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.
Fascinating, since I went to the links and pulled up a quote that backs up what I said.
Obviously, you didn't read far enough. The law that was struck down was not the law in effect for a "century" and the ruling does not allow foreign interests to contribute - they are still banned, just as they have always been banned.
More hyperbole from obama.
Quote:
Where did I say anything about overturning a century of law? Stop trying to merge my opinion with Obama's statements.
Quote:
The Supreme Court makes the decision that corporations, both national and foreign, to spend money in order to influence elections, and all you can do is make repeated comments about how the President is CLASSLESS for criticizing the justices for less than a minute.
What is partisan about saying that there is a time and place for everything but the SOTU is not the place to scold the SCOTUS?
Awe....you missed again. I bet if you try reeeaaallllly hard you could stay on topic in the next thread. Someday you might even figure out that Bush isn't the president anymore.
How is this off topic, pray tell? The point is and I'll explain being that it went over your head...I was responding to a previous post about Presidential class and decorum. You are so ready to run with the ball concerning Obama
and yet all was forgiven and forgotten with Dubya. Say whatever you want about the current POTUS, but don't be a hypocrite about the not so distant past.
Wow, should I post it for you again? Do I need to make BOTH points again for you, since you can't read what I posted. I'll lay it out for you: FIRST. I never claimed anything about any law being in effect for a century. This is Obama, and I clarified that to you twice. Secondly, the 3rd source you cite, and I've already quoted this for you once, says
Quote:
There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don't support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.
The best part is this next quote from the Winkler article, which you've conveniently ignored:
Quote:
Alito may have been right on the facts, but his nodding was still remarkably bad form.
Longstanding tradition holds that Supreme Court Justices sit silently during the State of the Union. Unlike the senators and representatives, they don't stand up and clap for things they agree with. The Justices are supposed to stay about the political fray.
If Justices shouldn't stand and clap when they agree, they shouldn't nod vigorously and mouth their disagreement when they think the president is wrong. Staying above the fray goes both ways.
You know Washington has become way too partisan when Supreme Court Justices can't even control themselves.
How is this off topic, pray tell? The point is and I'll explain being that it went over your head...I was responding to a previous post about Presidential class and decorum. You are so ready to run with the ball concerning Obama
and yet all was forgiven and forgotten with Dubya. Say whatever you want about the current POTUS, but don't be a hypocrite about the not so distant past.
No, the post was not talking about the general concepts of presidential class and decorum, the specific subject of the thread is Obama and his classless behavior at the SOTU and Robert's very classy response when questioned about the event.
YOU can't do anything but point elsewhere with your response...LOOK>>>> LOOK at BUSH!!! Come on, can't you do better than that?
That can be a rhetorical question if you wish....we all know the answer.
Here's some additional articles. Although I'm certain you'll ignore them or reject them as biased, the fact that the article you yourself cited contradicts you is pretty telling.
Alito may have been right on the facts, but his nodding was still remarkably bad form.
Longstanding tradition holds that Supreme Court Justices sit silently during the State of the Union. Unlike the senators and representatives, they don't stand up and clap for things they agree with. The Justices are supposed to stay about the political fray.
If Justices shouldn't stand and clap when they agree, they shouldn't nod vigorously and mouth their disagreement when they think the president is wrong. Staying above the fray goes both ways.
You know Washington has become way too partisan when Supreme Court Justices can't even control themselves.
I suppose you can argue that two wrongs don't make a right but come on...a nod and mouthed disagreement is no where near as much a breach of protocol as the president calling out the SCOTUS in that setting. Does this guy think longstanding traditions only apply to the Supreme Court but not to Obama? Yes, SCOTUS should control themselves while the president does otherwise. If they are supposed to stay out of the political fray the president should not use the occasion to attack them from his political podium. Obama is classless...and this writer is clueless.
Poor old white man Roberts thinks he's entitled to be free from criticism by an elected President.....LOL
So typical of right wingers.
They've spent the last year whining about "activist judges" and "roe v wade" but get their panties in a wad when a Democrat dares criticize a Court ruling.
Poor old white man Roberts thinks he's entitled to be free from criticism by an elected President.....LOL
So typical of right wingers.
They've spent the last year whining about "activist judges" and "roe v wade" but get their panties in a wad when a Democrat dares criticize a Court ruling.
Whaaah!
Ah, another leftie who can't read. It seems to be an epidemic on this forum.
Here...I'll help you out a bit.
Quote:
Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions."So I have no problems with that," he said.
It's the "President's" (an elected poltician) State of the Union speech you poor thing!
The President can say whatever the hell he wishes to say.
There is no protocol...Maybe Roberts and Alito shouldn't attend????
That would be fine by all of us.
Partisan hack judges can stay away.
First, I am not poor.
Second, the president can say what he wants but that doesn't mean it's right or appropriate.
Third, there is plenty of protocol that accompanies the SOTU. (I'll be nice and help you out, again)
Quote:
Protocol-the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.
Fourth, justices opt not to attend for a variety of reasons....pleasing you is not one of them.
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.
Someday you might even figure out that Bush isn't the president anymore. 
