The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: TexGun on January 27, 2010, 09:59:17 PM
-
OK, so I paraphased. How arrogant could this guy be, flying in the face of the supreme court telling them they got it wrong on campaign finance reform? So much for seperation of powers, let's try to intimidate the SC on national TV.... >:(
So, congress let's just pass another law that flies in the face of the SC's ruling on your first law...campaign finance reform, 2nd ammendment, free speech...
-
That is what thugs do.
-
And Alito was saying "...not true." about what BHO was saying...which I think was that foreign companies could fund campaigns with unlimited money.
-
Actually (and surprising no one) I disagree. The reasons why I disagree might be surprising though. I'm not sure about them as I'm still thinking this through, but what happened tonight was huge. Not since Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" in the Cherokee case, has a US President so publically bitch slapped the Court. On the facts, I think he was right, giving 1st ammendnent rights to a corporation, rather than a citizen is unprecedented and dangerous. Leave that aside though, it doesn't really matter. What does matter is the assertion that all three branches of government are co-equal. A point raised more than once, particularly when he mentioned using an Executive Order to circumvent the Senate. The real quesion is this. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Yet we are a Democratic Republic. While all three branches are bound and limited by the Constitution, is the Court the only one who can authoritatively define its meaning? Part of me is saying good for BO, about damn time the voters got to tell the Court that they have a voice. A larger part is saying this is a VERY BAD THING. It has nothing to do with BO either. He is trying to set precedent that every future President of which ever party will use, just as he used Cheney's secrecy even though he campaigned against it. Screw peronalities or parties. Institutionally, is it good or dangerous, for the executive to stand firmly against the Court? We haven't seen this since FDR and he wound up backing down.
FQ13 who is not looking for an argument, just opinions
-
The "Large part" is right. BhOle has no say over the SCOTUS beyond nominations
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law in the US, Congress just passes them, the pres just signs or veto's them, but SCOTUS determines if they are legal and will take effect or NOT.
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Granting rights to corporations is not at all unprecedented, they have always had the protection of property rights, as well as 3rd, 4th, 5th,7th, and most obviously the 21st.
-
.............
Granting rights to corporations is not at all unprecedented, they have always had the protection of property rights, as well as 3rd, 4th, 5th,7th, and most obviously the 21st.
Yes. I was waiting for your response Tom...how are you? BHO's lead in, as I remember it, was fearmongering at it's best and he said the Supreme Court had turned back 100 years of settled (settled my word, but his implication) law with their ruling. Then he said the evil (evil my word, but his implication) foreign corporations would have unlimited funds to buy (buy my word, but his implication) elections.....ooooohhhhh...he scared me...ooooooooohhhh.
George Soros's puppet telling me to beware foreign corporations.....well it was good to see the blood in the water at the hearings yesterday where the Dems were licking their bloody chops going after Geithner.
If anyone felt a measure of inspiration listening to BHO last night.....that's a sure sign of a malfunctioning internal lie detector. Anyone who I will talk to in the near future who felt uplifted in the least while listening to him in the State of the Union Address is someone who's advice I will take with a double grain of salt.
-
Justice Mouths 'Not True' as Obama Slams Court
AP
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true" as Obama spoke.
Jan. 27: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, and Chief Justice John Roberts arrive for the State of the Union address. (AP)
WASHINGTON -- The man in the House chamber openly disagreeing with President Barack Obama as he spoke to Congress wasn't an over-the-top Republican or a seething Democrat. He was a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito.
Obama had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he began, the court last week "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."
Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true."
A reliable conservative appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush, Alito was in the majority in the 5-4 ruling.
Senate Democratic leaders sitting immediately behind Alito and other members of the high court rose and clapped loudly in their direction, with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., leaning slightly forward with the most enthusiastic applause.
The court did upend a 100-year trend in law to impose greater limitations on corporate political activity. Specifically, the court said corporations and unions could spend freely from their treasuries to run political ads for or against specific candidates.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court's majority "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."
Obama said corporations can "spend without limit in our elections." However, corporations and unions are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians.
Alito's head-shaking, though only two rows directly in front of Obama, wasn't the "You lie!" moment that brought the president's last speech to Congress to a screeching halt. In fact, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who shouted it, was stonefaced throughout Obama's latest speech, even rising a few times to applaud.
While Obama spoke to a Congress dominated by Democrats, the smiles and the applause that interrupted the president dozens of times during his 69-minute address belied the Democrat-vs.-Democrat anger that has been roiling the ranks of the party's lawmakers.
For most of them, no issue is more pressing than getting re-elected in November. And it's not clear that pursuing Obama's priorities will help them achieve theirs.
In personal and profane terms, House and Senate Democrats have huddled behind closed doors to list the debacles: The stunner in Massachusetts that cost the Democrats a Senate seat. The slow-motion collapse of health care talks. A government bailout of Wall Street while unemployment sits in double-digits.
"It just stinks to the high heaven what happened here," Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., railed earlier in the day at Obama's treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner.
Lynch was talking about the bailout, but the statement could well describe the Democrats' attitude about Obama's performance and the toll it's taken on their political standing.
One powerful House Democrat released a scathing statement about the White House before Obama had finished speaking.
"Somewhere along the line, the White House lost its way," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "Instead of focusing on solutions to help America's families wade through the wreckage of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Washington has wasted valuable time wrestling with partisan politics in an effort to rush through drastic reforms that do not directly address our most immediate needs."
Skelton added: "The president's address has lent us all hope -- hope that the administration is finally heeding our concerns. It's about time."
Other Democrats aimed their ire across the Capitol. Some were elated that Obama several times urged the Senate to act on House-passed legislation on a range of subjects, from health care reform to a freeze on discretionary spending.
"He spanked the Senate five times," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. Then he used a pithy quote to describe the threat that some Democrats pose to others.
"Republicans are our opposition. The Senate's our enemy," Weiner said.
Republicans were making a studied effort to stay out of the way and avoid another "You lie" moment. The House's three top Republican leaders -- Reps. John Boehner of Ohio, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Mike Pence of Indiana -- all lectured their troops before the address that the president should be treated with respect.
Democrats for days were questioning whether to stand with the president, congressional leaders or neither.
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., did more than ask. In a private meeting the day after Republican Scott Brown won Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's Senate seat, Titus used a profanity to describe to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman lawmakers the Democratic Party's prospects in the midterm elections if it ignores the lessons of Massachusetts.
-
Glad I watched OVie instead of BO. Ovie's a winner. BO's a loser. As for his stand on the SCOTUS ruling: sounds more like he was kneeling and whining than standing! What's that old saying? "Don't piss into the wind, don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and don't shit on the judge who'll decide your fate"? Well something like that anyway! For a President to brace the Court is not smart politics if you ask me. At the very least, he has set up conditions for adverse rulings from that Court on matters he cares about: guns and abortions! What is it about those two issues that makes Progressives care? Could it be they don't want to be shot when they are caught? Haha Well, FQ, it's always refreshing to hear the other side isn't it?
-
I don't know why anybody is surprised by Obama dressing down the Supreme Court. Progressives believe the court is only a tool for them to progress their agenda and nothing more. If the court disagrees then stomp on them, kick them to the curb make them the bad guy and keep marching, as the Libs like to do to anyone else who gets in there way. Obama has no respect for the court just like he has no respect for rule of law and the constitution not to mention separation of powers. At this point he will make it look like this ruling was made to give conservatives the right to have big oil finance their campaigns with impunity.
-
But this court has the power and the ammunition to REMOVE HIM if he gets them to mad. All they have to do is start giving more credence to the "Birthers" legitimate questions about why BO spends so much money on keeping all his records secret. What is he hiding ?
-
Quick review; who threw the CIA (and intelligence community), the Secret Service (party crashers), military (time lag for requests in Afghanistan), and now the SCOTUS, "Under the bus!"
Raging start for a first year. I'm sure there are more Darth Rahm, and Chief Thug Axelrod have also thrown under the bus.....
At this rate, his impeachment, or as Tom stated, a SCOTUS "birther" hearing, could get him out sooner...
-
Quick review; who threw the CIA (and intelligence community), the Secret Service (party crashers), military (time lag for requests in Afghanistan), and now the SCOTUS, "Under the bus!"
Raging start for a first year. I'm sure there are more Darth Rahm, and Chief Thug Axelrod have also thrown under the bus.....
At this rate, his impeachment, or as Tom stated, a SCOTUS "birther" hearing, could get him out sooner...
Those are great points to remember. The CIA can get the information, the SCOTUS can throw him out of office, the Secret Service can haul his behind out and the military can deport him to some place appropriate.
-
Can't we just charge him with impersonating a public official and then add to it the charge for espionage, fraud, grand theft and the like. He's been impersonating the President and using that position to take money from the US Treasury and spend it how he choses and having access to government classified information adds a realm of breaching national security.
-
But this court has the power and the ammunition to REMOVE HIM if he gets them to mad. All they have to do is start giving more credence to the "Birthers" legitimate questions about why BO spends so much money on keeping all his records secret. What is he hiding ?
Can I hear a big AMEN brother!!! BHOle is just pissed that the Corps can be the pro-capitalism foil to the Unions...
-
Well I guess he's was so rev'd up from telling us how ignorant WE all are, you know the part where he says that the reason we don't buy in to his BS is because he didn't "explain" or "communicate it clearly", he just couldn't stop himself from peeing all over th high court. :o
-
Hey Rastus, The Secret Service are the ones who REALLY have him by the short and curlies.
All they have to do is threaten to duck at loud noises ;D
If the CIA is as good as they claim, they don't need to FIND evidence they can make some that's even better ;D
And with SCOTUS mad enough to give them all a pass ;D
-
Mark Levin made a very good explanation as to how BO lied when he slapped the supremes. I wish I could remember exactly...but it had to do with the fact that the decision did not overturn 100 year old policy as the MSM and BO claimed. It only made it possible for US corporations and unions to run advocacy adds. If you look at Alito, which by now I'm sure most of you have seen it, he shakes his head and says "not true." Alito is probably the most trustyworthy supreme. He had a visceral reaction to a very bald faced political lie.
You can find his 1/28 show here and listen for yourself. Levin worked at Justice with Alito. Levin was also a lawyer. He knows his law and BO was lying out his arse.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
-
Mark Levin made a very good explanation as to how BO lied when he slapped the supremes. I wish I could remember exactly...but it had to do with the fact that the decision did not overturn 100 year old policy as the MSM and BO claimed. It only made it possible for US corporations and unions to run advocacy adds. If you look at Alito, which by now I'm sure most of you have seen it, he shakes his head and says "not true." Alito is probably the most trustyworthy supreme. He had a visceral reaction to a very bald faced political lie.
You can find his 1/28 show here and listen for yourself. Levin worked at Justice with Alito. Levin was also a lawyer. He knows his law and BO was lying out his arse.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930#
I'm SHOCKED sir. Totally shocked and surprised at the very thought !
NOT !
-
I'm SHOCKED sir. Totally shocked and surprised at the very thought !
NOT !
Faint not o' stalwart knight.
-
Bully pulpit
-
Oddly enough, I have an uber-liberal friend who thnks bho's speech was wonderful, right on the money. When I pointed out he didn't write it, said blew it off as well his speechwriter wrote it with him. And when I said he wrongly hammered the SCOTUS, she said that was the best part. She was strangely silent when I mentioned the separation of powers clause, changed the subject she did.
Folks, do not ever for a moment believe that at some point people will come to their sense. Some will, most will just go along so long as they are not personally affected.
Oh yeah, she thinks the continuing financial crisis that is directly affecting her portfolio is due to the evil bankers on wall street, not bho.
-
Oddly enough, I have an uber-liberal friend who thnks bho's speech was wonderful, right on the money. When I pointed out he didn't write it, said blew it off as well his speechwriter wrote it with him. And when I said he wrongly hammered the SCOTUS, she said that was the best part. She was strangely silent when I mentioned the separation of powers clause, changed the subject she did.
Folks, do not ever for a moment believe that at some point people will come to their sense. Some will, most will just go along so long as they are not personally affected.
Oh yeah, she thinks the continuing financial crisis that is directly affecting her portfolio is due to the evil bankers on wall street, not bho.
Sounds like your friend is busy lookin' for the 'clean end of the turd'.................
-
Her Kool ade addled head is to deep in the sand (or something ) to see either end of the turd.
If you beat her over the head with reality she will fall back on "Well, it IS all Bush's fault" sounding much like an audio version of FQ.
-
Her Kool ade addled head is to deep in the sand (or something ) to see either end of the turd.
If you beat her over the head with reality she will fall back on "Well, it IS all Bush's fault" sounding much like an audio version of FQ.
Oh no!!!!....not "The Quaker Tapes"............ run away, run away, run away.......
;D
-
I think the "Robe wearing Judges" are a lot better than the NON robe wearing Judges.
Sonya's nekkid, DON'T LOOK !
Thank God O'Conner was gone before this subject came up :-X
-
I think the "Robe wearing Judges" are a lot better than the NON robe wearing Judges.
Sonya's nekkid, DON'T LOOK !
Thank God O'Conner was gone before this subject came up :-X
MY EYES!!!! MY EYES!!! :o
-
I think the "Robe wearing Judges" are a lot better than the NON robe wearing Judges.
Sonya's nekkid, DON'T LOOK !
Thank God O'Conner was gone before this subject came up :-X
Gotta go wash my eyes out with Purple Stuff now................. :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
Welcome back supper....... :-X :-X
-
Not a good idea to insult and berate SCOTUS in your first year as President...esp. with so many cases coming up that you have a stake in....
I feel much more confident that Heller gets incorporated now.... 8)