Squadron was a Corporation…go figure?

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am

Ragnar writes:

“We would agree that there is an open question whether the language of the Constitution grants Constitutional protections to non-citizens, and I think the Court reserved ruling on that issue.”

First, that statement would seem to imply that corporations are now citizens, would it not?

Second, previous and longstanding court rulings have conferred limited rights on corporations to act AS IF they were persons within the sphere of their legal purpose. That purpose is very limited: to maximize shareholder profit. I have no problem with any of that.

But outside that economic realm, they do not have and should not have the rights of full citizens. They cannot die in battle, they cannot send their children off to die in battle, they cannot die for lack of health care, they cannot starve, they cannot pray to their God, they cannot lose their house to unethical mortgage brokers, they cannot experience and care about many many things that human beings experience and care about when they engage in free debate with other human beings.

pat

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am

Oh and the whole “foreign companies” can come in and start campaigning is bogus. Constitutional rights extend only to citizens….Toyota does not have the protection of the constitution, but it’s employees on U.S. soil do.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am

Reps dont like cats.

FinnMcCool

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am

You folks might want to read “Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In the US” cause we are all going to be working for minimum wage once they outsource all the thinking jobs to India and China.

I’m learning Mandarin so I can read the ingredients on the Frosted Flakes box and the instructions on the next great Apple pod product.

Curious Observer

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am

We didn’t want him assassinated…we just wanted him to eat more pretzels.

Pass the screen cleaner, please.

jim

January 28th, 2010
10:33 am

It was a cheap shot at the Supreme Court. Obama defines his Presidency of empty promises which he can’t fulfil but covers up by blaming everyone else.

md

January 28th, 2010
10:34 am

“But the reality is that in the modern corporation, shareholders have almost no power over the entity they are supposed to own. When the corporation speaks now, it is in defense not of the shareholders but of the interests of those managing the corporation.”

And that differs from the AJC how?

chuck

January 28th, 2010
10:34 am

Jay, that defense is a little lame since you don’t apply it equally to Unions. Regardless, if “stockholders” allow their corporation to act against their wishes, they deserve what they get. Every stockholder has the right to attend stockholder meetings. They can vote their conscience on issues brought before the board. Whether or not you agree, the corporation IS an association of people.

Normal

January 28th, 2010
10:35 am

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:32 am
Reps dont like cats

…and that is their problem…

chuck

January 28th, 2010
10:35 am

Granny, are you off your meds again sugar?

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:36 am

Chuck, these issues cannot be brought before the board. There is no legal mechanism for doing so.

And I have no problem including unions in all this. What applies to corporations should apply to unions as well.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:36 am

Dear Jay @ 10:32, Corporations shall not even have a right to trial? No right to counsel? You would abolish those fundamental rights for corporations?

Del

January 28th, 2010
10:36 am

“But the reality is that in the modern corporation, shareholders have almost no power over the entity they are supposed to own.”

You could substitute government for “corporation” and voters for “shareholders” and be making an accurate statement. Of course fortunately, voters can vote and shareholders can both vote and pursue legal recourse.

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:36 am

“They were just saying that as a collection of individuals they should be allowed freedom to speak, and support whom they want.”

Whacks, as a strict constructionist, WHERE did they say that?

Again, I accept that this is now the law of the land. Just don’t try to sell me on this strict construction baloney any more, because this ruling was a great reach without textual foundation.

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:36 am

Key RNC Members To Oppose ‘Purity Resolution’

What? You mean they couldn’t find enough virgins in their midst?

Not even the guys living in the house on C Street?

Seriously though, looking at many of the current policies of the GOP:

1) vote as a block, against any legislation of the opposing party, or else suffer the consequences,
2) support corporations and large businesses (which “represent” America),
3) be extremely critical of anyone who opposes your positions – call them anti-American, or even terrorists,
4) and now this “purity” test

– look up the definition of FASCISM. You will notice that the only thing missing is a rejection of democracy as a way of governing. Of course, to listen to the right-wing bloggers here, anyone who is not a conservative doesn’t really have the right to vote (that’s why a Democratic majority in both houses is dismissed by right-wingers as not representing “real” Americans).

The sad thing is that Fascism is a very strong and popular form of government. Growing up I didn’t think I’d live to see it in America, but I guess I was wrong.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/key-rnc-members-to-oppose-purity-resolution/

Jay

January 28th, 2010
10:39 am

No, Ragnar, I would not. Those suits and trials would presumably be brought regarding the corporation’s activities within the economic sphere, so of course the corporation should be able to defend its activities within that sphere. Again, I have no problem with that whatsoever.

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
10:39 am

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:39 am

Also, dear Jay, how do you get around the Constitutional “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Aren’t you changing the meaning of “shall make no law” to facilitate your desire to abridge the speech of otherwise lawful entities?

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:41 am

Jay,

Does it ever get wearisome to you, having to explain every little thing that folks should already know? Just wondering.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
10:41 am

chuck

don’t need meds. I eat right, stay active and am from the deep end of the gene pool, punkin.

ROLLERGIRL

January 28th, 2010
10:41 am

Bookman says..

“In other words, Whack, the Founding Fathers were silent on the issue and left it to the Supreme Court to INVENT this right later.”

No.., they left it to the supreme court to INTERPRET INTENT,later, Bookman…… much like roe V wade.. the constitution is silent on abortion, but you can discern INTENT that government not be allowed to meddle in a womans choice involving her body…

mmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm chocolate the clown, 1 and done

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
10:42 am

Finn wants both cats and dogs to eat more pretzels…

chuck

January 28th, 2010
10:42 am

Jay, you didn’t answer the question about campaign spending limits for INDIVIDUALS. Do support that?

jconservative

January 28th, 2010
10:42 am

History. Obama is not the first president to publicly criticize the Supreme Court and will not be the last. Just off the top of my memory, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Roosevelt.

The Bill of Rights, as written, refer to the rights “of the people” over and over. Congress has extended some of the rights to artificial persons, corporations, under their authority to regulate commerce. The Court has followed suit.

Obama is correct. The courts ruling in Citizens United makes no distinction between a corporation chartered in the US by US citizens and a corporation chartered in the US by Russian or French citizens.
If it is a “domestic” corporation (chartered in the US), then the ruling applies.

Which is strange. The court has ruled that State laws mandating that proof of US citizenship to vote, i.e. picture ID as in Georgia, are valid to protect the right to vote. Yet in Citizens United they allow non-US citizens to produce ads to influence US elections. In the past we have always leveled strong criticism at foreigners and foreign governments for even commenting on US politics. Now we are enshrining that “right” to do so in US law.

In the 220 year history of the Supreme Court it has never been fully insulated from the popular political process. But in recent years we have come closer to insulating the court than ever. What Obama did was
punch a hole in that insulation.

And I for one applaud that. The decision of the court last year in the New Haven firemen case was the last straw for me. That decision created a new law on the books written, not by a majority in Congress & signed by a popularity elected president, but by 5 people on the Court.
This decision is the same, a new law now on the books created by 5 people. This is “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench” at its most blatant.

I cannot imagine a legitimate conservative having anything but contempt for this decision.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
10:42 am

Jenifer

In recent history, what were examples of Fascist governments? Nazis in 1930s-1940s Germany? Mussoline in Italy? Stalin as dictator in USSR? Am I correct in listing those?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
10:43 am

Dear Jenifer @ 10:41, those of us with a good heart are always willing to try to help our less fortunate men, and girls.

jt

January 28th, 2010
10:45 am

This ‘free speech” issue is a red pickled herring. As usual, the government and pundits are way behind the real crime.

Any corporation worth its weight in dividends completely ignores the voters and elections today.

They buy POLICY.

Like the progressive favorites (mandated health-insurance, clash-for-clunkers, green-energy,etc……)
This has been going on with or without any SC ruling.

Cmon Jay, catch up.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
10:48 am

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:49 am

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:36 am

You finally figured it out. We Reps intend on a violent takeover and renaming Country the Facist States of American. Zieg Heil the FSA!!

Hard Right Hook

January 28th, 2010
10:49 am

Jay

January 28th, 2010
9:29 am
Again md, the Constitution explicitly singles out a particular type of corporation, the press, and guarantees it that freedom. If our Founding Fathers meant to extend that freedom to all corporations, they would have done so.

They didn’t.

Well, 5 of the brightest legal minds on the planet said they did.

1973, the Supremes held that the Constitution said a woman had a “right” to an abortion.

It doesn’t.

Mick

January 28th, 2010
10:50 am

Corporations like microsoft have been beneficial to the this country and the world for that matter. I just don’t understand why any sensible person would want to afford them the rights of a person, which they are not. They have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of being human which jay laid out. How much is too much? This court seems to set NO bar when it comes to corporate issues.

chuck

January 28th, 2010
10:50 am

Also Jay, what about the laws passed that prevent ANY PERSON OR GROUP from running ads within so many days of an election? I can’t imagine ANY elected official believing that such a laws is NOT an abridgement of free speech.

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
10:51 am

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the corporation.” ~Ninth Amendment to the United Corporations Constitution

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:51 am

The “dont ask dont tell” policy should also be instituted for those cats and dogs that practice inter-species breeding.

Shawny

January 28th, 2010
10:51 am

Obama, head of 1/3 of the US govt (Executive branch), said that the heads of another 1/3 of the US govt (Judicial) made a wrong decision. He isn’t experienced enough to be president, so how can that pompous arse who certainly isn’t experienced enough to be a supreme court justice second guess their decision?!? Mr. Liberal disagrees with their decision, and that certainly is his right, but to call them out when he has the nation’s attention was inappropriate. It was a cheap shot, and it was wrong. Does the Supreme Court have a nationwide TV audience where they get to call him out on things they disagree with that he does or doesn’t do? No.

Lame.

Del

January 28th, 2010
10:51 am

“Fascism is a very strong and popular form of government. Growing up I didn’t think I’d live to see it in America, but I guess I was wrong.”

Well now must be calling the White House and democrat controlled congress a bunch of Fascists.

Jeffery K Pruett

January 28th, 2010
10:52 am

When will Obama realize the the Republicans have no interest in Government and will never agree to work with him.
Their duplicity and hypocrisy are truly breath taking.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:52 am

“Their duplicity and hypocrisy are truly breath taking.”

Nah…you just forgot to use your inhaler.

stands for decibels

January 28th, 2010
10:52 am

Does the Supreme Court have a nationwide TV audience where they get to call him out on things they disagree with that he does or doesn’t do? No.

Actually, that is by choice; they could televise their proceedings if they wished to, but choose not to at the moment. (Audio is available these days, however.)

Shawny

January 28th, 2010
10:52 am

And by the way, it is still illegal for corporations to contribute to politicians.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
10:53 am

Del

I think Jenifer’s Fascist accusation was directed at Republicans, not Democrats or, more specifically, President Obama. I’m still waiting for clarification.

Matilda

January 28th, 2010
10:55 am

“…those of us with a good heart are always willing to try to help our less fortunate men, and girls.”

Dang, RD, did you throw in the towel? That’s not the kind of thing we want to hear from a Rand cultist! Either you’re totally not trying, or you’ve lost your magic touch.

Outhouse GoKart

January 28th, 2010
10:56 am

“I eat right, stay active and am”

Do you compete in the “Rascal 10K”?

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
10:57 am

Shawny

Yep.

But not to front groups.

ie: Chamber of Commerce

Jenifer

January 28th, 2010
10:59 am

Does Rove Think Reagan And Bush Were ‘Weak’ For Discussing The ‘Situation’ They Inherited?

The Bushies still don’t even acknowledge that 9/11 happened on their watch. So their criticisms of Obama ring very hollow.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/rove-reagan-weak/

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
11:00 am

Fascism – government controls the corporations like puppets
Oligarchy – corporation controls the government like puppets
Which one are we? Well each is trying to get their hand up the other’s ___, so who knows?
Frankly, I am tired of the puppet shows!

Somebody did mention (sorry I don’t remember who) that if we limit the power of government, that will automatically also lower the power and influence of the corporations. Let’s just start there!

Sam

January 28th, 2010
11:02 am

that was the highlight of the speech..calling out those 5 fools right to their faces. priceless

Kamchak

January 28th, 2010
11:03 am

Nice pic of our fainting couch when it was in pristine condition. A few weeks back, I made a proposal to reupholster the thing because of the wear and tear. Mrs. Godzilla said the old army cot out back would suffice. After further consideration, I concur.

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
11:05 am

I realize he is no John Roberts, the nation’s greatest chief justice to date(!), but John Marshall, saw a corporation as “an artificial being, invisible, intangible,” which he wrote in 1819. “Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence.”

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
11:08 am

Pardon me. I meant to refer to justice Roberts as the greatest activist chief justice to date…

Carry on.

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
11:13 am

Kamchack

I have flip flopped ont the fainting couch, army cot intiative,

Let them drop and hit the floor.

Thud.

Kamchak

January 28th, 2010
11:14 am

Granny Godzilla

Fine with me, but have you priced hardwood floor restoration?

Jake

January 28th, 2010
11:14 am

Former Bag Boy for the Daley machine calls out the SC on national TV, priceless.

Paul

January 28th, 2010
11:17 am

AmVet

Freudian slip?

:-)

Sam

January 28th, 2010
11:17 am

yeah but he’s from buffalo so must be okay

Paul

January 28th, 2010
11:18 am

Jenifer

Clarification on the fascist comment, please?

getalife

January 28th, 2010
11:18 am

The American People

January 28th, 2010
11:19 am

Same speech, different day. Talk means nothing with this guy as we heard plenty O’ talking during the campaign. Down With Dems In 2K10

Granny Godzilla

January 28th, 2010
11:20 am

Kamchack

Sadly yes, fridge leak.

Cement floor in the basement???

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 28th, 2010
11:21 am

Funny line by Chairman Ann today: “Are we sure Alito didn’t say something that rhymes with “not true”?”

mm

January 28th, 2010
11:22 am

Cry me a river wingnuts. Keep defending the activist judges.

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

January 28th, 2010
11:24 am

Does anyone else notice that by Bookman’s very definition government also has no rights?

Kamchak

January 28th, 2010
11:24 am

Cement floor in the basement???

Problem solved.

jconservative

January 28th, 2010
11:26 am

Everyone is missing the point on corporations. Domestic corporations are covered by the Court’s ruling. Foreign corporations are not. But if a French citizen comes to the US, charters a corporation in Delaware, that corporation is a domestic corporation and is covered by the court’s ruling. This is one part that Obama wants Congress to correct; to prevent foreign persons from influencing US elections through US corporations they own and control.

Example: CITGO is a US corporation owned by Venezuela’s state owned oil company controlled by Hugo Chavez. Per the Court’s ruling they can spend millions to get you to vote for candidates they prefer.

Now do you get it?

USinUK

January 28th, 2010
11:27 am

“Are we sure Alito didn’t say something that rhymes with “not true”?””

snot shoe?

chuck

January 28th, 2010
11:28 am

Anybody think about the speech in general? The guy who does all of his meetings behind closed door, called for more “transparency”. The guy who’s “stimulus plan” was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% called for a new “jobs” bill. The most PARTISAN President in recent history, called for bipartisanship.

He is such a tool. I’m not sure if he has ANY core beliefs and values by which he lives his life. Scary really.

AmVet

January 28th, 2010
11:32 am

Paul, the fiscal conservatives and the go along to get along liberals have sold out “we the people” and sold off our sovereignty.

They have forfeited our sacred and blood soaked birthright.

And now the friggin’ activist Supreme Court puts it stamp of approval on this madness?

I am one of the most optimistic people you could ever know.

But I’m telling ya, I got a real bad feeling about this one.

I think we’re headed for a system “more despotic than monarchy…”

Whacks Eloquent

January 28th, 2010
11:33 am

“This is one part that Obama wants Congress to correct; to prevent foreign persons from influencing US elections through US corporations they own and control.”

If they can keep it to just that, I don’t see SCOTUS objecting at all. But knowing Congress it will be wrapped in bacon and served as an hors d’œuvre…

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.