I CRINGE at OBAMA'S remark about the SUPREME COURT!!!!!!!! (35)
or to summarize..."Obama is a well educated illiterate, ignorant fool".....and i'll stand on my statement until the day I die
------ This thread is Archived ------
We already had a 4 page thread on this subject.
Personally I think Obama did the right thing to pilory these judges. You have to be blind not to see this was a political decision. Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
Personally I think Obama did the right thing to pilory these judges. You have to be blind not to see this was a political decision. Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: We already had a 4 page thread on this subject.
Personally I think Obama did the right thing to pilory these judges. You have to be blind not to see this was a political decision. Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
Personally I think Obama did the right thing to pilory these judges. You have to be blind not to see this was a political decision. Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
So, you have the right to freedom of speech unless you happen to have a lot of money? I think you are reading right out of Pelosi's playbook.
For a president who loves the use of the word "unprecedented", this attack on honored guests of the Congress in the State of the Union, if not unprecedented, has precious few precedents in U.S. history.
Corporations DID exist back then, just not on the scale that they do today. If freedom of speech isn't for all, then it can be taken away from all.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: We already had a 4 page thread on this subject.
Personally I think Obama did the right thing to pilory these judges. You have to be blind not to see this was a political decision. Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
Personally I think Obama did the right thing to pilory these judges. You have to be blind not to see this was a political decision. Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
..corporations always have vested interests....and should never be free to induce political interference of any nature...particularly financial muscle.....
jmo...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Supremacy of the Constitution and the protection of the Supreme Court is something which the American People should treasure.... the Constitution is supposed to protect and value age old truths and rights for ages to come, in spite of fluctuating socio-political conditions... this is crucial... reactionary legislation and policies never work in the long term and inevidably there is some greedy corporation or politition behind change for their own short term objectives.. the American people (like the Irish) fought hard for a written constitution... don't let it be eroded
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aries01: Supremacy of the Constitution and the protection of the Supreme Court is something which the American People should treasure.... the Constitution is supposed to protect and value age old truths and rights for ages to come, in spite of fluctuating socio-political conditions... this is crucial... reactionary legislation and policies never work in the long term and inevidably there is some greedy corporation or politition behind change for their own short term objectives.. the American people (like the Irish) fought hard for a written constitution... don't let it be eroded
Hear Hear!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Aries01: Supremacy of the Constitution and the protection of the Supreme Court is something which the American People should treasure.... the Constitution is supposed to protect and value age old truths and rights for ages to come, in spite of fluctuating socio-political conditions... this is crucial... reactionary legislation and policies never work in the long term and inevidably there is some greedy corporation or politition behind change for their own short term objectives.. the American people (like the Irish) fought hard for a written constitution... don't let it be eroded
reminds me of that saying:
all men are born equal but some are more equal than others?
And he has irish blood too?
------ This thread is Archived ------
So as the President of the US he is not allowed to have, and voice an opinion?
------ This thread is Archived ------
hotburninluv: It wasn't very PRESIDENTIAL of the OBAMA to BERATE the SUPREME COURT decision like in did in HIS STATE OF OBAMA SPEECH!
Relax and it was indeed very Presidential to criticize the Supreme Court on this monumental decision.
Money is not speech, it's overwhelming influence in this context.
This decision is going to have a major impact on American politics either way. Corporate special interests have the distinct edge since they will be superiorly equipped to use their infinite money to run relentless and manipulative ad campaigns and silencing the opposition in the process.
The good that manifested in this, is that disclosure and disclaimer requirements are still in place. Also, the great potential of the creation of broader public financing campaigns may neutralize the merciless corporations and big-money special interests. If that proves to be effective, then maybe corporatism and special interests can be defeated and stop influencing American politics. Obama did significantly benefit last election from individual donors ($656,357,572 88%)-
"Obama's victory in the general election was aided by his tremendous fundraising success. Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet. After becoming his party's nominee, Obama declined public financing and the spending limits that came with it, making him the first major-party candidate since the system was created to reject taxpayers' money for the general election."
I'm not up to speed on the limits of public financing campaigns, so I may be off the mark here as far as how effective it can be to neutralize corporatism and special interests---as well as paving the way for minority parties to gain influence in the event that public financing supports and benefits them to an equal or greater extent.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Any written Constitution can be bended, amended or gotten around if you pay a more expensive lawyer.
People should respect the constitution, but if it remains archaic, dusty & not reformed or adapted to more modern situations it will limit progress & always be abused - "One Law for the rich...the rich will always betray the poor" etc. Obama has the right to criticize the Judges from upholding corporations to be 'people' above real people
People should respect the constitution, but if it remains archaic, dusty & not reformed or adapted to more modern situations it will limit progress & always be abused - "One Law for the rich...the rich will always betray the poor" etc. Obama has the right to criticize the Judges from upholding corporations to be 'people' above real people
------ This thread is Archived ------
I don't care what they want to call it. It's a good thing to have. The special interests have been buying the politicians for a long time now. This is only different in that instead of buying the politicians behind closed doors they will be able to run ads right out in the public eye on the issues instead of about the politicians who may or may not be already boughten by many different corporations and special interest groups. So that's a good thing. Transparency!! And if we the people don't like a corporations stance on a certain issue.. well we don't have to be customers of that corporation. We also will be getting a voice out of this. One that we don't have now. So yes it's a good decision. And the more i see politicians crying about it.. the more convinced i am that it's the right decision. This joke they call democracy hasn't been a democracy ever since they started with the two party system. It's not even close to being a real democracy. Not when they can hold up a vote on a bill untill they are already pre determined a certain outcome, and are guaranteed the outcome by blackmail and bribery of the people who would be casting those votes. The entire political system is so corrupt it's pathetic. So they can't possibly destroy our democracy any further with this decision. They have no where to go but up.
------ This thread is Archived ------
hotburninluv: It wasn't very PRESIDENTIAL of the OBAMA to BERATE the SUPREME COURT decision like in did in HIS STATE OF OBAMA SPEECH!
It really showed me HIS arrogance and Lack OF RESPECT for being President of our great country, to go out and lashing them the way that he did...they have no response but to sit there and take it...He acted like some Third World Dictator of some banana Republic, not the Democratic Republic of American.
The facts are: him lashing out at the Supreme Court in the way that he did for the Court rendering its decision for defending the First Amendment suggested that the Court was somehow running to the aid of nefarious “foreign entities” and ignored entirely what was at issue in the case — HIM thinking that the Supreme Court had reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in American campaigns.
THIS WAS ABSOULUTELY WRONG!!!! Apparently, Obama is just wrong!!! The Court’s ruling didn’t impact the section of the statute that prohibits foreign corporations from making campaign donations or expenditures. (And the ban on direct corporate contributions remains in effect.) This is way Justice Alito mouthed “not true.” (It must be ADMITTED that OBAMA botched the case description.)
REGARDLESS OF THIS, STILL, THERE'S AN EMBARRASSING EFFECT FROM THE UNSIGHTLY AND INDIGIFIED WAY THE PRESIDENT BERATED THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND: OUR SUPREME COURT!!!
While the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen, HIS UNNERVING of calling out them for their wrong (IN HIS MIND) decision applying the First Amendment and asking upon Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, to reverse it.
What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion being attacked. The Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order.
This conduct is even more repellent given that Obama waves around his law school credentials and constitutional-law teaching background, yet the President resorts to know-nothing political posturing on the judiciary when it serves his purposes. And what makes this particularly disingenuous is that the president said a great deal about tone and political posturing last night.
The Supreme Court is filled with honorable men and women doing important work, and Obama proceeded to minimize a serious debate over the centrality of the First Amendment to the robust operation of our political system by resorting to a silly argument, from which serious citizens should surely turn away. He conveys not merely a lack of respect for a co-equal branch of government (and ignorance about the ruling he was vilifying) but for the Constitution itself, which he is sworn to uphold. For a lawyer, his conduct is embarrassing; for a president, it is inexcusable.
HE Also Stuck It to the Military Generals (no pun ) When he said, I am going to repeal the Don't ASK Don't tell Policy.... I want that done right away. He Talked down to them. Very Good Post, I am glad that some are not taken in by his B/S and do really listen It really showed me HIS arrogance and Lack OF RESPECT for being President of our great country, to go out and lashing them the way that he did...they have no response but to sit there and take it...He acted like some Third World Dictator of some banana Republic, not the Democratic Republic of American.
The facts are: him lashing out at the Supreme Court in the way that he did for the Court rendering its decision for defending the First Amendment suggested that the Court was somehow running to the aid of nefarious “foreign entities” and ignored entirely what was at issue in the case — HIM thinking that the Supreme Court had reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in American campaigns.
THIS WAS ABSOULUTELY WRONG!!!! Apparently, Obama is just wrong!!! The Court’s ruling didn’t impact the section of the statute that prohibits foreign corporations from making campaign donations or expenditures. (And the ban on direct corporate contributions remains in effect.) This is way Justice Alito mouthed “not true.” (It must be ADMITTED that OBAMA botched the case description.)
REGARDLESS OF THIS, STILL, THERE'S AN EMBARRASSING EFFECT FROM THE UNSIGHTLY AND INDIGIFIED WAY THE PRESIDENT BERATED THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND: OUR SUPREME COURT!!!
While the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen, HIS UNNERVING of calling out them for their wrong (IN HIS MIND) decision applying the First Amendment and asking upon Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, to reverse it.
What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion being attacked. The Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order.
This conduct is even more repellent given that Obama waves around his law school credentials and constitutional-law teaching background, yet the President resorts to know-nothing political posturing on the judiciary when it serves his purposes. And what makes this particularly disingenuous is that the president said a great deal about tone and political posturing last night.
The Supreme Court is filled with honorable men and women doing important work, and Obama proceeded to minimize a serious debate over the centrality of the First Amendment to the robust operation of our political system by resorting to a silly argument, from which serious citizens should surely turn away. He conveys not merely a lack of respect for a co-equal branch of government (and ignorance about the ruling he was vilifying) but for the Constitution itself, which he is sworn to uphold. For a lawyer, his conduct is embarrassing; for a president, it is inexcusable.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: Freedom of speech is supposed to be for the people not goddamn corporations. Somehow I don't think the founding fathers were thinking of corporations when they penned the constitution, corporations didn't even exist back then.
Exactly!
Corporations do not have the right to vote, they should not have the right to throw their huge amounts of money around to influence who get's elected to office and who does not. Over a century of law is NOT wrong and should not have been overturned like that... the heavily Republican Appointed Court did this for political reasons, it had nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America!
If special interst money wasn't bad enough before, it's going to be 100X worse now! Brilliant that!
- Michael
------ This thread is Archived ------
I applaud Obama for saying soemthing that needed to be said about an obviously ignorant Supreme Court ruling ! 
------ This thread is Archived ------
jvaski: I applaud Obama for saying soemthing that needed to be said about an obviously ignorant Supreme Court ruling !
jvaski, why do hate America and support terrorists and communists?
------ This thread is Archived ------
yep, that about sums it up!!------ This thread is Archived ------
jvaski: I applaud Obama for saying soemthing that needed to be said about an obviously ignorant Supreme Court ruling !
Now why oh why am I not surprised by the above comments you make..... Cause it fits your personality. You dont critise a group or an individual without the right for them to defend themselves.... I do believe that in the American constitution somewhere
mmmmmm but as usual you see something you agree with and dont care whether it is done the right way or wrong way... 
------ This thread is Archived ------
StressFree: Relax and it was indeed very Presidential to criticize the Supreme Court on this monumental decision.
Money is not speech, it's overwhelming influence in this context.
This decision is going to have a major impact on American politics either way. Corporate special interests have the distinct edge since they will be superiorly equipped to use their infinite money to run relentless and manipulative ad campaigns and silencing the opposition in the process.
The good that manifested in this, is that disclosure and disclaimer requirements are still in place. Also, the great potential of the creation of broader public financing campaigns may neutralize the merciless corporations and big-money special interests. If that proves to be effective, then maybe corporatism and special interests can be defeated and stop influencing American politics. Obama did significantly benefit last election from individual donors ($656,357,572 88%)-
"Obama's victory in the general election was aided by his tremendous fundraising success. Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet. After becoming his party's nominee, Obama declined public financing and the spending limits that came with it, making him the first major-party candidate since the system was created to reject taxpayers' money for the general election."
I'm not up to speed on the limits of public financing campaigns, so I may be off the mark here as far as how effective it can be to neutralize corporatism and special interests---as well as paving the way for minority parties to gain influence in the event that public financing supports and benefits them to an equal or greater extent.
Especially his Sugardaddy George!Money is not speech, it's overwhelming influence in this context.
This decision is going to have a major impact on American politics either way. Corporate special interests have the distinct edge since they will be superiorly equipped to use their infinite money to run relentless and manipulative ad campaigns and silencing the opposition in the process.
The good that manifested in this, is that disclosure and disclaimer requirements are still in place. Also, the great potential of the creation of broader public financing campaigns may neutralize the merciless corporations and big-money special interests. If that proves to be effective, then maybe corporatism and special interests can be defeated and stop influencing American politics. Obama did significantly benefit last election from individual donors ($656,357,572 88%)-
"Obama's victory in the general election was aided by his tremendous fundraising success. Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet. After becoming his party's nominee, Obama declined public financing and the spending limits that came with it, making him the first major-party candidate since the system was created to reject taxpayers' money for the general election."
I'm not up to speed on the limits of public financing campaigns, so I may be off the mark here as far as how effective it can be to neutralize corporatism and special interests---as well as paving the way for minority parties to gain influence in the event that public financing supports and benefits them to an equal or greater extent.
------ This thread is Archived ------
If my memory serves me correctly the pres appoints them and from what I read the senate approves them.I would think it to be a complete slap in the face and insult for the pres to say what he said about the Surpreme Court.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Trump on Trial
If Our Profiles Were Truly Honest
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
who shaped your life?
Have it both ways!
Trump Elementary
Democrats destroyed America
Say Anything Again
The Real Stormy Story
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
1,739 Views
34 Comments
Created: Jan 2010
Last Viewed: Apr 18
Last Commented: Feb 2010
0 Likes
It really showed me HIS arrogance and Lack OF RESPECT for being President of our great country, to go out and lashing them the way that he did...they have no response but to sit there and take it...He acted like some Third World Dictator of some banana Republic, not the Democratic Republic of American.
The facts are: him lashing out at the Supreme Court in the way that he did for the Court rendering its decision for defending the First Amendment suggested that the Court was somehow running to the aid of nefarious “foreign entities” and ignored entirely what was at issue in the case — HIM thinking that the Supreme Court had reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in American campaigns.
THIS WAS ABSOULUTELY WRONG!!!! Apparently, Obama is just wrong!!! The Court’s ruling didn’t impact the section of the statute that prohibits foreign corporations from making campaign donations or expenditures. (And the ban on direct corporate contributions remains in effect.) This is way Justice Alito mouthed “not true.” (It must be ADMITTED that OBAMA botched the case description.)
REGARDLESS OF THIS, STILL, THERE'S AN EMBARRASSING EFFECT FROM THE UNSIGHTLY AND INDIGIFIED WAY THE PRESIDENT BERATED THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND: OUR SUPREME COURT!!!
While the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen, HIS UNNERVING of calling out them for their wrong (IN HIS MIND) decision applying the First Amendment and asking upon Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, to reverse it.
What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion being attacked. The Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order.
This conduct is even more repellent given that Obama waves around his law school credentials and constitutional-law teaching background, yet the President resorts to know-nothing political posturing on the judiciary when it serves his purposes. And what makes this particularly disingenuous is that the president said a great deal about tone and political posturing last night.
The Supreme Court is filled with honorable men and women doing important work, and Obama proceeded to minimize a serious debate over the centrality of the First Amendment to the robust operation of our political system by resorting to a silly argument, from which serious citizens should surely turn away. He conveys not merely a lack of respect for a co-equal branch of government (and ignorance about the ruling he was vilifying) but for the Constitution itself, which he is sworn to uphold. For a lawyer, his conduct is embarrassing; for a president, it is inexcusable.