State of the Union - 2010

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Great job of delivery(with the exception of cutting to michelle in the middle of health care debate) he can sure present well.
It was stupid to call out the SCOTUS....with them sitting right there.
the problem/question is will he come to the middle...imo

your thoughts?

[vurbano]

He didnt back off anything. Clearly a left wing Sorros puppet who will go down in flames. The arrogant SOB

[HDRoberts]

It was stupid to call out the SCOTUS

I disagree. It was brilliant. I was waiting for the 4 dissenters to break protocol and applaud. But Alito did break protocol and shook his head disapprovingly. Sorry SCOTUS, the president (and the people) have a right to opinions.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

I disagree. It was brilliant. I was waiting for the 4 dissenters to break protocol and applaud. But Alito did break protocol and shook his head disapprovingly. Sorry SCOTUS, the president (and the people) have a right to opinions.

opinions are fine, but, to call them out in the State of the Union was crude and classless. Do it some other way.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

He didnt back off anything. Clearly a left wing Sorros puppet who will go down in flames. The arrogant SOB

he was hard core, go get em'. I agree

[vurbano]

he was hard core, go get em'. I agree

Well, he certainly ended any hope of bipartisanship.

[vurbano]

I disagree. It was brilliant. I was waiting for the 4 dissenters to break protocol and applaud. But Alito did break protocol and shook his head disapprovingly. Sorry SCOTUS, the president (and the people) have a right to opinions.

It was a classless move for the TV camera. pretty much his MO. But when America elects a Sorros funded ACORN attack dog ..........

[msmith198025]

opinions are fine, but, to call them out in the State of the Union was crude and classless. Do it some other way.

I agree, and was honestly suprised he did it.

The speech itself was about what I expected.

[NickG420]

While I will give him credit for acknowledging real problems, I have to say not one of his solutions didn't involve more government and more spending....His earmark reform request was nothing but laughable considering he himself just signed a bill full of earmarks. I was hoping he would at least learn his pace like Clinton did and come back to the center but it seems that he still believes more Bills and more Committees, i.e. more government is the only solution to anything.

[HDRoberts]

opinions are fine, but, to call them out in the State of the Union was crude and classless. Do it some other way.

What other way? They were sitting right in front of him, and he had the backing of congress to show the consensus that the decision was foolish. It was the perfect time, if you ask me.

[msmith198025]

While I will give him credit for acknowledging real problems, I have to say not one of his solutions didn't involve more government and more spending....His earmark reform request was nothing but laughable considering he himself just signed a bill full of earmarks. I was hoping he would at least learn his pace like Clinton did and come back to the center but it seems that he still believes more Bills and more Committees, i.e. more government is the only solution to anything.

Yeah, this is why I say it wasnt anything I didnt expect. It was pretty typical, although impressively delivered. I honestly wish I could believe some of the things he said, but it rings hollow after all the years of typical washington politics.

[Skyhi]

I disagree. It was brilliant. I was waiting for the 4 dissenters to break protocol and applaud. But Alito did break protocol and shook his head disapprovingly. Sorry SCOTUS, the president (and the people) have a right to opinions.

I loved it. Judges can be some of the most arrogant people imaginable......They're big boys and girls....they can handle a little criticism.

[NickG420]

I'm sorry but I disagree. While I'll agree that corporation puppet governments are the last thing we need, and I'll even concur that the Supreme Court should be condemned. However, I think to do it on public display amongst their coworkers and colleagues is a bit self indulgent. It's like telling your son he sucks at football in front of his teammates because he dropped a pass. The purpose and argument may be correct, but the arena in which you choose to voice your concern is not.

Just my .02

[Skyhi]

I'm sorry but I disagree. While I'll agree that corporation puppet governments are the last thing we need, and I'll even concur that the Supreme Court should be condemned. However, I think to do it on public display amongst their coworkers and colleagues is a bit self indulgent. It's like telling your son he sucks at football in front of his teammates because he dropped a pass. The purpose and argument may be correct, but the arena in which you choose to voice your concern is not.

Just my .02
Every other prominent government official is subjected to CONSTANT public scrutiny. SCOTUS should be no different.

[HDRoberts]

I'm sorry but I disagree. While I'll agree that corporation puppet governments are the last thing we need, and I'll even concur that the Supreme Court should be condemned. However, I think to do it on public display amongst their coworkers and colleagues is a bit self indulgent. It's like telling your son he sucks at football in front of his teammates because he dropped a pass. The purpose and argument may be correct, but the arena in which you choose to voice your concern is not.

Just my .02

But they are in the Supreme Court. They are at the top of their game. It's more like telling Braylon Edwards he sucks at football in front of his teamates because he dropped a pass (or in his case, passes). He's a big boy and can handle it. So can SCOTUS.

[Skyhi]

But they are in the Supreme Court. They are at the top of their game. It's more like telling Braylon Edwards he sucks at football in front of his teamates because he dropped a pass (or in his case, passes). He's a big boy and can handle it. So can SCOTUS.
Alito couldn't. :) It's probably the first time somebody has criticized him to his face in his entire career.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

What other way? They were sitting right in front of him, and he had the backing of congress to show the consensus that the decision was foolish. It was the perfect time, if you ask me.

interviews, article, Oprah:free-happy-smileys-
It is beneath the office and was classless. The Judicial is his equal, supposedly, and he would do well to remember he is not the King to his lemmings.

[HDRoberts]

interviews, article, Oprah:free-happy-smileys-
It is beneath the office and was classless. The Judicial is his equal, supposedly, and he would do well to remember he is not the King to his lemmings.

Never has stopped a president from criticizing the congress, also his equal as the Legislative branch.

[Bear Paws]

The POTUS calling out SCOTUS like some Chicago street punk was wrong. Not even Blagojevich. It was meant to put on notice and warn a equal branch of government they are now on his growing enemies list.. Chuck Schumer was even more wrong for getting into Alito's face before he jumped up and did his jig.

To make matters worse Obama made up a lie against a branch of government that can not respond. Especially at a State of the Union. SCOTUS can't jump up and boo the POTUS like congress can and does.. Decorum requires they remain seated, quiet, and impartial..

Of course the whole speech was full of half truths and falsehoods as well as outright lies. Like he doesn't hire/have lobbyists on his administration for example.

Over all the speech was what I expected. I know these people. This guy just happens to speak (well read) American English. They are hard core ideologues that actually believe their own lies about their misguided fantasies of going down in history as a icon.. This one has the ability to manipulate his language just to the edge of credulity with contradictory statements in the same paragraphs and get away with it with the main stream press giving him cover..

Everything he said was a full of villains, enemies, culprits and and he was the poor victim who was only trying to make your life better with big government. Actually its more than big government..Its Obamanationism. You will see that eventually. People like him want to do something ...even if its wrong.

Ladies and gentlemen ... You have just heard Mussolini's speech on how the keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Last night He even told the US Senate and the American People they are irrelevant, an impediment, to be subverted and side stepped if they disagree with him.. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Even Unions if manifest of the State. He believes the Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. Even if it's only his will because he IS the State,... For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".

20 Years ago this guy would have been considered a enemy of state. Today he is head of state??

[HDRoberts]

^^^^
http://www.jessicadunton.com/blog/TinfoilHat.jpg

[HDRoberts]

Moving along, anyone else notice a lot more, shal we say, vocalizations of displeasure during the speech? At times, I thought we were getting a feed from the British Parliament at Question Time.

[Bob Haller]

Well now that the republicans have a bit of power........

Lets see if they have any true ideas other than NO

They are a party that stands for nothing but no:(

Newt Gingrich said it and its true:(

[Skyhi]

Moving along, anyone else notice a lot more, shal we say, vocalizations of displeasure during the speech? At times, I thought we were getting a feed from the British Parliament at Question Time.
I noticed. A few times you could hear members of Congress laughing at him.

[msmith198025]

I noticed some, however it wasnt any more than I have heard in any other state of the union by any other pres.

[Bear Paws]

Well now that the republicans have a bit of power........

Lets see if they have any true ideas other than NO

They are a party that stands for nothing but no:(

Newt Gingrich said it and its true:(
What power?
He had a whole year with a super majority in both houses and if he couldn't get his own party on board to say yes to his delusional agenda then why would the opposition party go along with him.. His own party thinks he is wrong and votes against him.... where do you get off blaming the Republicans?
If we think he is wrong why would we vote for his disastrous policies.

[markh]

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”


Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”


And on Page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html#ixzz0dwjJA0qI

Sandra Day O'Connor also disagrees.

http://www.thecourt.ca/2010/01/27/supreme-corp-citizens-united-and-the-undoing-of-campaign-finance-reform/


Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Court in 2005 and was replaced by Justice Alito, made light of Citizens United in a speech Tuesday. “Gosh, I step away for a couple of years and there’s no telling what’s going to happen,” she told an audience at Georgetown. But there was no mistaking her assessment of the judgement’s impact: O’Connor, who jointly with Stevens authored one of the majority opinions in McConnell, warned that Citizens United will lead to an “arms race” in judicial elections and be a “problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.” Because state courts handle most personal-injury and other civil cases, the biggest impact may be felt in their judicial elections as corporations seek to protect their financial interests.

That link covers the whole case and is an interesting read.

[DodgerKing]

Alito couldn't. :) It's probably the first time somebody has criticized him to his face in his entire career.
Or simply lied (or was incorrect at his understanding) about part of the ruling, which is why he rolled his eyes.

[Bear Paws]

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html#ixzz0dwjJA0qI

Sandra Day O'Connor also disagrees.

http://www.thecourt.ca/2010/01/27/supreme-corp-citizens-united-and-the-undoing-of-campaign-finance-reform/
That link covers the whole case and is an interesting read.
Its not within the SOTUS purview to rewrite law. Only to decide whether a law was constitutional or not. In this case they ruled the law unconstitutional in the face of the first amendment. If there is a loop hole in the laws that is exposed by this ruling then its up to congress to write or rewrite the law and the president to sign it to close said loop hole. The SOTUS can't concern itself with poorly written law and either rewrite it or ignore it's constitutionality because it leaves a loop hole. If in fact this is even seriously true then I suggest the President and Congress act post hast rather than whine about it..

If Obama thinks there is a problem with the decision of SCOTUS then he can send the Solicitor General in to re-argue the case on behalf of the USA. Until then he should keep his opinions, personal or official, out of the public forum of the SOTU in which he has a very bad habit of abusing the pulpit with his bullying attacks (bully-pulpit) on individuals or groups of citizens that are defenseless and without voice in this forum, unlike the congressional party members that can cheer or boo and bob up and down along with Polosi like a piece of dried out drift wood in a hurricane (Thank you Dennis Miller)... SCOTUS, like the Joint Chiefs, are a guest at the request of Congress at these functions and they are showing respect to the POTUS to appear while remaining seated and silent and not participate. They should at least be afforded the same courtesy.

[stevenl]

So you agree bear the court doesnt make mistakes.

[Bear Paws]

So you agree bear the court doesnt make mistakes. Of course they do.. However there is a proper place and protocol to address those perceived mistakes. The President calling out the SCOTUS to be ridiculed on national TV by his partisan party is not the proper place. They are not there to participate in the political circus so they should not be made part of the act.
You think "Chucky" Schumer screaming in Alito's ear before leaping to his feet to do his ritual jig was proper? I wouldn't care if the Supremes let KSM walk free. The State of the Union is not the proper venue for arrogant condescension. Its not the Chicago ghetto gutter. I guess low class is permanently inbred in some.

[msmith198025]

That is my problem with it as well bear. He did it in the wrong venue. Disagree all you want, hell even criticise, but the State of the Union wasn't the time for that IMHO.

[stevenl]

My comment was not about the being called out. It was inregard to the first paragraph in that it seems you were saying that SCOTUS just goes by the law, and never makes it. Id bet there are many cases you would say that is untrue in.

[vurbano]

It was the act of a barn raised .....

[vurbano]

umm community organizer

[markh]

I'm thinking then that if it's wrong for an officeholder to criticize the Court that you're all against the politicians that criticize Roe v. Wade.

I hear all the crap about activist judges. They were pretty activist here in taking a case that was about the distribution of a movie about Hillary into striking down a hundred years of campaign finance restrictions and saying that corporations had the ability to spend as much money on buying campaign ads as they wish because that's free speech.