Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mr. Obama’s lack of deference for the United States Supreme Court is a most serious breech, of not only precedent, but as well, a breech of reciprocal respect required of those in position of high leadership.
The State Of The Union speech is no place for pettiness and political attack. Not on other members of government, and certainly not upon those whom interpret the law that Mr. Obama must follow, implement, and enforce.
While at one time a strong believer and supporter of Mr. Obama, I believe that his compete lack of polite discretion vis-Ã -vis the highest court of the land, and the final interpretation of the law, is grounds for impeachment.
Mr. Obama should resign. Mr. Obama, please resign.
Mr. Obama’s lack of deference for the United States is a most serious breech, of not only
precedent, but as well, a breech of reciprocal respect required of those in position of high leadership.
The State Of The Union speech is no place for pettiness and political attack. Not on other members of government, and certainly not upon those whom interpret the law that Mr. Obama must follow, implement, and enforce.
While at one time a strong believer and supporter of Mr. Obama, I believe that his compete lack of polite discretion vis-Ã -vis the highest court of the land, and the final interpretation of the law, is grounds for impeachment.
Mr. Obama should resign. Mr. Obama, please resign.
The highest court in the land made a decision to reduce the average American citizen to the lowest common denominator as compared to the corporatists. Maybe Alito and the other Republican Neocon appointed activist judges should resign and make room for judges that are not pandering to big oil, big pharma, big insurance and way too big corruption and greed.
You do realize that the SCOTUS isn't above the law - it's merely one branch of a 3 branch system of checks and balances. Last I checked, members of the Congressional branch have no problem insulting and critiquing the executive branch. Last I checked former presidents and members of Congress have had no problem criticizing SCOTUS decisions. Or have you not heard the phrase "activist judges" before?
I get it - you just think the other branches of government should shut up when you agree with the decision.
So what makes you think the president shouldn't weigh in on a ruling that will undermine our democracy, allow foreigners to invest in directly influencing our elections, and strengthen the influence of those with money while diminishing the influence of those without?
I would be appalled if any president did not speak out against such an atrocity. Thomas Jefferson said that if corporations were ever given the rights of individuals, everything they built would be for naught. They've been kept in some minimal degree of check up until now. No longer.
The Supremes aren't deserving of any "polite discretion."
Corporate personhood and money as speech are brilliant usurpations of representative democracy's effectiveness. Who in their right mind actually believes that money has NO influence in the outcome of elections in this country?
Did you call for Bush's resignation when he lied about WMDs? Or when he lied about our nation's stance on torture? Or did you consider it a form of "polite discretion" to potentially have your phones tapped and internet communications monitored in the name of "security?" Are you an ardent supporter of the unchecked power of the executive so long as it comes in certain party forms?
Barack Obama is a man. He's mortal. He's a poiltician. One hundred years from now this country will still exist and we will all be food for the worms. There will be more Republicans, more Democrats, and more Independents elected. But at least in the mean time we can cease with the petty sniping and pretend to have a common vision or hope for our country. I have many problems with President Obama's leadership to date, but disagreeing with a Court which believes itself endowed with the authority to guide policy (even as its majority claims the opposite), is not one of them. What happened to judicial restraint? Oh wait, I get it! Judicial activism is fine so long as it supports free markets and corporate "speech."
The Supremes aren't deserving of any "polite discretion."
Corporate personhood and money as speech are brilliant usurpations of representative democracy's effectiveness. Who in their right mind actually believes that money has NO influence in the outcome of elections in this country?
Did you call for Bush's resignation when he lied about WMDs? Or when he lied about our nation's stance on torture? Or did you consider it a form of "polite discretion" to potentially have your phones tapped and internet communications monitored in the name of "security?" Are you an ardent supporter of the unchecked power of the executive so long as it comes in certain party forms?
Barack Obama is a man. He's mortal. He's a poiltician. One hundred years from now this country will still exist and we will all be food for the worms. There will be more Republicans, more Democrats, and more Independents elected. But at least in the mean time we can cease with the petty sniping and pretend to have a common vision or hope for our country. I have many problems with President Obama's leadership to date, but disagreeing with a Court which believes itself endowed with the authority to guide policy (even as its majority claims the opposite), is not one of them. What happened to judicial restraint? Oh wait, I get it! Judicial activism is fine so long as it supports free markets and corporate "speech."
I think the "common vision" involves removing a twit from office who is in way over his head. I really did not mind Clinton at all, as he seemed to be in control of his senses most of the time and appeared to have an understanding of the economy. Obama is an idiot. His "jobs loss" programs are killing the nation. Rather than re-evlauate his failed policies, on the economy, healthcare, and foriegn policy, he has elected to "double down" and go "all in" in making his policies an assured national disaster, rather than political missteps. Even a child is bright enough to re-evaluate an approach to a problem when it repeatedly fails. However, Obama's arrogance does not afford himself the common sense of a child. This guy is a truely remarkable idiot, whose legacy has gone beyond incompetence and has breached the limits of absurd comedy.
It is quite the coincidence that after recently making a thread to find out how Tea Party members felt about the SCOTUS ruling that I happened to stumble across this gem of an article.
I was curious because the Tea Partiers were fuming over the continued Wall Street bailouts under Big O while he left Main Street to fend for themselves.
Perfectly understandable grievance. Yet I have yet to hear a peep from the Tea Party members on the SCOTUS ruling that basically equates corporate political campaign ads to the 1st Amendment Right Of Free Speech. Thus freeing corporations to spend as much money as they deem fit to support (or attack) a candidate of their choosing.
If they thought government favored Wall Street before, now the SCOTUS ruling has allowed corporate money to quite literally OWN the government.
Yet, where is the outrage from the Tea Party? Why are they not out protesting and marching? Perhaps because it was the majority right wing of the SCOTUS that made the ruling? I find it so strange, how silent they seem to be on this issue and apparently I'm not the only one.
"Not much has been heard on this alarming topic so far from the "tea party patriots" or any of the other usual right-wing suspects, however. Their flag-flapping ire tends to be directed against Democrats and liberals only."
This is not the only glaring examples of hypocrisy.
Remember the Dubya years, the years where if "You were not with US, you were against us." They were the True Blue American Patriots led by the GOP and Fox News, while the unAmericans were anyone who disagreed with them. They were protecting our sovereignty from the dreaded foreign Axis Of Evil. They also protect us from the folly of socialism, the threat of communism, the fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law. Those must never be allowed foothold on our soil. That was the line they gave us.
But wait, surely the right wing judges would always look to protect the sovereignty of our political system from foreign influence. We surely can not expect the bleeding heart liberals on the SCOTUS to care.
"Actually, the Republican attorneys and the justices themselves reviewed this issue, at least glancingly, during the course of argument in the landmark case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, who happen to have been appointed by Democrats, asked whether foreign corporate interests would be able to funnel money into American elections through their U.S. subsidiaries if the court struck down law and precedent to allow unlimited corporate political spending. The reply came from Theodore Olson, who first gained notoriety as the lawyer for the secretive anti-Clinton Arkansas Project and has lately distinguished himself as a libertarian advocate for gay marriage. "I would not rule that out," he admitted."
"Unsurprisingly, the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy simply failed to address the problem. Why draw attention to the bad news when you're overturning a century of precedent."
WTF, . Okay, calm down, take a breath. I mean c'mon, corporations are people too right. And these are American corporations, so it can't be all that bad right?
Oookaay. Well you know, maybe its my leftie bias coming up. I mean c'mon, how did O raise all that money when he campaigned. I mean he HAD to have gotten paid by a lot of foreign dough too, right?
Well, okay its a little far fetched to think any high ranking politician would ever deliberately allow foreign money to influence politics, (oh please be) right?
"Haley Barbour, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, hatched a complicated loan scheme that laundered $2 million from a Hong Kong businessman through a GOP "think tank" and into his party’s congressional campaigns.
Barbour clearly knew that the money came from foreign sources and appeared to have lied to the committee about the matter. When the Senate hearings began, John Glenn, then a Democratic senator from Ohio, offered a pithy summary of Barbour’s behavior: "As far as I know, [this] is the only [case] where the head of a national political party knowingly and successfully solicited foreign money, infused it into the election process, and intentionally tried to cover it up." The Young scheme used a Florida subsidiary of his company -- which boasted Gerald Ford as a director! -- to conceal its foreign origin.
Today he is governor of Mississippi, where his penchant for influence peddling has served him well – and he is now a widely touted prospect for the Republican ticket in 2012."
Okay, no more rationalizations, no more weaving and dodging. Enough of the smokescreens, enough of the theatrics. Its reality check time.
Where is the Right Populist outrage? Where are the angry party members now? Where are the Patriots?
The right wing majority of the SCOTUS has just put America up for sale to the highest bidder. Are Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News blasting the SCOTUS ruling?
Well at least the threat of an attack on US soil has finally been neutralized.
Communist China, socialist Europe, oil rich Venezuelan & Sharia, fundamentalists Islamic regimes can now all legally buy their own piece of the American pie.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bin laden and the rest of Qaeda willingly turn themselves in. With his rich Saudi oil connections, he would not only be pardoned (after a substantial brib,..,er,.. contribution to Presidential candidates of course), I bet the court would reward HIM with the ransom money for turning himself in.
God Bless America, the best pasture totalitarians and dictators can buy.
So why no peep out of the anti-Wall Street party going members, the impartiality of judges goes back to the very roots of our democracy.
"From our nation's beginning, the independence of judges has been a source of national concern. When the colonists separated from England, they listed King George's attempts to restrict the independence of judges as one of a long list of offenses enumerated in the Declaration of Independence." (http://www.centerjd.org/archives/news/2000/001114.php - broken link)
But just because corporations lend money to campaigns that does not necessarily mean they would receive any favors in return, does it?
I can't believe that they're allowing cows and chickens access to the internet. It must be true because no THINKING human could write the kind of carp that's been coming up on C-D lately.
The OP must not be too familiar with our constitutional system. You see, it's the COURTS that are not supposed to be involved in politics, please go back and repeat grades 9 and 10! Or you could review tapes of the 40 or so SOTU speeches that have been televised and you'll notice that the Justices and the military chiefs HAVE A LONG STANDING TRADITION OF NOT INVOLVING THEMSELVES in the politics going on.
Although I guess if a President decided to announce big pay raises for SC Justices and the Joint Chiefs this tradition would be waived.
Anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the US Court system will gladly tell you (and BTW, neither Beck, O'Reilly nor Limbaugh qualify as such) that it was bad form for Alito to insert himself into the political debate. OTOH the President is a member of the "political" class, and as such is expected to take part in the political debate, as are YOU. However, unlike the cows and chickens that often post on here, YOU are ASSUMED to know what the heck you're talking about.
Now, quit acting like you don't and try to exercise a bit of thought before posting again.
I can't believe that they're allowing cows and chickens access to the internet. It must be true because no THINKING human could write the kind of carp that's been coming up on C-D lately.
The OP must not be too familiar with our constitutional system. You see, it's the COURTS that are not supposed to be involved in politics, please go back and repeat grades 9 and 10! Or you could review tapes of the 40 or so SOTU speeches that have been televised and you'll notice that the Justices and the military chiefs HAVE A LONG STANDING TRADITION OF NOT INVOLVING THEMSELVES in the politics going on.
Although I guess if a President decided to announce big pay raises for SC Justices and the Joint Chiefs this tradition would be waived.
Anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the US Court system will gladly tell you (and BTW, neither Beck, O'Reilly nor Limbaugh qualify as such) that it was bad form for Alito to insert himself into the political debate. OTOH the President is a member of the "political" class, and as such is expected to take part in the political debate, as are YOU. However, unlike the cows and chickens that often post on here, YOU are ASSUMED to know what the heck you're talking about.
Now, quit acting like you don't and try to exercise a bit of thought before posting again.
golfgod
HEY. My chickens and cows would know better than to post tripe like this.
How offensive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Okay, calm down, take a breath. I mean c'mon, corporations are people too right. And these are American corporations, so it can't be all that bad right?
