Justice Roberts believes they should not be at what he calls a "political pep rally" anyway...how do you feel about that?
And, is it unseemly for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling and then have his henchmen go on defense for him on all the talk shows? Is this a matter of the court's following THE LAW and, if the law isn't liked, we should change the law, or will our Court that's been so highly esteemed all these years go down like so many things in America because Obama didn't get his way??
Also, I wonder if you all saw Robert Gibbs on Chris Wallace's morning show Sunday morning? Wallace, at the end of the interview, showed a clip of Gibbs wearing the Canadian hockey jersey he'd promised Canada he'd
AND....I'm wondering if all of you saw the Obama thugs on the morning shows, On Chris Wallace, Meet the Press, etc., wailing about the health bill........."The Republicans got many things they wanted in the health care bill" and then, immediately ... "The Republicans don't want to cooperate." Um. Which IS IT? They all said both....oops.
z
64 comments:
I've often wanted to tell off the Supreme Court myself. Jefferson knew how dangerous they could be. Not as dangerous as our Obama it turns out. Funny how things go.
It is the training of judges to listen carefully to arguments and opinions. It is only fitting that they should not protest hearing these from the president of the United States on the one annual occasion when they are assembled by tradition in the same chamber with him.
Z: AND....I'm wondering if all of you saw the Obama thugs on the morning shows, On Chris Wallace, Meet the Press, etc., wailing about the health bill........."The Republicans got many things they wanted in the health care bill" and then, immediately ... "The Republicans don't want to cooperate." Um. Which IS IT? They all said both....oops.
It is both. Things Republicans said they wanted were incorporated into the bill, and Republicans don’t want to cooperate in allowing a vote on the bill.
The State of the Union speech was not the occasion for Obama to raise this criticism.
But, since he fancies himself as a dictator not a servant of the people, we shouldn't be surprised.
Roberts made his statement of criticism in a speech to an audience of law students didn't he? Not in the court, or a press event.
Sure he knew it would be reported, but I dont find it unseemly. The message had to be given and it was. Obama behaves as though anything he does goes, because he was elected. Well it doesn't, and that goes for his party as well.
They have no respect for anyone, even their own if one of them doesn't remain in lockstep with this administration.
Obama wouldn't understand protocol, or decency if it hit him in the face. He deserved a figurative slap and he got it. Too damn bad about him.
As for Gibbs, he ought to go back to playing with tinker toys not be filling a grown up's job. He's just another resentful thin-skinned left wing baby.
Pris
I think Gibbs’ comment to Wallace "You would show that....” was just good-natured ribbing. Are rightwingers so thin-skinned that they can’t see that?
PSI,
You are absolutely right that Republicans do not want to cooperate in this bill. Sort of like if someone was robbing my house, I wouldn't want to show them where I hide my valuables. This bill will destroy our country. As for the Repubs getting what they asked for? "We will look into that." is not exactly cooperation.
I lived in Canada for 10 years, had friends die while on the wait list for medical procedures and had other friends and family come to the US so they could survive. The measures proposed are disastrous and most Americans understand that! That's why we say NO!
Z asks: "And, is it unseemly for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling and then have his henchmen go on defense for him on all the talk shows?"
Yes, it's unseemly in this case. The State of the Union speech is one of those occassions where a certain amount of decorum is in order, especially where the Supreme Court is concerned. It's one of those things that separate the U.S. from a banana republic--which the ghetto commie seems hell-bent on turning us into. The Supremes are prohibited by tradition if nothing else from responding directly to the political give and take.
What we often see at the S.O.T.U. speeches is a lively political give and take between the left and right, the Court is SUPPOSED to be above that, and sit quietly as guests. This also means that they should be treated with due respect by the President.
Respect...and President Obama. How incongruous
Psi bond, what flavor of koolaid did they give you? The fact of the matter is simple, Barry doesn't like it when people disagree with him and he isn't above using chicago style thug politics to get his way. Trying to brow beat the Supreme Court into submission when they can't respond was low.
You know it, and if it had been done by a Republican during the times when the courts floated liberal, then you'd have gone up like a rocket.
Justice Roberts believes they should not be at what he calls a "political pep rally" anyway...how do you feel about that?
If the SOTU has devolved into a political pep rally, SCOTUS should not attend.
BHO was way out of line in scolding SCOTUS at the SOTU. And he knew that he was, too! Remember how he prefaced his remark? "With deference to separation of powers," or something like that.
I actually gasped when he scolded SCOTUS for a decision.
The whole leftista establishment reminds me of that AFV clip, of a toddler boy following his daddy's video camera around to throw himself on the floor and pitch a fit.
Most 2 yr. olds out grow such shenanigans...leftistas never did.
obama proved it at the S.O.T.U. screed and his fellow travelers proved it on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Who is the adult here? NOT obama & crew...SCOTUS on the other hand...
tmw
Heck, even Sotomajor looked shocked!
I like Chris Wallace but he's a target of these people because he is too nice. Notice Bill Clinton didn't go on Hannity and pull his little stunt. None of the Obama staff go on Hannity or Beck. They would get their asses handed to them.
As far as Obama and the State of the Union Address remark, just another example of his complete and total lack of class. He's a thug.
I agree with AOW. The SCOTUS should not attend the next SOTU address.
AOW said "I actually gasped when he scolded SCOTUS for a decision."
That's what any decent American would do, AOW. That is not a court of law and Obama's not the king.
Chuck, you're so right. Imagine any of the obama elitists going on a show where the host would actually QUESTION them with facts?
When Chris Matthews talks war, he has a token republican on in the name of Pat Buchanan, one of the only Republicans against the war!
When msnbc has a token Republican host, they have Joe Scarborough, the squishiest Republican going...!
When Meet the Press has a 'panel' they have RACHEL MADDOW! She's even more fringe than Hannity, but they treat her like mainstream!?
Well...you'll see a post this afternoon which deals with this, too. I hope you all come back.
Thanks for being here.
Justice Roberts believes they should not be at what he calls a "political pep rally" anyway...
-----------------------------
The nation is completely partisan and Roberts no less than others.
In fact more so, he's a jurist, a schmuck with an opinion and his OPINION favors corporatists over all.
For him to talk about "political pep rally" is ironic.
Ducky, that the court follows THE LAW is not partisan.
That this country is as divided as it is is more dangerous than most people understand, it seems.
To have a president insult a court decision for the world to see and hear about is even beneath this president...or I'd have thought.
If the law were so clear, z, then why does it reach the Supreme Court? Conflicts of interest arise, language needs to be interpreted and a judge necessarily brings a bias and will rule according to that bias.
This idea that there is the law and it is completely consistent and not open to interpretation does flow from the evangelical idea of scripture.
I was surprised that Obama commented on the decision but it is still a decision that is activist and deserves discussion.
Chuck, you're so right. Imagine any of the obama elitists going on a show where the host would actually QUESTION them with facts?
----------------
I do see to many Obama folks on the shows. Mostly McCain and the like.
What was great recently was a debate between Janet Tavakoli, a financial consultant and Rick Santelli , a tea bagger.
Santelli pretty much got his head handed to him as he put the "government forced loans to people who can't afford them" loop on. Once Tea Baggers will go for any narrative that puts blame on poor (and especially poor minority).
I also enjoyed the portion of 60 minutes last night that gave an overview of the mess Goldman Sachs and others made of the economy and made a good case that it was sheer ignorance rather than greed that tanked the company. They didn't have control of what they were dealing with.
But anyway, as we know from the Beck show and Limbaugh and the others, far right wingers cling to dogma and are very, very frightened of a world that doesn't support their dogma, so they just lie ... and destroy the country along the way.
Interesting reading from the LA Times
------------
As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.
"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."
But Thomas is no ordinary activist.
She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.
In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.
The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.
"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."
The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation's highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.
Justice Thomas, 61, recently expressed sensitivity to such concerns, telling law students in Florida that he doesn't attend the State of the Union because it is "so partisan." Thomas, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush, has been a reliable conservative vote since he joined the court in 1991.
Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987.
I cannot recall in this, my 6th decade, a state of the union speech in which a sitting president takes SCOTUS to the woodshed. That is unprofessional and narcissistic. The only reason for the presence of SCOTUS is to pay respect to the applicable president, not to be the subject of ridicule or derision from the Executive Branch.
If this is to be our future where the attacks are only one-sided, let's open it up and make it fair. Let's allow SCOTUS the ability to defend itself and its decisions.
At that point, however, you don't have a State of the Union speech, you have at best a debate, at worst an argument. And, of course, this is for a sitting Left wing president. If this action holds and is accepted, it is only fair that any so-called Conservative president have the ability to excoriate SCOTUS at his or her own State of the Union address as well -- and SCOTUS must simply sit, be quiet, and take it.
I don't believe this plays. It is unprofessional. SOTU is not the time or place for criticisms of SCOTUS decisions in the chamber.
MP154
I'm not sure that I said the law was 'so clear', I'm not arguing that law here, obviously. I'm arguing that a president doesn't slam the Supreme Court members in public. But, to a lib, I guess that's normal..got to insult anything they don't like.
I love what Virginia Thomas is doing, highly applaud her. It's about time we gave it back to the left, Ducky. Hurrah! I hadn't heard this.
And, of course, I highly applaud Thomas' decision not to attend and I highly applaud the experts who say what SHE does has nothing to do with what HE does.
Oh, and absolutely not, Ducky...the obama 'folks' will not go on the talk shows where the hosts have any real gravitas, just the lightweights and, mostly, after they've had to humiliate them by announcing they won't come on their show regardless of how many times they've asked.
Milepost, thanks for coming by and thanks for your excellent opinion.
You'd think anybody'd see that what Obama did was, at best, highly irregular, and at worst, the ravings of someone used to getting his own way. And, imagine, this was a constitutional law professor!!!
I cannot recall in this, my 6th decade, a state of the union speech in which a sitting president takes SCOTUS to the woodshed. That is unprofessional and narcissistic.
----------------------
Why? Is there some reason the court is above criticism?
Next thing you know the conservatives will be complaining that the Prez got up there and lied his little 85 I.Q. head off about Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction". Republicans, always keeping it real and balanced.
But never taking responsibility
>>>Why? Is there some reason the court is above criticism? <<<
You sound like you're knocking yourself out to be stupid.
Isn't it clear the concern is about TIME AND PLACE, protocol, dignity, etc., not CRITICISM?
Sheesh!
Well you can support it but it puts you in a funny position. On one hand we have parochial Republican outlets all over and you still complain your being drowned out.
Now, that's because you believe anything that doesn't fallow the fundamental Republican dogma is a lie.
No differences of opinion in the far right world.
I'm not too upset that he criticized the SC. It's that he's just flat out wrong on his opinion.
I'm not surprised that BO would pull a thuggish trick like this during the SOTUS when the targets can't fight back. Typical bully tactic.
There isn't a single thing that I can say I admire about BO's administration. NOT ONE SINGLE THING.
Ducky, did HIllary and Kerry and all your big idols also have "85 IQ's" when they agreed wholeheartedly that Iraq did have WMD?
And how else do you kill 300,000 Kurds without WMD? And how long did we give Saddam to get rid of the WMD to Syria? My own husband had experience in this subject I can't tell you about and HE knew that the Iraqi planes in the first Gulf War were IN BUNKERS under ground and our own Gen Schwarzkopf didn't until the day AFTER Mr. Z told me "what the hell is he talking about that they've hit all the Iraqi air force? they're under ground!" Ya, our CIA did a GREAT JOB...I"m thinking THEY were the ones with 85 IQ...not the president you despise who attended Yale and did better than most.
Faith...leftists don't care about integrity or dignity; if you can slam an American institution in public, it's all forces go.
Cube, I, too, can't think of ONE THING I like about Obama's doings......actually, I remember there were 3 things, none of which I can remember now but I'll try.
Maybe staying in Afghanistan? But I'm starting to rethink that now, too, come to think of it!!
"Experts say Virginia Thomas' work doesn't violate ethical rules for judges. But Liberty Central could give rise to conflicts of interest for her husband, they said, as it tests the norms for judicial spouses. The couple have been married since 1987."
So Ducky, Virginia Thomas should just stay out of the public arena? Why? Doesn't she have the same rights as you and me?
Like Michelle Obama getting involved in spotlighting obese children and making their lives and their parent's lives objects of scorn and ridicule?
Then of course there was Eleanor Roosevelt who was in the forefront of American politics and as much publicly politically involved as her husband. Was that OK?
How about first lady Hillary Clinton who held secret meetings on a healthcare program. Was that OK?
Virginia Thomas's lobby will not be lobbying the Supreme Court, they'll be lobbying Congress.
I see no difference between a first lady and the wife of a Supreme Court Justice. Both husbands are in positions of power, and both wives have the same rights as everyone else.
The difference between these two husbands today is, Michelle's has no use for the Constitution whereas Virginia's lives and breathes it.
Pris
Oh, Pris...BRAAAAAVOOOOO!!
Remember that Caesar is a god; or is he Pharaoh. And we all know gods don't think their wrong. In fact they can do anything they want and change their mind at anytime. He wants to be worship as the only deity. Hollywood has stated that “unless you agree with him, you are racist”. Well, I'll take Allen Keys any day as President. He is more about Judea-Christian values and more about the Ideal of “And to the Republic by which it stands”, as stated in the Pledge to our flag.
So if you have a problem with him it's your problem not his or the government. I have not seen such a protest from ordinary citizens in all of my 48 years of life. Even during the 1960's people didn't get this upset. (I don't see violence as regular citizen protesting.) Martian Luther King Jr. didn't advocate violence.
When a leader like President Obama says things are not open for discussion; something is wrong. “The election is over...” as stated by our President. Then I say let's have a new one, should we limit the term of Presidents to two years to keep them on their toes.
There is so much more. I leave room for other to express themselves.
Mona, regardless of what you believe is an correct analogy and no matter what you think of the various contested issues of health care reform. the point of my post is that the right answer to Z's question --- Which is it? --- is that both are true.
Concerning your criticism of health care reform: The U.S. bill is not about reproducing the Canadian system here. It is intended to regulate lethal excesses of insurance companies whereby many sick Americans die to boost the profits of company executives and their shareholders. But, of course, you may say NO while Americans who are uninsured or denied continued coverage die of treatable illnesses.
Greywolfe: Psi bond, what flavor of koolaid did they give you? The fact of the matter is simple, Barry doesn't like it when people disagree with him and he isn't above using chicago style thug politics to get his way. Trying to brow beat the Supreme Court into submission when they can't respond was low.
Hackneyed partisan cant notwithstanding, it should be some part of the purpose of the State of the Union speech that the president discuss from his perspective perceived threats to the state of our union. In this context, it is appropriate to speak about a controversial Supreme Court decision which may facilitate the swaying of American elections by corporations and special interests abroad, by proxy if not directly. Hence it is also appropriate for the president to directly urge the Congress to pass a bill to help to correct such problems (which Obama did).
Ordinarily, threats to U.S. sovereignty get rightwingers up in arms.
You know it, and if it had been done by a Republican during the times when the courts floated liberal, then you'd have gone up like a rocket.
I believe that every elected official, as well as every citizen, should have the right to publicly speak his mind about the Court's decisions. Lincoln, you know, had some harsh words to say about the Dred Scott decision. Criticism of Court decisions is not browbeating, as thin-skinned rightwingers characterize it. Those who teach constitutional law know the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government, and, as such, it cannot be forced to submit in its decisions.to the chief executive. But, for partisan purposes, one may make up such stuff, of course.
We conservatives are just hopelessly outnumbered; that's all.
We may be able to out think 'em, but we can't outbreed 'em.
It may not be fair and it may not be moral, but it always comes down to this:
Might makes right.
The biggest, the tallest, the fastest and the most ruthless always win.
That's why history is soaked in blood.
"Trying to brow beat the Supreme Court into submission when they can't respond was low.
Actually....I think it was his juvenile, narcissistic payback for the..."YOU LIE" Of a few months back. He's a snot...and he's used to getting all he wants through well used affirmative action...actions....and ACORN actions....as well as using intimidation and extortion...ala Jess Jerkson. Funny too...to see how many black "lawmakers" are in the hot seat now due to Rangel like...ahhhhh....errrrr..."Irregularities"?
psi bond wrote:
The U.S. bill is not about reproducing the Canadian system here. It is intended to regulate lethal excesses of insurance companies
-----------------------------
Stated intentions are one thing. Actual effects can be quite another.
tio
"We may be able to out think 'em, but we can't outbreed 'em."
So what? Only 1/3rd of the populace supported the American Revolution. The thinkers won. The rest is history.
Pris
Anonymous: We conservatives are just hopelessly outnumbered; that's all.
More Americans say they are conservatives than liberals.
We may be able to out think 'em, but we can't outbreed 'em.
That political ideology in America is bred or inherited is fallacious thinking.
It may not be fair and it may not be moral, but it always comes down to this:
Might makes right.
So conservatives have traditionally believed and have made the core of their policy thinking.
Clear sight makes right.
The biggest, the tallest, the fastest and the most ruthless always win.
That's what Goliath thought when he faced David in battle.
That's why history is soaked in blood.
If history is soaked in blood, it is not because one kind is always the winner, but because opposing kinds come to believe they can or must win.
The strongest — as the British learned in the American Revolution — and the most— as the Nazis learned in WWII — do not always win.
tio: psi bond wrote:
The U.S. bill is not about reproducing the Canadian system here. It is intended to regulate lethal excesses of insurance companies [whereby many sick Americans die to boost the profits of company executives and their shareholders]
-----------------------------
Stated intentions are one thing. Actual effects can be quite another.
That is an argument for refusing to enact any legislation whatever. It provides an argument for passing on ratification of the Constitution itself. But America is perpetuated by a sanguine faith in the rule of law and the need for laws.
Duckhead, either I'm tired or you have taken more stupid pills than usual. What in God's name are you even saying here?
Chuck, you're so right. Imagine any of the obama elitists going on a show where the host would actually QUESTION them with facts?
----------------
I do see to many Obama folks on the shows. Mostly McCain and the like.
What was great recently was a debate between Janet Tavakoli, a financial consultant and Rick Santelli , a tea bagger.
Santelli pretty much got his head handed to him as he put the "government forced loans to people who can't afford them" loop on. Once Tea Baggers will go for any narrative that puts blame on poor (and especially poor minority).
I also enjoyed the portion of 60 minutes last night that gave an overview of the mess Goldman Sachs and others made of the economy and made a good case that it was sheer ignorance rather than greed that tanked the company. They didn't have control of what they were dealing with.
But anyway, as we know from the Beck show and Limbaugh and the others, far right wingers cling to dogma and are very, very frightened of a world that doesn't support their dogma, so they just lie ... and destroy the country along the way.
It's like you justed started typing to see what would come out. You didn't address the point (as usual). As you often do, you simply threw in a name like Rush, or Beck, or Palin, mix in a couple of insults, and then just insert a bunch of other words and seem to think this is a coherent argument.
As far as Obama attacking the Supremes, even you are not too stupid to see why this was wrong. Were you okay then with Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar?
Chuck, I REALLY need a good laugh today, and you REALLY supplied it with this "It's like you just started typing to see what would come out."
Thanks SO SO MUCH :-) :-)
LOL!
Bravo on figuring out Ducky's color by numbers posting pattern, Chuck.
It's blatantly obvious leftists aren't capable of rational thought, so why not have fun with it?
Mutual of Omaha presents a Wild Kingdom exclusive... join Marlon Perkins and his trusty assistant Jim Fowler as they travel to the deepest, darkest reaches of the American political margins to find the always elusive intellectual leftist...
::Marlon Perkins voiceover::
"Now Jim has found Birkenstock tracks and what appears to be dung droppings containing gnawed crayons. We're close to the nest!"
oh, MAN, these are best times of blogging..beamish, you always CRACK ME UP!! "We're close to the nest" BWWWAAAAAHHAAAAAAAA!!!
I think most people can understand why it is not a stupid idea for the president to warn that a Supreme Court decision may open the door to bankrolling of American elections by foreign entities and urge Congress to correct the problem — and can understand that such concern for the nation is not at all tantamount to a member of the audience calling an official a liar in a joint congressional session.
psi
it's not an arguement against all legislation. it's a warning to judge it based on expected results rather than stated consequences.
tio
Bond: "I think most people can understand why it is not a stupid idea for the president to warn that a Supreme Court decision may open the door to bankrolling of American elections by foreign entities and urge Congress to correct the problem..."
Do you consider George Soros to be a "foreign" entity, Bond Or did you just forget that he practically owns your boy, Obama?
You think no "foreign" money came into the campaign in a big way to support Obama even exceeding the financial contributions of Soros?
Wow! Are willfully blind, or what?
Waylon
HEALTHCARE!
HEALTHCARE!!
HEALTHCARE!!!
HEALTHCARE!!!!
HELP!
MURDER!
SLAUGHTER the SLAUGHTER METHOD of PASSAGE
Stop it, "ANONYMOUS", I know who'd do this and we GET IT already.
NOTHING I blog on here is going to change congress' mind..I think I and several other bloggers have done a yeoman's job the last year fighting health care but WE PROBABLY LOST.
Sorry, you can talk to others , people in your real life, about health care...But,on my blog, I'll address it after the vote and start trying to do all I can to get it UNimplemented when they pass it..but for now? HEALTH CARE IS DEAD AT GEEEZ, okay? Thanks.
tio: psi it's not an arguement against all legislation. it's a warning to judge it based on expected results rather than stated consequences.
Thanks, tio, for the warning. but the above is generously classified as murky cogitation.
Results expected by whom? What are these people prone to give credence to?
Stated consequences? Consequences cannot be definitively stated since they are events that haven't occurred.
Nearly all legislation will have consequences that some do not like.
More than two hundred years after ratification, one of the consequences of the Constitution is that Americans do not agree on what it means.
Like Alexander Hamilton (born in the West Indies), George Soros is an American citizen (he played a significant role in the peaceful transition from Communism to Capitalism in Hungary, his native country, in 1984-89). Evidently, however, Waylon, you are alarmed by tales of foreign influences that are drummed up by far right propaganda.
I wonder how many rightwingers would denounce as they do here a Republican president who speaks, in a session in which the Supreme Court is present, of the danger of an inadvertent opening to foreign influence posed by a recent Court decision. Undue foreign interference in American elections is an infringement of sovereignty, and is not in the best interests of the U.S.
People of good sense know this. There is a problem with sensible arguments however: It is hard to get extreme rightwingers to care about them.
Ok. So, the only things i really feel a desire to engage one person tonight, if that's ok.
Psi bond, here's the misinformation that you're passing as fact. You keep claiming that because of the supreme courts ruling that foreign businesses will now magically be able to influence elections. But the law that makes foreign companies funding american elections is still in force and not part of the mccain feingold bill at all. That bill is still in force and hasn't been touched.
So, other than companies that may engage in illegal activities and funnel monies through american companies (clinton and the Chi-comms comes immediately to mind) nothing has changed except that the constitutional right to free speech of American companies and political groups has been upheld.
Will there be companies that may abuse the right? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that, just like gun ownership, people don't have the right to make their voices known regardless of price.
Second, you speak of this as a sovereignty issue. Please. As if this administration is worried at all about American sovereignty. His first weeks in office he comes back from a love fest with south american dictators touting a treaty that would remove the sovereignty of American gun owners and dealers without regard to the Constitution.
Not to mention his insistance on holding to specious arguments for global climate change that would put americans under the thumb of foreign powers such as the U.N..
And finally, I'd like to take issue with your assertion that the meaning of the Constitution is up for debate. It's not. In fact, that document was written in perfectly clear language. All one need do to understand the meaning of it, is to read the period documents of the time and you'll understand perfectly.
Case in point, the second amendment. the phrase "well regulated militia" has been defined by statists as meaning that the government should regulate and govern them. Point of fact is that "well regulated" means well trained to proficiency. But statists don't bother reading period documents that shed light on Truth because it works against their goal of stealing power from people, under the guise of benevolent intention.
Mr. Soros: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would
>
> say that that's when my character was made.
>
> Kroft: In what way?
>
> Mr. Soros: That one should think ahead. One should
>
> understand and-and anticipate events and when-when
>
> one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I
>
> mean, it was a-a very personal experience of evil.
>
> Kroft: My understanding is that you went out with
>
> this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted
>
> godson.
>
> Mr. Soros: Yes. Yes.
>
> Kroft: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation
>
> of property from the Jews.
>
> Mr. Soros: Yes. That's right. Yes.
>
> Kroft: I mean, that's-that sounds like an experience
>
> that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for
>
> many, many years. Was it difficult?
>
> Mr. Soros: Not-not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a
>
> child you don't-you don't see the connection. But it
>
> was-it created no-no problem at all.
>
> Kroft: No feeling of guilt?
>
> Mr. Soros: No.
>
> Kroft: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and
>
> here I am, watching these people go. I could just
>
> as easily be there. I should be there.' None of
>
> that?
>
> Mr. Soros: Well, of course I c-I could be
>
> on the other side or I could be the one from
>
> whom the thing is being taken away. But there
>
> was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because
>
> that was-well, actually, in a funny way, it's
>
> just like in markets-that if I weren't there-of
>
> course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else
>
> would-would-would be taking it away
>
> anyhow. And it was the-whether I was there or
>
> not, I was only a spectator, the property was
>
> being taken away. So the-I had no role in
>
> taking away that property. So I had no sense of
>
> guilt.
>
>
>
Isn't that David Axlegrease a beauty?
What CHARISMA!
~ FreeThinke
Don't be afraid to answer me directly, Z. Are you saying that the self-justification Soros gave, (which is readily found on hundreds of rightwing sites) for how he escaped the Holocaust, posing when he was 14 as the godson of a Christian, should be the basis for denying him the rights of an American citizen?
And what does that have to do with the disputed proposition that Obama has the right to say in the SOTU speech what he fears the Court's decision may open the door to.
Ok. So, the only things i really feel a desire to engage one person tonight, if that's ok.
It’s perfectly okay with me.
Psi bond, here's the misinformation that you're passing as fact. You keep claiming that because of the supreme courts ruling that foreign businesses will now magically be able to influence elections. But the law that makes foreign companies funding american elections is still in force and not part of the mccain feingold bill at all. That bill is still in force and hasn't been touched.
Greywolfe, it is a matter not of fact, but of opinion whether the Court's decision makes it easier for foreign entities to secretly bankroll campaigns in American elections important to their interests. It is misinformation to pretend the law is as exact as pure mathematics.
So, other than companies that may engage in illegal activities and funnel monies through american companies (clinton and the Chi-comms comes immediately to mind) nothing has changed except that the constitutional right to free speech of American companies and political groups has been upheld.
I think allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace facilitates corruption of the law by foreign interests eager to influence our elections.
Will there be companies that may abuse the right? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that, just like gun ownership, people don't have the right to make their voices known regardless of price.
Yes, regardless of unwanted consequences, people have certain inalienable rights. Now, corporations have free speech rights the same as individuals, as a result of a decision by a Supreme Court strongly divided, even in the conservative wing, as to what the Constitution allows.
And the president has the free-speech right to give voice in his State-of-the Union speech to his own view of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regardless of whether some protest that his take on it is wrong or inappropriate. And this is the contested issue in this thread.
Second, you speak of this as a sovereignty issue. Please. As if this administration is worried at all about American sovereignty. His first weeks in office he comes back from a love fest with south american dictators touting a treaty that would remove the sovereignty of American gun owners and dealers without regard to the Constitution.
It is correct to say it's a sovereignty issue. A foreign entity using its funds to affect the outcome of an American election infringes our national sovereignty. If, rightly or wrongly, you believe an inter-American treaty to combat illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, and explosives is a violation of our sovereignty, then you should applaud Obama's urging Congress to plug any loopholes in campaign financing opened up for foreign entities not respecting our national sovereignty.
Not to mention his insistance on holding to specious arguments for global climate change that would put americans under the thumb of foreign powers such as the U.N..
It is a gross, albeit common, exaggeration to declare that voluntarily agreeing to take steps to reduce the output of greenhouse gases (tens of millions of tons a day) is a surrender of national sovereignty.
And finally, I'd like to take issue with your assertion that the meaning of the Constitution is up for debate. It's not. In fact, that document was written in perfectly clear language. All one need do to understand the meaning of it, is to read the period documents of the time and you'll understand perfectly.
Not even all the current members of the Supreme Court agree on what the Constitution authorizes. The intent of archived documents is not unambiguous on matters the Founders could not have envisaged. For example, it is debatable whether the Founders thought individual citizens should have an unrestricted right to own grenade launchers or anti-aircraft missiles.
Concluded
Case in point, the second amendment. the phrase "well regulated militia" has been defined by statists as meaning that the government should regulate and govern them. Point of fact is that "well regulated" means well trained to proficiency. But statists don't bother reading period documents that shed light on Truth because it works against their goal of stealing power from people, under the guise of benevolent intention.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I said that American don't agree on what the Constitution means. In this regard, the Second Amendment is a well-chosen case in point. Opposing views of it have long been part of public discourse. In the founding era, a well-regulated militia was generally seen as essential to protection of the people from perceived government tyranny. Militias were considered the best alternative to a state-maintained standing army of professionals, which was seen as a threat to liberty. These days, however, no homegrown band of tea-drinking or Mecca-facing rebels armed with handguns or semi-automatic weapons is a match for the U.S. Army with its tanks, gunships, and missiles. Debate in America on what the ammendment means will no doubt continue into the future. Radicals may argue that "to keep and bear Arms" should be interpreted to mean "any and all obtainable weapons of destruction". But even in a 5-4 opinion striking down a DC ban on handguns, the Supreme Court noted "some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem," and said that such a view is "perhaps debatable".
It's a shame Hitler didn't NIP the dirty bastard while he was in the bud.
Psi bond, again, the constitution is very clear if one wants to read period documents and learn from them. Unfortunately, statists like yourself want to willfully ignore original intent.
if you were to look up "well regulated" in a legal text of the time it would give the exact wording as i gave you. The only reasons that people like yourself and at least one half of the supreme court would debate meaning is because you are willfully ignorant of constitutional history or adamantly opposed to the people and states having authority removed from the federal government and placed back into the hands of the states and people as was originally intended.
And again, the laws that make foreign company's involvement in U.S. elections illegal is STILL STANDING! That hasn't changed with this ruling. it doesn't even touch it. That was a gross misrepresentation made by the Dems.
I restate these issues so that others that MIGHT be open to historical truth are not swayed by your leftist water carrying. The truth is the truth.
As for Barry's use of the sotu speech to slap the supreme court while they sit, unable to respond, it breaks down to bad manners, and poor judgement. If he wanted to, he could have done the same elsewhere, but instead, chose to embarrass them.
he's a thug. simple and plain.
psi,
Should the New York Times, CBS, etc be allowed to influence elections?
tio
Anonymous: It's a shame Hitler didn't NIP the dirty bastard while he was in the bud.
And rightwingers swear they're not hateful folks. Z evidently wants him hanged in the court of public opinion; you want him hanged retroactively in the crib.
I wish the Constitution, which is offered, had been made perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time.
— George Washington, to Patrick Henry, September 24, 1787
Your steadfast adherence, Greywolfe, to rightwing opinions about our Constitution is chastely plain and vastly simple.
Again: If the Constitution were as uniformly clear as the right likes to insist, and the archival documents were all in agreement on any imaginable issue, then constitutional questions would be decided by a unanimous vote of the justices every time. Reality, however, doesn't support this naïve view. To repeat: Constitutional law is not mathematics.
Even the first three words of the Constitution ("We the People" in the Preamble) were cause for dispute. One of the Founders, Patrick Henry, argued against ratification in Virginia, demanding "Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation."
One delegate to the Constitutional Convention who emerged among the Anti-Federalists, Luther Martin, recommended to Maryland that it reject the Constitution: “We appeared totally to have forgot the business for which we were sent . . . we adopted principles which would be right and proper, only on the supposition that there were no State governments at all, but that all the inhabitants of this extensive continent were in their individual capacity, without government, and in a state of nature.”
However, James Wilson, at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, declared: “I know very well all the common-place rant of State sovereignties, and that government is founded in original compact.” But he insisted that the Preamble “is not an unmeaning flourish. The expressions declare, in a practical manner, the principle of this constitution. It is ordained and established by the people themselves; and we, who give our votes for it, are merely the proxies of our constituents. We sign it as their attorneys, and as to ourselves, we agree to it as individuals.”
The historical truth is that the present-day constitutional conflict between states’ rights advocates and federalists had its origin in the founding era, when the very appearance in the Constitution of the now hallowed phrase “We the People” was acrimoniously controversial.
And the plain fact is the president did not slam the Supreme Court in the SOTU. With reference to one decision decided by a narrow majority, he did conscientiously express his concern about possible ramifications that could threaten our sovereignty. Calling him a thug for doing so is unsurprisingly typical rightwing rhetoric — mean-spirited, I think.
tio: Should the New York Times, CBS, etc be allowed to influence elections?
Do they? Should the Washington Times, Newsmax, Fox, el Rushbo, et al. be allowed to?
Post a Comment