Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, March 10, 2010

While speaking to law students at the University of Alabama, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday that the atmosphere at President Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

YOU LIE!

and so should all of the justices...
it was unprecedented and uncalled for...because I have read and heard goddamn dems whine for months now about civility when it comes from the right but nothing but silence or agreement when shit like this happens.

This entire administration is very troubling. Worst president ever.

government by and for the corporations.

thank the sc for allowing open bribery.

You mean campaign speeches are tacky at SOU's?

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said.

The voices of the american people have been drowned out by lobbysists and special interests long before this decision was made. Gibbs is a fucking idiot if he doesn't think the americans already know that. Of course it is good fodder...

He punked the punk?

So........ in the state of the union did he tell us what was the state of the union? If he did, I must have missed it. It shouldn't take over an hour to say "We are in a shithole and Bush is to blame".

It's not that special interest groups are bad - I just want the ones I disagree with to be banned. You can keep the ones I like...

Roberts is a JOKE he cannot even administer the Presidential Oath of Office correctly.

What a bozo we have for a chief justice.

"We are in a shithole and Bush is to blame".

#8 | Posted by Sniper

Well, at least you admit it.

Atta boy, Justice Roberts. The truth, the whole truth and nutt'in but the truth.

Gibbs is a fucking idiot if he doesn't think the americans already know that. Of course it is good fodder...

#6 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-10 11:49

amen

did you see the clips of major garret asking this dumbshit THREE times for info about the allegation of the white house offering the guy running against spector a job if he would back out of the race.
gibbs told him each time that he had info in his office...

The other justices should have gotten up--without a word--and exited the chamber.

Well, at least you admit it.

#11 | Posted by TFDNihilist

You don't think I would blame the dems, would you?

The other justices should have gotten up--without a word--and exited the chamber.

#14 | Posted by rightisright

Damn Right.

DITTO to that...

but then we would have heard all about lack of civility from dems like rhom asshole...and all the while libs are trashing palin and bush

Roberts is a typical Republican. Can't take any criticism and whines like a little bitch about it.

I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.

#13 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2010-03-10 12:11 PM |

Sestak made the mistake of telling the truth. Yesterday when asked, he refused to elaborate. He went into the politican mode of what good would it do, it doesn't help the economy or create jobs...

"because I have read and heard goddamn dems whine for months now about civility when it comes from the right but nothing but silence or agreement when shit like this happens."

What was uncivil about what he said? He was extremely polite about it. Emphatic, but not uncivil.

+++++

"Worst president ever."

Who are you, Comic Book Guy?

+++++

" the state of the union did he tell us what was the state of the union? If he did, I must have missed it."

You're right--you missed it.

And since when has SOTU been anything other than a president trying to sell his agenda? Bush did it, Clinton did it, Reagan did it... Go figure--Obama did it too. How odd that he would act like an American president.

It was in the same memo that Obama obviously didn't read that said he needs to show at least a small amount of class as the POTUS.

"I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.
#19 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-10 12:19 PM"

If you had gotten the memo, you'd know that only Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices are free from ridicule or rebuke (as evidenced by comments from folks who don't need to be mentioned).

Phoney Conservative activist Judge who loves Corporations and money more than expendable people. A real piece of work built on inconsistent and false assumptions. Appointed for life, unless he's impeached.

shouldnt take a memo for the president to have some integrity and for the other side to not be so fuckin hypocritical about it.

EVERYONE knows that if bush had done that, he would have had things thrown at him and the left would be in thier typical CONVULSION over it..

I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.

#19 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-10 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag

Good point, now if Obanana could take the rebuke, we wouldnt have this article and Gibbs wouldnt be making defelctions. Nor would we need to hear the whinneing from the left about how Roberts called Obanana out for his bullshit and lies. After all its the not the job of the justices to make laws but instead make sure people like McCain and Fiengold dont trample the constitiution with their s.

"It was in the same memo that Obama obviously didn't read that said he needs to show at least a small amount of class as the POTUS."

There was nothing unclassy about the President's comments regarding a decision which will have dire effects on our elections. It was the STOFU address and this decision will effect the state of that union.

BUT Of course the main media attention was about the head move and THATS NOT RIGHT being mouthed by whats his name.........

THATS a problem but the lying fuck president calling out the supremes in that arena is no big deal

typical dem horseshit...

Is there anyone left who DOESN'T think the SOTU is anything more than a political pep talk? Obama really should figure out what the fuck his teleprompter is telling him though, he was flat out wrong about what the court decision was all about. Major fuckup on many fronts.

EXACTLY the same sort of dem horseshit showcased in karl rove interview and book from hannity last night

showed clip after clip of sanctamonius and hypocritical lying assholes named hillary and kerry and DODD all pounding thier fists and telling us that as kerry said

THERE was no doubt that 'left to his own' that sadaam would have weapons that threaten the world...

no proof of democrat shit really DOES stink.

no ...BETTER...proof

DUH!

Wasn't it at a recent SOTU we were told Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger?

And Roberts was silent about that, but spoke up about a rebuke?

WTF is in the Republican water?

"It was in the same memo that Obama obviously didn't read that said he needs to show at least a small amount of class as the POTUS."

Repeat: What lack of class? Compared to any other recent president? Didn't Bush rant and rave (er, talk impassionedly) about terrorism and Iraq in his SOTU post-2001? Come on. Be serious.

+++++

"shouldnt take a memo for the president to have some integrity and for the other side to not be so fuckin hypocritical about it."

Did you just say the righties are being hypocritical about this? Or is this an example of your writing style creating confusion?

+++++

"Obama really should figure out what the fuck his teleprompter is telling him though, he was flat out wrong about what the court decision was all about. "

Okay, why don't you explain it to us? Seems to me that he presented a common interpretation. Have you had deeper constitutional schooling than the president has had, Jim?

roberts, get your ass back on the bench and do some more legislating from there, like you want to do.

So, now, we have scotus judges playing politics too?

As soon as his bribers find out that he has brought the corporate bribery issue back to the fore-front, after being forgotten, they are going to renig on all the bribes they initially promised him for pushing this piece of shit of a court decision through.

Obama was right for bringing it up, because it is illegal and the complete wrong decision by scotus.

Speaking of tools, this Roberts tool may be around long after we've managed to block out other Bush atrocities. Wasn't it Roberts, after all, who presided over the turning of corporations into people? herm

"There was nothing unclassy about the President's comments"

Danni ... it was the President and Congress towering over the Supreme Court cheering and hollering while they had to sit there and take it like a whipping boy. Look at how much of an uproar (even here on the DR) that Alito got when he shook his head and quietly mouthed the words "not true." People were calling for his impeachment!

What the President said was perfectly appropriate (albeit wrong), and probably required from someone in his position ... but how it was done and where it was done (at the SOTU) showed the President lacks character. Put it in a press briefing, speech, campaign rally, etc and there are no problems. Force 1/3rd of the government to sit through a hazing because they had the decency to show up to the President's political theater lacks class by anyone's definition.

I will be very happy if all of the Justices boycott the SOTU for the remainder of Obama's Presidency. They deserve better.

gptoocool would submit that you idiots always miss the point and fall into the abyss that you all think is your cleverness.
Roberts is stating the obvious..there is no statesmanship left in the joke called congress. Both sides are wrong in their extreme partisanship. What is so hard to understand about that.

OK, you may now all put your heads back up into your sphincters and continue inane arguments about subjects you know nothing about.

Can they still make inane arguments on subjects in which they are experts?

"because it is illegal and the complete wrong decision by scotus"

I would lay good money on the fact that you libtards have never even read the decision you criticize and take everything that MSM gives you at face value.

WTF is in the Republican water?
#32 | Posted by Danforth

Learn a little fucking history. The ST doesn't have anything to say about such matters. Oh, and BTW, that SOTU was presented on January 28, 2003. Roberts wasn't nominated until July 19, 2005. So much for liberals being so freaking intelligent.

Wasn't it at a recent SOTU we were told Iraq was seeking Uranium from Niger?

And Roberts was silent about that, but spoke up about a rebuke?

WTF is in the Republican water?

#32 | Posted by Danforth

Dan--

The uranium SOTU was in 2003.

Roberts was not appointed until 2005.

So when the president criticizes the Supreme Court, it's improperly political, but it's OK for the chief justice to deride the State of the Union as a "pep rally"? Roberts is engaging in partisan politics himself with that remark.

This was a bit of a smackdown by Roberts to Obama.

SCOTUS Style...

It's troubling Rcade..

There is a time and place for discussing differences.

Obama choose to chide the justices in front of the country when they have to sit there without expression (sans Alito mouthng 'not true'..

Obama shot first and Roberts responded--over a month later btw.

actually I was slightly off in one example

the BEST example of democrat hypocricy in these matters was the bush SOTU speech where dems booed and hissed outloud...and thier attacks on gop who called them on it.

"Roberts is engaging in partisan politics himself with that remark"

I agree that he is engaged in politics (probably unwisely), but it cannot be partisan he is not one of the parties involved in the dispute. Remember that the Chief will be there longer than any president, senator, or Congressman so he really plays for a different team than the Republican vs. Democrat partisan politics.

I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.

Nobody said they are free from rebuke. Roberts' point is that to criticize them in a forum in which they cannot respond, and are surrounded by a bunch of cheerleading buffoons from Congress, is tacky and appears aimed more at embarrassing or insulting the Justices than actually opening a constructive dialogue on the point.

afkable,

You're clueless, Reagan did it to "Roe vs Wade" and not one Justice said shit about it.

One set of rules for alleged "Conservatives" who supposedlyly object to "Judicial Activism" and another whenever opposing opinions are voiced by those they label "Liberals".

You have to look to the dead and gone Buckley on Firing Line or Moyers Journal for honest intellectual discussion. They both consistently brought opposing views in order to dissect real issues.

Even Mahre show is hoplessly boring when his guests all agree. You don't learn anything.

Its always really only about the money man. Those five arrogant Justices working with Roberts to dismantle our common interests are just five more pigs at the trough.

There was nothing unclassy about the President's comments

Nobody said his comments as written or spoken were unclassy. His choice to deliver said comments in the forum he did is what was unclassy.

in a forum

Many president's have used that forum to ridicule opponents or state displeasure with practices of Congress. Those subject to ridicule aren't allowed to respond in said forum, so why is the Supreme Court any different?

You guys are just pissed because he called out a conservative bench. That's all this is about.

NUT
please remember your 'just about the money' comment when other issus come up not so in favor of the dems.

my bottom line here is said very well by joe when he talks of the supremes being attacked in a venue that they cant respond. and with the stateapproved media...even a response now is not so much of taking a chance is setting up hypocritical lying dems the chance to give us some sanctamonious garbage about civility and 'TONE"...because its the "TONE" that now has given us gop govs in VA and new jersey and put a gop into the ENTITLED senate seat of ted kennedy..

a modern president has NEVER said shit like that against the supremes in that speech...
nut..can you link the RR statement.....I am not one of those link it or your lying guys so if you dont have time or cant find it...no big deal

Many president's have used that forum to ridicule opponents or state displeasure with practices of Congress. Those subject to ridicule aren't allowed to respond in said forum, so why is the Supreme Court any different?

Because the justices were sitting right there in the room. Do you really not see the difference?

Because the justices were sitting right there in the room

So is Congress, and they are subject to ridicule and rebuke as well.

So is Congress, and they are subject to ridicule and rebuke as well

Congress goes out of their way to make fools of themselves by whooping and hollering, booing, hissing, etc. They are hardly required (or able) to sit and take a rebuke from the president IN THEIR CHAMBER. The Supreme Court is expected to be "bumps on a log".

So is Congress, and they are subject to ridicule and rebuke as well.

And calling out five particular members of Congress in a forum in which they cannot respond, while every other scumbag in Congress stands up, pretends they are any better and starts cheering, I'd once again say that it was an inappropriate an unprofessional act.

since the left here doesnt seem to worry about decorum or shit like that..
maybe some of you would be interested in this.
and NO...briwo...or others ..I dont think you get to see him naked

www.cbsnews.com

They are hardly required (or able) to sit and take a rebuke from the president IN THEIR CHAMBER

I guess that's why the "you lie" incident wasn't that big of a deal.

"Remember that the Chief will be there longer than any president, senator, or Congressman so he really plays for a different team than the Republican vs. Democrat partisan politics."

That's the theory but not the reality. Roberts is a corporatist Republican.

I'd once again say that it was an inappropriate an unprofessional act

And I would once again say that is merely your opinion which is influenced by the fact that this was a conservative bench being called out by a democratic executive.

and AGAIN joe hits you apologists right in the heart...

it was completely wrong for him to attack the court members and then have to goddamn dems standing all over them clapping and yelling..
I would hope that I and JOe would expect the same WHEN those fuckers are at home or hosts on msnbc.

"a modern president has NEVER said shit like that against the supremes in that speech..."

"On January 6, 1937, just two weeks before his first term was to expire, FDR delivered the annual State Of The Union address before a joint session of congress. In this speech Roosevelt made several comments about the judiciary branch of government (The Supreme Court) In the first comment, Roosevelt described the need for closer harmony between legislative and judicial action. In other words, he was expressing his view that by declaring key parts of the New Deal unconstitutional, the Supreme Court was out of harmony with the will of the people as expressed in Congress, and in their recent reelection of him. Later in the speech, Roosevelt added:

"The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call nonexistent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good."

www.authentichistory.com

I guess that's why the "you lie" incident wasn't that big of a deal.

What Wilson did was wholly in appropriate and he deserved more shit than he got for it. But that proves my point that Congress is free to respond (even inappropriately) while Alito shakes his head and mouth's "not true" and people call for his impeachment. The Supreme Court is forced to sit there silent and emotionless while the President and the rest of Congress dresses them down? You think this is really appropriate?

the Supreme Court was out of harmony with the will of the people as expressed in Congress, and in their recent reelection of him

The SCOTUS has no duty to party, person, state, or the will of the people: it is only loyal to the word of law and the Constitution. That is it.

and obama is a lying radical proponent of socialist democracy
and you are right, thank God...he will be gone and hopefully in 2012.

but once again even if he wins reelection it shouldnt matter..not with a clear gop majority in house and even a split in the senate.
NOVEMBER 2, 2012

HASTA LA PASTA.........

#62...

Where was the Supreme Court when Roosevelt was rounding up americans and putting them in internment camps? Nice example danni.

But that proves my point that Congress is free to respond

Wilson was ridiculed and I believe "punished" for his outburst so I would hardly say that Congress is free to respond.

danni
thanks for the link but IM not sure where you are going with that.

fdr tried really hard to increase the court and appoint the added ones to turn the court into his own lawmaking body.....and thank God THAT didnt work either...
not sure I see your point on my question...

Congress is 100% free to respond, just not WHILE THE PRESIDENT IS SPEAKING! And Obama was wrong to call out the SCOTUS as well. Gee, no shortage of wrong doing yet everyone is pointing at the other party's actions.

And I would once again say that is merely your opinion which is influenced by the fact that this was a conservative bench being called out by a democratic executive.

And you'd be a dumbass for saying so. This has nothing to do with the particular set of justices whose ruling was criticized. If Bush stood there and ripped the Stevens/Ginsburg faction of the Court, and all the grandstanding Congressional jerkoffs stood up hooting and hollering, I'd be saying the same thing. The fact that you'd rather speculate as to my motives than actually address the so obviously unprofessional conduct by our president is indicative of your inability (but strong desire) to defend the President.

"yet everyone is pointing at the other party's actions"

He started it...

I see nothing wrong with Roberts' reaction, I just think the assumption that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke is wrong. Roberts is free to his opinion, and if I were in his shoes I would probably feel the same way. No one likes to be taken to task in front of their peers.

this was NOT the place for it...and as always...the left would have gone into frantic convulsions over it

SCHUMER would have lost what hair in the front he has left....
but when obama has the media in his pocket, the whole thing was unnecessary and not well done.
he could have sat with any of the three networks and bitched for the whole newscast if he had wanted.

Again, I see nothing wrong with what he did in this particular forum, thus there is no need for defense. Presidents have spoken out regarding the judicial branch in their state of the unionion addresses before and I have no problem with it.

unprofessional conduct

Again, your mere opinion which really carries no influence as it pertains to this matter.

Again, your mere opinion which really carries no influence as it pertains to this matter.

Nearly everything posted in this thread is "merely someone's opinion." Bringing that up is a cop-out by someone who has no legitimate defense of the person they are attempting to defend.

Presidents have spoken out regarding the judicial branch in their state of the unionion addresses before

Link?

"I guess that's why the "you lie" incident wasn't that big of a deal.

What Wilson did was wholly in appropriate and he deserved more shit than he got for it. But that proves my point that Congress is free to respond (even inappropriately) while Alito shakes his head and mouth's "not true" and people call for his impeachment. The Supreme Court is forced to sit there silent and emotionless while the President and the rest of Congress dresses them down? You think this is really appropriate?
#63 | Posted by flaglerkid at 2010-03-10 01:31 PM"

I see your point, but think you missed (or at least glossed over) one difference: Congress is (by it's nature/definition) political and partisan, the SCOTUS is not and should not be. Their 'job' is to decide the 'Constitutionality' of issues. There's no room for politics, nor should there be. The concern/calls for impeachment are to address a perceived partisanship on the part of the SCOTUS. That perception might be inaccurate, but I think it is the impetus for the concern.

"Where was the Supreme Court when Roosevelt was rounding up americans and putting them in internment camps? Nice example danni."

Don't you think a better question would be where was the Supreme Court???

"danni
thanks for the link but IM not sure where you are going with that."

Just wanted to demonstrate that other presidents have indeed criticized the court in the State of the Union address.

"Presidents have spoken out regarding the judicial branch in their state of the unionion addresses before

Link?"

See #62

I guess I didn't get the memo which stated that the Supreme Court is free from ridicule or rebuke.

#19 | POSTED BY TAXMAN AT 2010-03-10 12:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG

You didn't read Robert's comments then. He said people are free to criticize opinions, and that is healthy. He felt that it wasn't the place with half the chamber applauding and with the justices supposed to be just sitting their on their hands taking it from the executive branch. Roberts is, of course, right. It was not the place and time.

There's no room for politics, nor should there be.

The opinions delivered by the Court should be free from politics and rooted in the Constitution. What they say during speeches is completely different.

Reagan also called out the court. Joe, we have discussed this before and if I remember correctly you held that Reagan was wrong as well. So on that point I will say that you are true to your word/opinion; however, I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with what FDR, Reagan, Obama, etc. did.

Roberts is, of course, right. It was not the place and time.

Roberts, of course, was wrong. He is merely embarrassed.

I don't agree that the SOTU is the place for the CEO to say "this company would be doing better if Bob in accounting did more." That is for the CEO to say to Bob privately. The SOTU is for the CEO to say "this company could be doing better if we all did more."

This thread is a good example of how one's political perspective influences an evaluation of a story. Righties think Roberts was in the right and President Obama was wrong. Lefties think President Obama was in the right and Roberts was in the wrong. Very few self-identified righties or lefties saying the other guy was correct.

Did the CEO call out an individual or a branch? Using your example it would have been more like the CEO calling out the marketing team for a lackluster performance. Of course, the head of the marketing group is going to be pissed/embarrassed.

And for the record, I think as a matter of course the decisions of the United States Supreme Court are valid objects of political criticism. The only question is whether President Obama should have leveled such criticism with the SCOTUS sitting right there and not having the ability to respond.

#85 | Posted by taxman at 2010-03-10 02:01 PM

Did he call out the entire court, or just 5 of the members? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

Look at ANY past president's State Of The Union speech and compare to obama's. If you cannot spot what Justice Roberts is saying - - then you might be an obama apologist [apologies to Jeff Foxworthy].

Lefties think President Obama was in the right and Roberts was in the wrong.

While I did vote democrat in the last election and have been turned off by republicans in recent years, I'm no lefty. I am merely stating that what the President did was in no way unprofessional. I also think Roberts has a reason to feel the way he does, but I think history shows he is wrong.

Show me in the constitution, line by line, the stipulated rights of corporations, special interest groups, unions, or any other entity other than the rights of citizens, absent any other qualification other than citizen.
There are none.
As it stands, all citizens have the rights already, they are demanding recognition and entitlement as entities OTHER THAN citizens.

All 3 branches of government, bought and paid for by special interests, to the detriment of the citizens. That they completely and deliberately ignore and disregard the prohibitions to their authority and their representation, under the consent of the people.

To subvert the constitution, and its authority and representation, under consent, is a criminal act.

Roberts should be arrested. He is not above the law.
None of them are.

Did he call out the entire court, or just 5 of the members? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

He called out the court in general, but proceeded to rip their decision. So in essence, he was not calling out the 4 members of the court who did not vote in favor of that decision.

Is it any wonder those on the left feel it was appropriate and ignore the venue? Keep in mind they also said it was approriate for Reid to say the war is lost on the Senate floor, Kennedy, Reed, Murtha... All appropriate as long as it a dem who breaks protocol.

The President decides for himself what is appropriate for a state of the union address and he knows when he does that history will be the ultimate judge. I think that in the end history will judge President Obama's remarks based on the effects of the SC decision. IMHO history will judge Roberts harshly and will say that Obama should have made stronger remarks and urged all Americans to sign the petition for an amendment to the constitution to eliminate corporate personhood.

to sign the petition for an amendment to the constitution to eliminate corporate personhood.

I'm of the opinion a constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions is more appropriate.

"I'm of the opinion a constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions is more appropriate."

The controversy about the SC decision wasn't about contributions, it was about corporations themselves running attack ads. As it now stands they can directly attack or support any politician as long as they identify the corporation paying for the ad, and that corporation may only be a dummy with no assets set up by another major corporation. Honesty in the ad isn't necessary because as a corporation without assets who could anyone sue for damages??
I'm no lawyer but we need some kind of amendment to prevent corporations from using so much money that they can virtually control who gets elected. How that is accomplished best I don't know.

"I'm of the opinion a constitutional amendment limiting campaign contributions is more appropriate."

---------------

meaningless as campaign finance reform.

end the corporate person.

anything less is a waste of time.

Danni, I think you're confused about the corporate "person." An entity such as the corporation, LLC, LLP, etc. has a necessity to be an individual as it pertains to legal, financial, and other inherent characteristics. The entire basis of such business vehicles is to create an individual identity for the business, separate from those that run or invest in the corporation. Are you willing to have each and every shareholder be held responsible for all debts and civil issues of a corporation? Microsoft has billions of outstanding shares. To do as you wish would be to turn back hundreds of years of common and statutory law. It simply is not feasible nor desirable. I trust you are simply ignorant of the basis and functions of corporate law, otherwise your weekly rants about corporate "person"s would be absolutely silly.

I wouldn't be surprised of they all boycotted the next one. Obama was despicable.

Obama was despicable.

#98 | Posted by mysterytoy

No more than you.

"Show me in the constitution, line by line, the stipulated rights of corporations, special interest groups, unions, or any other entity other than the rights of citizens, absent any other qualification other than citizen."

Typical liberal claptrap. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of personal rights. The intent of the Constitution, beyond setting up the formalities of a federal government, is to lay out limitations on Government, not on individuals. An individual's right are near limitless, limited only by the personal rights of others. A constitution cannot and should not attempt to spell out "line by line" "stipulated rights" of anything or anyone. To do so would necessarily limit those rights. The Constitution does not lay out line by line stipulated rights of citizens. In that case your argument would have to extend to individual citizens as well. The Bill of Rights are not enumerated rights, as so many claim, but are a short list of governmental barriers to the infringement of personal rights. If you want to limit what a corporation does or does not do, make appropriate law or amend the constitution. But don't go bitching about SC decisions unless you're also willing to accept a conservative argument against Roe v. Wade, too.

The intent of the Constitution, beyond setting up the formalities of a federal government, is to lay out limitations on Government, not on individuals.

I never saw it like that. To me, the Constitution empowers the Federal government and the Bill of Rights limits it.

you willing to have each and every shareholder be held responsible for all debts and civil issues of a corporation?

The separate entity theory has nothig to do with corporate personhood. Without corporate personhood shareholders would still be insulated from liability.

Rather those in support of corporate personhood believe that corporations were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as natural persons - i.e., right to privacy and the right to lobby the government.

I trust you are simply ignorant of the basis and functions of corporate law

"To do as you wish would be to turn back hundreds of years of common and statutory law."

Baloney, go back to the time of the founding fathers are read the limitations placed on corporations at that time. They were prohibited from any involvement in politics. If that were unconstitutional it would have been found so by the SC two hundred years ago and it wasn't.

#101 | Posted by kanrei

Unfortunately that's what we (the people) have allowed to happen. We've allowed Congress to whip the Commerce Clause into a weapon to force states and individuals to do whatever the boneheads in Congress wish. Sit back and imagine what Madison, Mason, et. al would think about No Child Left Behind and similar legislation. Imagine what they would have to say about the SC deciding that a farmer cannot grow his own wheat (Wickard v. Filburn). We The People are supposed to be the government, but we have handed it lock, stock, and barrel over to establishment bums in Washington. My personal opinion is that the Constitution is really only a bunch of compromises, so how good can it really be. But the intent of the founders is pretty plain. There should have been no need of the Bill of Rights, but the fear of the anti-federalists was real, and clearly not unfounded.

"We The People are supposed to be the government"

Nice choice of words there.

"But the intent of the founders is pretty plain."

Yes, they knew the constitution would need to change and evolve.

Danni, were Obama to urge the public to sign a constitutional amendment to override the court's decision, I would not have seen that as offensive as calling out the court and suggesting there was no basis for their decision in the first place.

Clearly there seems to be a great ignorance of corporate history by our renown liberal posters complaining of the SC decision and the "personhood" of corporations. The history of US corporations goes back much further than merely the founding of the nation. Our basis of law, even corporate law, goes back to Henry I and beyond. Corporate law is modeled much after admiralty law, with a basis in the early trading days of northern Europe. To argue about getting totally rid of "personhood" of corporations is senseless. Ah, so much to explain and so little time. Suffice it to say that if you don't like the decision, make a better law. I don't want unions and others spending on campaigns, either, but trying to destroy corporations won't solve the problem.

"Yes, they knew the constitution would need to change and evolve."

True, but they also made it purposely very difficult. Imagine trying to actually get a Constitutional amendment passed in today's political environment. Obama can't even get his own party to agree that water is wet and the sky is blue. Let's throw 50 state governments into mix and see what happens.

The history of US corporations goes back much further than merely the founding of the nation.

No shit Sherlock, but that has nothing to do with your incorrect assertion that corporate personhood has something to do with limited liability afforded through corporate status.

Yes, they knew the constitution would need to change and evolve.

Actually, that's not quite right, Danni. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a few of the founding fathers wanted to include an amendment that required a Constitutinoal Convention every x years. (numbers between 50 and 100 years were proffered). However, the general concensus was that the Constitution should be rock solid and not changable to the whims of the times.

At times I think a required update to the Constituion should have been included in the original document, but at other times, I see the necessity for the solid anchor.

"I don't want unions and others spending on campaigns, either, but trying to destroy corporations won't solve the problem."

No one wants to destroy corporations, just remove them from politics.

"True, but they also made it purposely very difficult."

I realize that but it can be done. The founding fathers only had to worry about thirteen states agreeing, now we have 50, it is much harder now, something the founding fathers probably did not anticipate.

-Clearly there seems to be a great ignorance of corporate history by our renown liberal posters

Really?

Someone needs a history adjustment on corporate personhood.....

docs.google.com

"At times I think a required update to the Constituion should have been included in the original document, but at other times, I see the necessity for the solid anchor."

I guess you sometimes think that we should still have slaves, women would not vote, etc.
I never have any doubt that we need a way to change the constitution. It was not a perfect document by any means. It still isn't.

Roberts' point is that to criticize them in a forum in which they cannot respond, and are surrounded by a bunch of cheerleading buffoons from Congress, is tacky and appears aimed more at embarrassing or insulting the Justices than actually opening a constructive dialogue on the point.

Perhaps it was not constructive for Obama to criticize the Citizens United decision in the speech, but I tend to think we give Supreme Court justices too much deference. We overthrew a king. The court is not immune from criticism. If Roberts is too wimpy to handle that in the State of the Union, he can stay home.

Someone needs a history adjustment on corporate personhood.....

Yeah, because a book with chapters called "Why Corporate Personhood is Bad for Society" and "How to Revoke Corporate Personhood" is a great source for an unbiased history lesson. Dorky never fails to disappoint.

Notorious Asskicker Harry Reid weighs in, lmao....

Harry Reid Slams Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy For Campaign Finance Decision

The president and his aides aren't the only Democrats throwing unusually sharp and public jabs at the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was "so disappointed" with the Court's swing vote -- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy -- for enabling the court's rightward, corporatist tilt. As for Chief Justice John Roberts, the majority leader castigated him as being out of touch and completely detached from political reality.

"Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?" he said, referring to the role the chief justice played in crafting the court's Citizens United decision.

Insisting that the court was engaged in "activism" for allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on congressional campaigns, the Nevada Democrat insisted that the time had come to stop appointing judges to the bench.

"I think we've had enough of them," he said. "I think what we need are people on that bench who have been legislators, people who are lawyers, people who are academics. You look at our Supreme Court and all these people, all they know is working with people in black robes. We have got to change that."

Reid named names.

"I'll give you an example," he said. "Sandra Day O'Connor. She was a legislator. She was elected to the legislature in Arizona. She would never have let that case go forward. She would not have. She understood how hard it is to run for public office."

On the verge of further ripping "those characters" on the court, Reid paused. "I guess that's enough of that," he said, just as he was about to share his opinion of Justice Samuel Alito, another staunch conservative. The crowd of progressive media begged him to keep going. But he thought better of it and moved on.

www.huffingtonpost.com

Obama should have not have changed anything he said.

He should have added: "and for this reason, I have asked the US Congress to draft an Amendment to the Constitution to fix the Supreme Court's decision."

Now that would have been progress.

"Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?"

Coming from the guy who is behind all three republican challengers and somehow thinks he could win in a three way race. I think Roberts knows Harry has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to getting people elected. lol

#116

I see Lil' Joe couldn't get past the table of contents.

Even if he had, a lucid comment on the subject would be out of character.

"there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum"

The last part of the statement is the most important part - Specifically the word "Decorum"

Decorum; Appropriateness of behavior or conduct, The conventions or requirements of polite behavior

It was totally unacceptable behavior on the part of the President of the US to critisize the Supreme Court DURING the state of the Union.

It had never been done before - and certainly not while the Supreme Court was in attendence.

But what do you expect from the Snoope Dog of Politics....his feet up on the Resolute desk, IPod with his speeches as a present to another head of state, his inability to salute the Flag ( hands covering his dick instead of his heart...maybe that is where HIS heart is), drinking binges at the Whitehouse. DECORUM??! No concept of the word.

HE is why our image is falling overseas..NO CONCEPT of what is to BE President..which is why he continuly campaigns and NEVER Governs.


He should have added: "and for this reason, I have asked the US Congress to draft an Amendment to the Constitution to fix the Supreme Court's decision."
Now that would have been progress.

#118 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2010-03-10 04:25 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I actually think that would have been better, but not great. The problem I have with Obama's statement was that it left the unmistakable impression that he was using politics and voter outrage to shame the court into making decisions in the future based on politics and not the constitution.

I'd he's said something like he disagreed but understands the courts decision, and therefore called on Congress to pass a law addressing the issue that didn't violate the court's interpretation of the Constitution, at least he wouldn't be seemingly imposing political will on decisions, but asking for constitutionally sound legislation. But he chose to embarrass the Supreme Court instead.

...progress.

#118 | Posted by Petrous

Careful...right wing nuts hate that word!

I think the key here is

"according the requirements of protocol"

Did Obama violate any 'protocol" by rebuking the court in his SOTU speech?

I think not.

The decision of the court was so heinous and threatening to the American Voter that Obama was right and just to use his speech to rebuke the courts decision.

I applaud him for that.

Remember... the President speaks for the People and he certainly spoke for me that day.

Did Roberts violate protocol by mouthing his response?

Probably.

Don't like it? Change the protocol or do just like Wilson and just shout out "LIAR" and be done with it!

The divide between both parties has become dangerously wide and it is dividing America once again.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that Roberts (or any Justice) has no political leanings. That is why the retirement of the Justices is so important. It can change the entire tone of the court and direction of the law of the land.

I agree with Rcade...If Roberts can't take the heat of his decisions maybe he should just stay home.

Now wouldn't that be a good thing for The People?

HE is why our image is falling overseas..

How could our "image" overseas possibly be any lower than that of the previous President... "He, Who Shall Not be Named"!

Probably fewer than 5% of Americans would know Roberts if they passed him on the street. But now a clear majority of Americans know that Obama is a lousy president, with only 22% giving him strong marks.

Roberts is right when he says that the SOTU is a poor forum for taking the Supreme Court to task, but America has already figured that out. Obama is nothing but a demogogue in an empty suit, and he's too dim to realize that making comments like that during the SOTU doesn't diminish the Supreme Court, but rather the president.

-only 22% giving him strong marks

"strong marks".... pul-eeeze!

"Obama's job-performance standing is holding fairly steady at 53 percent.

And over the past two months, the Democrat has gained ground on national security issues, specifically the subsiding Iraq war and the escalating Afghanistan war, as he has spent most of his time at least publicly on domestic matters like the economy and health care. On those issues, he still has the support of about half the people."

news.yahoo.com

No wonder you can't make any money using numbers....

Nothing like hypocrite liberals to make one's day. As they piss and moan about Wilson saying two words during an Obama speech, (not even a SOTU) before congress, all the while praising Obama and harping on Roberts, they naturally forget their own transgressions. Typical, of course, since they are nothing more than political whores anyway.

www.realclearpolitics.com

Leave it to Dorky to cherry pick his polls. The sky must be a very pretty pink in his world. Here's another poll for him to fret over, but it probably won't dull his love for Obama any.

www.rasmussenreports.com

Seems that Stumblin' Bumblin' Roberts is still sore that Obama schooled his sorry ass when it came to the Oath of Office.

Since when do Justices make comments regarding a sitting Presidents SOTU address? Amatuer Hour for Roberts.

"Oh, and BTW, that SOTU was presented on January 28, 2003. Roberts wasn't nominated until July 19, 2005.

I'm very aware Roberts came on later, and I knew that when I posted the comment.

But if he was going to talk about inappropriate comments in a SOTU, you'd think he'd start at the top.

Roberts is still sore...Since when do Justices make comments regarding a sitting Presidents SOTU address?

Since they are specifically asked about it during a question-and-answer session at a University. Let's not pretend that Roberts went out to the media and brought this up on his own

Obama should have not have changed anything he said.

#118 | Posted by Petrous

Obama should have deleted his inaccurate statement--it showed his lack of knowledge and took away from the affect he wanted to instill.

SCOTUS Thy Name is Corruption!!!

The US Supreme Court is the "Most Corrupt and Treasonous" organization in the United States....and that really takes some doing to accomplish!!!

"I'm very aware Roberts came on later, and I knew that when I posted the comment."

Bullshit. Why would Roberts, when asked a question by a student, start rambling on about things that do not involve the Supreme Court. Own up and admit you weren't aware of shit.

"And over the past two months, the Democrat has gained ground on national security issues, specifically the subsiding Iraq war and the escalating Afghanistan war, as he has spent most of his time at least publicly on domestic matters like the economy and health care. On those issues, he still has the support of about half the people."

Continuing Pres Bush's policies. Now as to the topic of the thread. Obama, clearly misrepresented the Supreme Court ruling. Obama said that this would open "foreign" corporations would be able to influence elections. There are current laws against that and as a supposed Constitutional attorney he should or does know this. So his premise is nothing more than fear mongering as the left loves to put it. The justices merely ruled that the Constitution "can not" limit freedom of speach. Whether "companies" have any speach was not adressed. Therefore, he is either a liar or completely ingnorant of the one thing he touted as part of his resume to be President in the first place.

Corky, ""I'll give you an example," he said. "Sandra Day O'Connor. She was a legislator. She was elected to the legislature in Arizona. She would never have let that case go forward. She would not have. She understood how hard it is to run for public office."

What does this statement have to do w/ the question before the Supreme Court? Who cares how hard it is to be elected? The question was regarding money and speach and if money is a form of speach. I am not saying that I want corporations to control elections but, that was not the question.

Bingo, see posting #132.

Bingo, see posting #132.

#137 | Posted by matsop

RE: #135

This is both disturbing and hilarious on multiple levels.

First and foremost, the supposed 'post-partisan' president AND constitutional scholar made a conscious choice to not only take a cheap shot at SCOTUS (where is the hope, change and unity) but then even manages to get his constitutional facts wrong in the process.

Reality is that this decision, as controversial at it is, is firmly rooted in the text and spirit of the constitution in general and the first ammendment in particular. The 1st restricts the federal government's ability to censor speech. Period. It makes no differentiation among classes of speakers. On this very site some fair-minded liberals have sheepishly acknowledged this. Going further toward history and original intent - the speech that the founders were most concerned with protecting was political speech in a public forum. They correctly recognized the dangers inherent in a governing body posting restrictions on political speech in a public arena (not to be confused with military, impressionable youths in school, etc.)

Lastly, Obama syncophants can tout Obama's credentials all day long, but I watched the Roberts senate judicial hearings. Roberts would absolutely school Obama if the 2 were to debate law - and that is NOT a slam on Obama. Roberts is simply that good. Ask the VP what he thinks of Roberts' legal accumen.

#62, great link Danni, Thanks!

The other justices should have gotten up--without a word--and exited the chamber.

#14 | Posted by rightisright

Amen.

First... I agree with MR.Kurtz 100% when he says.

Roberts would absolutely school Obama if the 2 were to debate law

Two... Roberts is 100% correct... You don't call out the SCOTUS in the middle of a speech where they are surrounded by Dems clapping and cheering in their faces. The entire thing was in reality a frigging amateurish Pep Rally...

They should have sent a letter of censure to the executive and legislative branches the following day. Don't know if they have that ability though.

It seems there is no class left in Washington... Just the Bums Rush loud mouthed sleazebags that have littered the place and all our lives... Sick of them all really.

Anybody want to buy a television? Sick of looking at it.

But if he was going to talk about inappropriate comments in a SOTU, you'd think he'd start at the top.

#130 | Posted by Danforth

How about it wasn't directed at him like Obama's comment.

Geez..

Yes, they knew the constitution would need to change and evolve.

#106 | Posted by danni

By Amendments only.

You know 2/3 this and 2/3 that and 2/3 of the States..

#62 | Posted by danni

That's why FDR tried to do the unconstitutional thing by packing the court with his cronies --to pass his progressive New Deal.

But the intent of the founders is pretty plain."

Yes, they knew the constitution would need to change and evolve.

#106 | Posted by danni at 2010

yeah I guess you are right.. thats why they made it so 'easy' to change".....
as in not easy at all....
so how's that womens amendment coming?

The Founders knew the Constitution would have to change, yes, but they also knew concrete understanding of laws is vital to a country and that words have meaning. If you want to change the meaning of those words, get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of the States to agree.


The Founders knew the Constitution would have to change, yes, but they also knew concrete understanding of laws is vital to a country and that words have meaning. If you want to change the meaning of those words, get 2/3 of Congress and 75% of the States to agree.

#147 | Posted by kanrei

No!

We need to pass the New Deal, the Great Society and the Patriot Act NOW!

Tyranny of the Majority! The founders knew people were easily led down foolish paths. Ben Franklin said "any man who would trade freedom for security deserves neither." They made the Constitution changeable because they knew times changed, but they made it hard to do because they knew people could be fooled with emotional pleas.

oh kanrie ray ray....

what the FUCK are you doing writing such a coherent comment this early in the morning.
what other man written document in the history of the world has given the world a country as great and as benevolent as the USA?
and OF COURSE libs want to change every word....
you cant have thier socialist democracy and have the constitution...it stands in the way of making us into a copy of those western euopean socialist democracies that soros is so eager to make.

western euopean socialist democracies

you know those places..where unemployment like WE have now is perpetual....and the people HAVE to rely on the govt for thier every basic need and when they DONT get them they riot in the street.

Roberts is a typical Republican. Can't take any criticism and whines like a little bitch about it.

#18 | Posted by LetUsPrey
What a fucking retard, if Obama got half the shit thrown at his as Bush Ill bet he would cry like a baby on national television. All the inept inexperienced light skinned Negro can do is say
"its Bushs fault". OBAMA is by far the most fucked up president EVER

..."what other man written document in the history of the world has given the world a country as great and as benevolent as the USA? and OF COURSE libs want to change every word.... you cant have thier socialist democracy and have the constitution...it stands in the way of making us into a copy of those western euopean socialist democracies that soros is so eager to make."

This deserves reprinting, encapsulating all idiocies ever posted here. I could respond point by point - pointing our that the Magna Carta might have been as liberating, that other nations have their sacred documents (not followed either), that we score badly in both greatness and benevolence. The gratuitous stupidity of "libs" wanting to alter that document is huge; the truth is that libs are its staunchest (and only) defenders. The "socialist" western European democracies are light years ahead of us in social progress.

But ... why bother? The very next poster suggests an even greater lie, that Obama is not ten times the president Bush was. Why bother even trying to set these lunatics straight? They will sink under their own weight. The trouble is that the rest of the world could well sink with them. herm

As if Roberts can keep his fucking politics out of his own job.

Worst Chief Justice EV. VAR.

P.S.: This is not a defense of Obama the One-Term Wonder. But Roberts is about the last person on this planet who needs to be throwing stones at anyone about politics.

your social progress are things like murdering innocent life and alternative lifestyles that I find to be disgusting or at least not in the best interest of humanity. its so typical though that I would certianly not be opposed to ..say..live amoungst either of those two groups but supporters of those two just cant allow for my beliefs or principles to let stand..typical lefists hypocricy.

AND I thought of the magna carta while posting that comment but I figured that most people would understand that even stupid rightwingers know of the influence of the magna carta but also know where the founders improved upon that great document.

#154 | Posted by MaryTylerWHORE

Yeah - what an asshole for giving an honest and reasonable answer to a direct question.

Obama cast the first stone and was blatantly wrong regarding the facts - some constitutional scholar! Roberts only replied when directly queried and even then he did so in a very mild manner.

Obama is a classless clown.

the prez and the demos behavior at the sotu was shameful, the prez is not to be opposed he made that clear at the healthscare summit
gibbs is a moron
the prez is scary
pelosi is a joke
the dem controlled congress is a joke
massa
murtha
rangel
conyers
reid
edwards
the culture of corruption, thuggery, lies, payoffs, yep, the better party

john roberts is a horrible human being. it's pathetic this monster was confirmed to a life-time appointment. he will go down in history as one of the most inept justices of all-time. and when he's dead, he'll burn in hell for his crimes against humanity.

Mr. Obama was certainly correct in calling out that pathetic ruling.

Takes a really 'big' man (NOT) to single out someone in a situation where that person cannot respond back. obama, a real no class act.

hey BUCK
then why is the media going into convulsions when he answers the attack from obama

well I will tell you
because the left assholes can dish it out but become big fat pussies when it comes time to take it.
the other justice should have stood up and screamed out just like the congressman because obama
GOT THE RULING WRONG WHEN he bitched about it
but the left refuses to even talk about THAT....

Mr. Obama was certainly correct in calling out that pathetic ruling.

#159 | Posted by buckeyenutlover

Then why doesn't the Congress change the law, or if necessary, the Constitution. That is the legal way to fix it.

Even the ACLU sent a brief on that court case - and they sided WITH Roberts.

The ACLU does not side with John Roberts. It sides with the First Amendment, and unfortunately the First Amendment is worded as to allow such atrocities as corporations having the rights of real people. I disagree with my beloved ACLU, which will defend to the death my right to do so. And my right to call Roberts an imbecile and traitor to all that the founding daddies worked for. herm

Herm is technically correct. The wording of the First Amendment does leave it open if read a certain way.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does not say speech for who. The only right specified for the people is the right to assemble or petition.

It does not say speech for who. (sic)

If you ignore the first three words of the preamble

Sorry Goat, It does not say speech for WHOM =P.

We the People are who are setting up the rules. The rules then specify who they relate to. Not all the rules in the Constitution apply to "We the People."

It does not say speech for who.

Nor does it prohibit speech for whom.

Sorry Goat, It does not say speech for WHOM =P.

hmm. I'm gonna have to study that one before I reply. You are a worthy adversary and my usual flip and off the cuff rebuttals may not work. *grin*

LOL

For the record, I oppose corporate person hood and I feel it does go against the spirit of the Constitution, but I can also see how people can spin it to give rights to Corporations.

Jimmy likes Barrack more each day as Barrack will make sure Jimmy isn't the worst president we have had.

The only rights given to corporations came from the people's representatives.

And, since a corporation can consist of one person, it is possible the individual speaking has as much right to speak from a corporate voice as a personal one - it doesn't have to be 1000's of people behind the corporate name.

That is why there are disclaimers from corporations - the people's opinions aren't necessarily their own - but sometimes we want to know what the company thinks.

And this was specific to political ads and ads will have to identified--as all of them are..

It would be fun to watch Roberts go apoplectic with a Justice Hillary Clinton.

The only blithering idiot in the room

www.youtube.com

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable