VIDEO.Obama isolates and humiliates Supreme Court

[sofia]

...an unprecedented public attack on the Supreme Court...classless...tyrannical...


humiliating...classless bvullying on 5 men who cant even reposnd...

watch Alito mouth "not true"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

[Bruno]

The top benficiary of special interst lobby money in 2008 didn't have a problem with powerful interests bankrolling his campaign, but he does now, huh? And how many minutes later did he say the time for devision and finger-pointing is over?

[dannno]

bump

[MelissaWV]

I posted this elsewhere, but it was more than just attacking the Supreme Court. He invited Congress to craft legislation to "correct" their decision. He also mentioned an Executive Order to get around the fact Congress didn't create a panel he wanted them to.

[roho76]

The Supreme Court should smack down the income tax and choke this mutha.

[FrankRep]

The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem


The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228114

[Romulus]

Yeah.. coming from Goldman Sachs boy.. he doesnt think what?

[Vessol]

His sickening lack of care for the balance of powers is sickening.

[LibForestPaul]

I did not watch this turds speech.

I am in utter disbelief that this occurred.

Alito should have yelled out "Hypocrite Liar".

[Flash]

Yeah I saw this on Joe Scarborough this morning. It was pretty disgraceful.

[Stary Hickory]

Obama has a full agenda of unconstitutional things he wants to get done, a supreme court is (supposedly) the defender of the constitution. Maybe he is just trying to intimidate them early on, I am sure he fears that they might try and uphold the constitution.

[JK/SEA]

Is the Supreme court even constitutional?

[FrankRep]

Is the Supreme court even constitutional?

Supreme court was given super-Constitutional powers, unConstitutionally.


The contemporary doctrine of "judicial supremacy" has allowed the Supreme Court to become the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution — a role that properly belongs to "We the People" as exercised through their elected representatives. by Edwin Vieira, Jr

Dangers of "Judicial Supremacy"

Edwin Vieira, Jr | 17 February 2009

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/794



Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)

Eras of the history of the Supreme Court are usually named after the Chief Justice of that time.

The earliest Courts—under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801)—heard few cases, and the Supreme Court's first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue. Further, the Court initially lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)) and made several important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hunter%27s_Lessee), the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

[ItsTime]

Recap of Obama's address last night

F-ck you congress you suck

F-ck you supreme court you suck

F-ck you banks you suck

F-ck you American people you are stupid and need MY help.

[Bruno]

Its apparently alright for Obama to call out the Supreme Court while they sit there in front of him, a first for a U.S. President to do during a State of the Union Address, but it is an outrage to yell out "You lie!"

[Stary Hickory]

Its apparently alright for Obama to call out the Supreme Court while they sit there in front of him, a first for a U.S. President to do during a State of the Union Address, but it is an outrage to yell out "You lie!"

If by some miracle the SC starts acting like they can read(the constitution) I will not let Obama brow beat them down like FDR did. That isn't going to happen again.

[akforme]

Its apparently alright for Obama to call out the Supreme Court while they sit there in front of him, a first for a U.S. President to do during a State of the Union Address, but it is an outrage to yell out "You lie!"


He attacked them first on that one too. The "you lie' was a reaction to him calling them all liars.

American democracy... showing the world how it's done.

[FrankRep]

American democracy... showing the world how it's done.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
-John Adams

[Working Poor]

I kinda though what the supreme court did was wrong explain to me why it is a good thing.

[FrankRep]

I kinda though what the supreme court did was wrong explain to me why it is a good thing.


The Supreme Court decision to strike down a key part of the McCain-Feingold law in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission promises to unleash the electoral fury of America's small businesses and citizens groups, so the New York Times and all of the official left is naturally squealing like a stuck pig. by Thomas R. Eddlem

The Coming Small Business Revolution on Politics after Citizens United v. FEC

Thomas R. Eddlem | 23 January 2010

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2808-the-coming-small-business-revolution-on-politics-after-citizens-united-v-fec

[Working Poor]

so does that mean all political candidates will have equal rights to advertising?

[Seanmc30]

OK, I was wondering you all's take on this. I know it was probably hypocritical for Obama to call out the SCOTUS for their decision, but as to the context of his objection I kind of agreed with him.

If there is one thing I have learned from my RP awakening it is that our current monetary system has bred corruption and a bond between business and government that should not be there. Some still see corporations as free market institutions but I really don't anymore. I see them as a group of people who have paid off politicians and manipulated our laws through lobbies. I certainly don't see them as a moral group of "people". This SC decision seems to give these companies the ability to further wedge themselves into our government and remove the people's voices completely.

I wanted to yell at the Supreme Court too... Am I missing something here?

[Andrew-Austin]

OK, I was wondering you all's take on this. I know it was probably hypocritical for Obama to call out the SCOTUS for their decision, but as to the context of his objection I kind of agreed with him.

If there is one thing I have learned from my RP awakening it is that our current monetary system has bred corruption and a bond between business and government that should not be there. Some still see corporations as free market institutions but I really don't anymore. I see them as a group of people who have paid off politicians and manipulated our laws through lobbies. I certainly don't see them as a moral group of "people". This SC decision seems to give these companies the ability to further wedge themselves into our government and remove the people's voices completely.

I wanted to yell at the Supreme Court too... Am I missing something here?

-The Supreme Court steps up for constitutional liberty for perhaps the weakest end imaginable, to assure corporations of their already dangerously strong influence on politics. Its kind of laughable when you think of how liberal/loose the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution has been thus far in history and to the extent they have allowed the state to expand and liberty decline. Yet they decide to arbitrarily draw the line here, which makes it kind of laughable.

-Obama disagrees with them for undoubtedly the wrong reasons / hidden motivations.

-Some constitutionalists here applaud their decision while forgetting the detrimental effects this will have on the well, already completely fucked up political process.

Really the whole matter is just a headache in my opinion.

I think in this present picture granting the corporation's more room for influencing the political process , will help to ensure that policy wise the US stays more in its fascist hole instead of slipping in to the communistic total state that Obama most likely wants. (watch this video (http://fringeelements.ning.com/video/the-game?commentId=2609817%3AComment%3A14246) to get a clear view of what I mean) The former is the lesser evil, but both are still shit. The values of liberty and constitutionalism are completely irrelevant to the matter, in the sense that the SC's decision either way would not encourage a move towards more liberty and constitutionalism has long been burried as a value in government.

[AlterEgo]

Hopefully this pisses off the court and they begin striking down everything that Obama signs into "law". Federal gridlock would be the best thing that could happen.

[MelissaWV]

OK, I was wondering you all's take on this. I know it was probably hypocritical for Obama to call out the SCOTUS for their decision, but as to the context of his objection I kind of agreed with him.

If there is one thing I have learned from my RP awakening it is that our current monetary system has bred corruption and a bond between business and government that should not be there. Some still see corporations as free market institutions but I really don't anymore. I see them as a group of people who have paid off politicians and manipulated our laws through lobbies. I certainly don't see them as a moral group of "people". This SC decision seems to give these companies the ability to further wedge themselves into our government and remove the people's voices completely.

I wanted to yell at the Supreme Court too... Am I missing something here?

Disagreeing with a decision is great. Telling Congress that the Supreme Court basically doesn't matter, and to enact legislation to "correct" their decision, is a step towards a line. Telling Congress that their decisions likewise don't matter, and you're issuing an Executive Order to "correct" Congress' decision, is a step over it.

[LibForestPaul]

I kinda though what the supreme court did was wrong explain to me why it is a good thing.

I too am not all to keen on this decision.
Irrelevant...this has to do with character and tact and class, something Obama obviously does not have

He certainly can disparage their decision, during a White House Press conf, or better yet, through underlings on news broadcasts.. Disparaging these officials, within Capital Hill, during an address to Congress, televised nation-wide, is disgusting.

[Meatwasp]

Its apparently alright for Obama to call out the Supreme Court while they sit there in front of him, a first for a U.S. President to do during a State of the Union Address, but it is an outrage to yell out "You lie!"

So true