Obama Hammers Supreme Court in Speech

[kpete]

Source: CBS News

Jan. 27, 2009
Obama Hammers Supreme Court in Speech
In State of the Union, President Suggests Court Opened Doors to Foreign Intervention in American Elections


(CBS) This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.President Obama is taking aim at the Supreme Court's recent decision to roll back limits on corporate spending on political campaigns in his State of the Union address this evening, saying the high court "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign companies - to spend without limit in our elections."

"Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities," the president will say, according to excerpts provided by the White House. "They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

According to CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford, "the rebuke of the Court is extraordinary." Many of the justices involved in the 5-4 decision are expected to be in the House chamber to hear Mr. Obama's speech.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/27/politics/stateofunion/main6148414.shtml

---

Alito shakes heading, mouthing "not true," as Obama says recent Supreme Court decision will let lobbyists and corporations own our elections. Highly inappropriate for Alito to do this. You'll notice the Sup Ct doesn't even clap when the president enters. They are not supposed to respond to anything, lest it show bias. Highly inappropriate. Alito's "You Lie!" moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pB5uR3zgsA&feature=player_embedded

[aquart]

1. Court deserves to be rebuked.

Court deserves to be horsewhipped in a public square.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. what do mean "rebuked" they need to be IMPEACHED!!!

[cyclezealot]

32. Bravo

We should make that a high priority in contacting our congress members..

[PatrynXX]

34. is it technically possible to impeached someone on the SCOTUS

here I was thinking John Roberts was the asshole, but no it's the other guy. Nobody saw that one coming.

reminds me of the fuck you statement, cept the SCOTUS dude was the idiot in the gray hair and not the cool guy saying fuck you...

cept this isn't England you idiotic SCOTUS. it's the USA. do'h


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugailEn8U5o

[No Elephants]

35. Meh. It's been proven that the SCOTUS bench has plenty of room for more than one asshole.

Right now, I count five: Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

56. The Original intent for "impeachment was the "check & balance" on the Judical branch ......

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behaviour", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.

[anigbrowl]

105. Indeed so, but this doesn't extend to rulings you simply dislike

It requires some evidence of corruption or malfeasance. Now, if you could show that a party or private interest had made promises to the justices who voted to abolish these limits on corporate speech, you'd have a clear case for impeachment. But as long that's just their opinion and we find it disagreeable, no offense has taken place. I don't like their recent ruling but I think they were on pretty solid ground with the idea that the first amendment protects such speech.

I strongly reject this idea that impeachment can or should be used for purely political purposes. It seems to b trotted out mainl by people who don't understand the judicial process.

[ooglymoogly]

142. Oh yes it can....You are forgetting the "ham sandwitch rule"

there are no constraints on how congress votes on impeachment. They may or may not adhere to any guidelines. Any way the constitution is particularly vague on exactly what "High crimes and misdemeanors" means; It is whatever congress deems it to mean. Settled law, or even perceived settled law, means nothing anymore; Thanx to this harebrained SC.

[ooglymoogly]

145. That solid ground becomes pretty shaky when you

bring in the demonstrable fallacy that corporations are people and have the same rights. Think about that, Corporations are people. What do they take us for a bunch of fools.

[elocs]

63. As technically possible as it was to impeach Bush when people were screaming for it for years here.

It's not going to happen now either. Also, "impeach" does not mean "removal" (remember Bill Clinton?)

[The Stranger]

84. That's right, the Nancy Disaster covered the Criminal Cabal for years against screams for vengeance.

[elocs]

93. Right, don't bother with where to get the votes to get it done in the House or the Senate,

just shake your fists and scream. It may make you feel better, but that's all it will do.

[The Stranger]

123. Once you grow some balls and move forward, you begin to alter the "votes" that are out there.

You use the media, you spread your talking points, you change the paradigm, you hit hard, and the votes are going to be there. You give something for people to stand on with you. You don't sit there and make fucking excuse after fucking excuse.

And, in any event, fuck the "have the votes" bullshit. The law is the law. If some war criminal hijacks the nation's foreign policy, a member of Congress has an obligation to do their duty to impeach. Damned be the votes.

[ooglymoogly]

153. But Bill Clinton's presidency was crippled from that impeachment by the House.

If we could get nothing else, that alone would make them realize they cannot just treat the constitution and people like toilet paper.

[Alcibiades]

155. Yes, it is possible

and has even been done, once, in 1804. It's the same process of impeachment we all know and love from the Clinton debacle.

[zbdent]

59. rebuked ... yes ...

but then, they should have been impeached when Scalia's kid was being bossed by the lawyer for Bush in 2000, and Clarence Thomas' wife was taking applications for employment in the Bush administration ... and they didn't recuse themselves ...

[liberalmike27]

114. Sadly, There is Only One Way to Take Out

a traitorous corporate SC justice, and liberals don't tend to take that method.

But we can be like Pat Robertson, and pray for one of them to croak, probably Thomas, or Scalia.

[blurp]

23. Sorry, but that was not right.

We don't solve problems in this country by having ANY president bully judges. They may be wrong, but that's not the way to do things. I think it's dangerous.

If there is something wrong with the law -- fix it.

[Raineyb]

29. There was nothing wrong with the law. The problem was the five ass hat activist judges who

decided that their ideology was more important than the bloody law. And what they did WAS wrong, it is literally the beginning of the official end of this country as a democratic republic.

[No Elephants]

37. The beginning of the end may have started before that, IMO, but I agree that this decision

was a mortal wound.

[skepticscott]

39. How exactly was it "wrong"?

What was there about the decision that went directly against the constitution?

[No Elephants]

40. "Going directly against the Constitution" is not the standard for assessing a

Supreme Court opinion. So, let's give that a rest.

The SCOTUS, by its own jurisprudence, is not supposed to reach a Constitutional question if it can possibly avoid doing that. So, the first question is, Was the SCOTUS compelled to make any First Amendment decision at all?

Its own jurisprudence also says that it shall not invalidate a law as unconstitutional, if it can possibly avoid doing that. So, the next question is, did the Constitution absolutely compel the SCOTUS to invalidate the law? And we can go from there.

Was the decision compelled by the original intent of the Constitution? Don't make me laugh.

Is the decision even good policy? Don't make me laugh.

If you have any genuine interest in why this decision is wrong, you may try reading the dissents. The Citizens United opinion, including the dissents, is online in pdf. It may even be online in other formats by now.

[skepticscott]

141. If a decision is fully in line with

the Constitution, tell me again how it's "wrong", as opposed to just raising people's hackles? If a law restricts political speech, that's about as fundamental a violation of the First Amendment as you can get. If you don't think fundamental violations of the Constitution compel invalidation, that's your business. As far as policy goes, the outcome and fallout of a Supreme Court decision are irrelevant to its constitutionality. If you don't like what the Constitution requires, then change it.

[ooglymoogly]

151. If you are arguing that corporations are people

you have at least a wobbly argument that the decision was correct. However they are not. If the SC makes a ruling that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make it so? Up is down, water is dirt, war is peace, Where is the stop sign before returning to the future of 1984 or a brave new world.

[bulloney]

51. Corporations are not people. That's what's wrong with the SCOTUS decision.

The five stooges who issued the majority decision put their corporate agenda ahead of their duty to uphold the Constitution. That's what's wrong.

[onenote]

106. i think the decision was wrongly decided, but do you think the first amendment only

applies to speech by natural persons?

[pinkpops]

149. what's an un-natural person?

[anigbrowl]

110. Irrelevant.

I am not in favor of full corporate personhood, but let's look at what the first amendment says:

"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."

Now you can argue that since corporations are not people, they can't engage in speech as such - although you'd have to balance this against the right to assemble (and historically the court has given wide latitude to interpretations of what constitutes speech); but 'the press' is obviously not a person, but a collective verb describing publishers of contemporary news and opinion, as it was back in the early days of the Republic.

Newspapers (and other media which have since come into being via invention, such as TV, radio, video etc.) have rarely been the output of a single person, but of multiple people working together under the auspices of a publisher - in other words, a joint effort by multiple people. Like it or not, their freedom is explicitly protected by the first amendment. And like it or not, the constitution is the supreme law of the land and takes precedence over acts of congress if there are disputes about the applicability of the law.

I don't like it, but the constitution is pretty clear, and while I agree with Justice Stevens' dissent on a practical level, I don't thinkthe constitution grants an exception on that basis. It's extremely explicit.

Anyhow, the test of a healthy democracy is not whether its citizens are protected from disagreeable or even false opinions, but whether they are collectively wise enough to distinguish between truth and falsehood. If you truly believe this is not the case (I don't) then you should agitate for constitutional change and attempt to modify the first amendment.

[ooglymoogly]

159. The foundations of your argument appear to be that corporations

are just a gathering of folks; At present, they are not so much a gathering of folks as a gathering of a vast sum of money that is controlled by a very few at the top; In fact, beyond the guts, (its employees and real estate), the blood and jewels of a corporation, is at the beck of one, perhaps a limited few individuals at the top and is not the voice of those who in fact own the corporation and that money, who are the shareholders. Schumer may have hit upon something; Changing the now crooked corporate laws benefiting those few good ol' boys at the top; That those voices of the millions of shareholders become as important as those disregarding and exclusionary few at the top when profits are doled out and spent, making them able to vote on top heavy bonuses and golden parachutes and give them a voice in how campaign monies are spent; Now there is a sea change beneficial to us all in this country and would indeed fit comfortably into the intent of the constitution.

[anigbrowl]

162. I totally agree with that

We can address the reform of corporate structure on its own ground, rather than by constraining it while busting the first amendment. I am much more concerned with being able to track the origin and amounts of money spent on political campaigns than the fact that it is spent in large quantities. That latter is also a concern, but deep down I believe that people are able to make up their own mind - look at the many marketing campaigns for movies or new products that flop hard every year.

I strongly agree about overhauling shareholding rules so as to make voting more meaningful and affect corporate policy from the ground up. The problem is that the great volume of shares are held by institutional investors - banksters, if you like; but also pension funds and so forth. CALPERS, the California pension fund, is one of the biggest financial institutions in the country, indeed it's large even in world terms.

However, funds tend to vote with management and vote by the numbers, which means they are always taking management's word for it until it's too late, and conditions have changed or management has erred. They are expert in reading and understanding those numbers, but it also creates a strange condition whereon many fund managers take on more risk out actual risk aversion - they are often afraid of losing out on a profit more than they are worried about the ethical/environmental/fiscal sustainability of a given company's management.

Fund managers like to see themselves as sharks or such, but if you've spent any time working with them you quickly notice a lot of following behavior. Think of a school of fish, herd of deer or a flock of birds that scatters and reforms but keeps its overall shape - that's very much how the market behaves. Companies are hierarchical, but the market is much more like a large group of animals reacting to each other. The key difference from nature is that individual investors and fund managers control widely varying amounts of money, and those who control the most tend to vote most conservatively in corporate elections.

I can think of two ways to reform this. One is a system for voting over the internet eg you could log on to your pension fund website and express which companies you favor or disfavor, or proxy vote in their elections; another might be to reform corporate law so that instead of one share one vote, or one shareholder on vote - both of which are subject to problems - you could have logarithmic voting:

One share gets you one vote, 10 shares gets you two votes, 100 gets you three, 1000 gets four, and so on - each power of ten is treated as a voting unit. This would still give large shareholders an increased say in the policy of the company, but balance their interests much more closely with those of small shareholders. You could use other bases besides ten, but I think the decimal base is a good one both for simplicity and because it offsets the exponential effects of financial leverage which are unavailable to smaller investors.

This would make corporation managers a lot more careful about how their company does business and what it stands for, since irresponsible or offensive decisions would result in greatly increased pressure from aggrieved shareholders.

[skepticscott]

140. And what exactly does that

have to do with this decision?

[No Elephants]

36. Easier said than done. Hardly any way to fix this situation without a constitutional amendment, and

it's very hard to get one of those passed anymore.

I thought what Obama did was shocking, but warranted. And Alito's reaction merits flogging. And I am not one of Obama's unconditional supporters, either.

[fasttense]

62. He didn't "bully" anyone.

He merely stated his opinion about their stupid opinion. If they found it offensive, they may take up with the President after the speech. Or they could stop making stupid rulings like corporations are people too, and stop counting votes, we pick the president.

But Presidents have derided Supremes opinions many, many times in the past. The Dread Scott decision comes to mind. Also FDR frequently derided the Supremes rulings. When they ruled against New York's minimum wage laws FDR lambasted them (and so did most everyone else).

[GMA]

95. What he did was completely lacking in class.

He talked about changing the tone of discourse in Washington, then insulted the Supreme Court in the most inappropriate time and place. It's embarrassing.

[Barrymores Ghost]

100. It was HIGHLY appropriate...and rather than lacking in class, it showed courage.

The Supreme Court's split decision to grant corporations carte blanche to spend as much money as they want -- so they can lie to Americans over the airwaves in any fashion they want, in the days leading up to elections, so they can influence said elections in any WAY they want -- was what lacked in class. It was wholly outrageous. It wins the Super Bowl of shitty SCOTUS rulings, beating out Dred Scott by a field goal from the 50 yard line in the waning minutes.

If you're embarrassed, tough. America needed to hear it.

[Igel]

119. If the court was to sit impassively,

where's the courage?

Saying your opinion knowing that nobody in the audience can respond? Or, if they do, it'll be in a venue far from that place, not televised, weeks or months later? And at that, it would be verbal and of no greater consequence?

Meanwhile, nearly everybody in the media and with a (D) after his/her name has already said as much. Rather than courage, he merely said what everybody else that matters--including himself--already had.

Instead of courage, it showed redundancy.

Appropriate, perhaps.

[Barrymores Ghost]

163. Obama said it in front of a vast and captive American audience.

And he challenged the Congress to correct the matter. He knew that it would not just be his choir in attendance, but the chorus of the opposition as well. He did it at the risk of calling into question "his place" and his office for the 28%ers of the country.

It took but minutes for the racist, neo-Con peanut gallery to call him "arrogant," a "punk," and accusing him of "overstepping his bounds" -- all Right-Wing buzzwords, directed at the wholly ignorant and undereducated redneck base, for "an uppity N*****."

It was his forum and his right to do so. If you don't get that, then I'm sorry for you.

[Ferret Annica]

108. I'm still insulted the high court helped GW Bush steaal an election

from Al Gore. If anything, President Obama was too kind to these jerks.

[Doremus]

116. Embarrassing, yeah, right. (roll eyes)

Why don't you take your lame criticisms and go back under your rock cause you aren't fooling anybody. :eyes:

[Raineyb]

128. Are you on drugs?

Not only was what he said warranted it was absolutely spot on. There was nothing to be embarrassed about in what he said. What's embarrassing is that five jurists who know better decided that their corporatist leanings trumps the law. What's embarrassing is that you seem to care more about the feelings of five ass hats than what's going on in the country. What's embarrassing is that you don't have the sense to be embarrassed by your comment.

I'm embarrassed I read such drivel.

[ooglymoogly]

148. You are a fool....we are talking about changes that will

destroy this country as a republic to say nothing of the end of democracy; And you speak of what is or isn't classy? He should have threatened them full unabated ramp up to impeachment or at the least a constitutional amendment. I'll pit O's class against these five thugs who have done more to damage this country than all the wars put together, any day. So pedal your ignorance someplace else.

[pinkpops]

150. You are right . Using his "Bully pulpit" maybe, but thats his job -

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today); the term has no relationship to the noun bully, i.e. a harasser or someone who intimidates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit

[Bluenorthwest]

65. The Executive is co equal, so the President's opinion is

his to freely speak, and for ANY President to do so is not to 'bully' judges. Their decision has been made. How is it bullying to say you do not agree?
The lot of the conservative justices should be impeached. America detests and distrusts them, and that alone is reason for them to be removed if they do not have the decency to step down at once.

[LiberalFighter]

89. And if the Justices don't like it then don't show up for the SOTU

We won't miss them.

[Hosnon]

133. I'd go further and say that the President has an affirmative duty to advocate his

interpretation.

Contrary to what many people think, the Court is not apolitical - it's just the least political branch.

[efhmc]

75. It was not only right, it was brave and true and reflects greatly on our

President. The Supreme Court is not a law making body, yet the right wing activist judges on the court continue to act as if they are.

[FailureToCommunicate]

101. Agreed. And after they installed Bush as president they are feeling their oats...

(And yes I know it was the Rehnquist Court)
Imagine the howls from here and elsewhere if the President DID'T mention such a monumental ruling in his speech.

[Mithreal]

139. I don't think it was bullying or brave. Somewhere in between, more centristy.

[yellowcanine]

96. I disagee. He did it in the context of calling for new legislation. Besides, how many Presidents,

Senators, Congress Members, etc have hammered the SCOTUS on Roe v Wade, which was decided 7-2, not 5-4, as is the case with the campaign financing case. The Republic survives and the SCOTUS still functions as an independent entity, so wherein lies the danger?

[veganlush]

120. he was upholding his constitutional requirement to report to

congress on the state of the union. That was part of the report. weighing in on it and asking congress for a fix is not bullying. If it was bullying to disagree with the ruling, then WOW did bush ever bully over roe v wade!

[ooglymoogly]

147. Sorry but you are wrong

You are right that this would be a dangerous precedent to set; But only if this decision were not far, far more dangerous.

[carnie_sf]

33. Too bad Emma Goldman's not still around

she would have done it

[Land Shark]

103. Impeached & Convicted & Barred from future public "service" & probably jailed after trial. n/t

[roguevalley]

132. The four dissenters deserve respect. Two of them are ailing and

would go if not for the idiots in the five other seats.

[Mojambo]

2. It made the speech for me, and I hope he's serious about getting something passed. n/t

[Roland99]

73. Obama was probably serious. Too bad the Dems will cave with their 59-vote majority.

:eyes:

[The Stranger]

86. They will cave with their 59-vote MINORITY. That's the Stooge Harry Reid for ya.

[ooglymoogly]

166. Both Harry and Nancy are hoping folks forget

all the damage bush has done to this country, bringing it to its knees and bankrupting it, including packing the supreme court rests firmly on their empty heads. Taking impeachment off the table can only be described as insanity and that is the kind explanation; It had to be collusion without a care for the people and the Constitution; It was so obvious that bush should have been impeached before more damage was done, what else could it have been. Self preservation as an excuse is not acceptable from a Senator or Rep.

[Gus2525]

3. Roberts looked like he got his balls busted

[unkachuck]

9. alito was shaking his head and mumbling....n/t

[izquierdista]

13. Parkinson's

With my degree from the Frist School of Telediagnosis, I declare him unfit for duty. Next!

[No Elephants]

38. Not mumbling. Just not miked. He said what Obama said

was not true. You could read his lips. (And I think he very much intended that we be able to read his lips, and watch him shake his head no.)

[mitchtv]

4. they needed it

their ruling was BS. Thanks Pres.

[uppityperson]

5. K&R, good, he should. Time for the other 2 branches to cover that with decent legislation.

[No Elephants]

41. Please see Reply 36.

[24601]

167. Legislation can't overturn the constitution - that takes an amendment

which required 2/3 vote in each house followed by approval by 3/4 of the states.

What we really need is a constitutional convention.

[pleah]

6. I hope someone puts a vid up on Alito. I missed his reaction and

heard it was priceless.

[philly_bob]

7. Supreme Court rebuke got standing ovation! /nt

[Toucano]

27. Honestly, there was a standing ovation every 90 seconds.

It was actually distracting.

[bulloney]

54. That's why SOTUs are a joke anymore.

The president--and I don't care what party he represents--can rip a fart during the address, and the members of Congress from his party will give him a two-minute standing ovation.

It's become little more than a glorified political rally.

[footinmouth]

8. The perfect public flogging

They had this one coming.

[BlueIdaho]

11. A public shaming is in order.

[alp227]

12. Of course he would...but too bad often the SupCt gets the "last word" on the Constitution

It's the way separation of powers works between the legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (federal court) systems in the U.S. Right? When a law is proposed, all get a say on it so that no one branch gets undue power. The President can veto legislation (but then Congress can override the veto provided a supermajority vote). Federal courts can void or uphold legislation signed by the President.

[No Elephants]

43. Actually, everybody but the SCOTUS gets the last word. At least, that is what the

Constitution intended. Congress does a bill about a Constitutional amendment, the President signs it and the people of the various states ratify it (or not, as the people please).

In practice, however, a bitter partisanship never contemplated by the Framers throws a monkey wrench into that process.

[melm00se]

78. Huh?

In practice, however, a bitter partisanship never contemplated by the Framers throws a monkey wrench into that process.

never contemplated? Hell it happened during the original Constitutional Convention!!!

the Partisanship was split along the lines of large states vs small states and the number of representatives that each state would have. The larger states supported the Virginia plan (# of reps determined by population) and the smaller states supported the New Jersey plan (all states have the same number of representatives). This clash almost stopped the Unites States from starting even before it began.

It was only due to what is dubbed the "Great Compromise" authored by Roger Sherman which created a bicameral legislative body (remember high school civics class?) where states were represented in the lower house by a number of representatives weighted by population and the upper house (the Senate) populated with all states having the same number of representatives (2).

Back to the cries for impeachment of the USSC: you must be kidding me!!! making a "stupid" (or one that you don't agree with) ruling does not meet the "good behavior" criteria which has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clauses in Articles I and II encompass.

If you are going to argue for something at least know enough about the topic and the framework that something can or can not be accomplished instead of just spewing.

[CynicalObserver]

87. Nice to see a (lonely) voice of reason here. The fact that

it seems a high % of posters would support physical violence against the justices, not to mention removal, bodes ill for this country. I don't think many of them actually understand this decision, and those that do might actually support government deciding who can have political speech, and when.

[tabasco]

165. Why are you here?

If don't like it - get the fuck out.

[ooglymoogly]

99. Let the red herrings fly. The reason this predatory decision is absolutely

unacceptable is that it is treason against the peoples of this country. Corporations are not people no matter how many sophists propagandize it so, and that goes for SC Justices. The clear and obvious extrapolation of this predatory decision is the end of democracy; An end to we the people electing a government; An end to any checks and balances; An end, in fact, to any fairness at all. It means the end of even any pretense at democracy. If you "think" this is just another decision to agree with or not, you are looking at the world through rose colored gin bottles. This decision must be fought to the death with everything each of us has got; Pollyannas be damned.

[melm00se]

113. again: huh?

treason is clearly defined in the US Constitution in Art. III which states that treason against the United States consists only in levying war against them (the United States), or in adhering to their (again the United States) enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Please show to me how the USSC decision meets that definition.

Not in an ideological diatribe but in a way that would stand up in a court of law.

These kneejerk reactions and rationalizations are, in reality, no different than the claims of right wing anti-abortion folks who believe that shooting an abortion provider is justified and that claim was recently ridiculed here as having no standing.

Do you really want to be classified as a reactionary in the same vein?

[ooglymoogly]

118. What a pile of claptrap tripe, right wing talking points.

Impeachment pivots on one point, and that is what each member of congress deems it to be; As the Supreme C. is the final arbiter of law even when they do not act constitutionally, as in Dred Scott, or Judiciously, as in this equally heinous decision; Except in the case of impeachment, where the congress decides what is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and is the final arbiter of that (perhaps purposely) vague parameter. Do you believe that if congress, both houses, impeached for whatever reason, there is a further power, that can: not honor that decision be it right or wrong, according to ones philosophy or understanding of reality, again, erroneous or not.

This decision goes against any concept of democracy. It goes against the intent of the constitution and against the people of this country and no amount of sophistry can make a case against that. Corporations are not people. How can anything be more clear.

[melm00se]

127. you state that it is treason

yet you decline to state how this decision meets the definition as detailed below:

treason is clearly defined in the US Constitution in Art. III which states that treason against the United States consists only in levying war against them (the United States), or in adhering to their (again the United States) enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

and even using your shift that this meets "high crimes and misdemeanors" definition, can you say which crime. specifically?

Impeachment is made extremely difficult for a reason - to prevent abuse by one branch of government against one of the co-branches.

[ooglymoogly]

136. Here we go, off on another red herring.

Do you admit that each congressman/woman can and has decided what constitutes grounds for impeachment on entirely different inferences than that of war or any guidelines of appropriateness. They are in fact free to do whatever they please as far as voting goes. And who, besides the people of this country, can hold them accountable for their decision of what constitutes an impeachable offense? So these arguments turn out to be non germaine, red herrings in fact. Treason, as you define it, for the most part, pertains to treason in war and the waging of it and acts therein. There are, however, many descriptions of treason in many different writeups of the subject. The only constitution on impeachment that I have found is, "high crimes and misdemeanors". As for me, who does not have a vote on the matter, except peripherally; I am talking of treason (as defined by Wickipedia), against the people of this country of which the SC are members; But then that is not up to me. it is up to congress who have no constraints, to vote their own "conscience", but they represent me and if there are enough me's out there who think this decision is treason against the people of this country and the intent of the constitution, it will happen; And as people begin to understand the meaning and scope of this decision, that is a possibility we have to consider.

[customerserviceguy]

14. I was disappointed that he did not call for a Constitutional amendment

His call at the end of the sentence for a mere "bill" sounded weak and ineffectual. The SCOTUS can wipe out any "bill", but they can't do squat about an amendment.

[blurp]

24. Yep.

If a law is unconstitutional and you want to keep the law, you've got to amend the constitution.

[No Elephants]

45. Please see Reply 44. Some things--maybe most things--are a lot easier said than done.

[customerserviceguy]

72. They're always a lot harder

without leadership.

[No Elephants]

44. Constitutional amendments have been very hard to come by for decades.

[LiberalFighter]

90. Depends on how the Amendment is interpreted by the courts.

[D23MIURG23]

15. "Highly inappropriate. Alito's 'You Lie!' moment."

As is Alito's presence on the supreme court or in the judiciary more generally.

[bluesmail]

16. Thank you, President Obama. EOM

[orbitalman]

17. Knock'em out, Barak! n/t

[Proletariatprincess]

18. Indeed it was highly inappropriate for Alito to react...

but I don't think it is the first time that Supremes have reacted that way. I distinctly remember the right wing justices applauding for Bush in a SOTU.
I don't think Im wrong about that...anyone else remember?

[Igel]

124. It's generally inappropriate for SCOTUS to react.

Almost any reaction will be partisan, and they are to remain as non-partisan, at least for appearance, as possible. Their job is to rule on the law, not on the party line or who's bringing the case; whether they succeed is a different story.

Hence the standards for decorum.

However, when the reaction isn't between factions that could be bringing a suit but between the President and a SCOTUS' decision, a reaction stops being partisan, between two possible litigants. It's then between the Executive and the Judicial, and in that I hardly expect either to be neutral.

In other words, when the "party" they're defending is "SCOTUS" sensu stricto, a reaction might be a bit rude, but it's not over the top. Esp. when they're asked to sit through a speech that traditionally has not included--out of respect and decorum--SCOTUS bashing.

I have a little kid. Often his "friends" will come in and say, "Igeling called me a stupid head," or "Igeling pushed me." And then they wait for me to punish him. His playmates know we frown on this kind of language and behavior. However they're usually stunned when I say either, "And you shouldn't call my son a butt head (or push him). Now, I can punish Igeling, but it means I'll first go and ask your parents to punish you. Or you can work it out among yourselves--but I don't want to see this kind of behavior, it's not appropriate. If you want respect you have to show respect, and since you showed disrespect first, I'm not going to hold him responsible without holding you responsible."

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Takes a long time to get them to understand this, and one little kid really has trouble because "respect" is something he deserves and to disrespect him is an insult. Regardless of his behavior and how he treats others.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Submariner]

20. An "Activist" Supreme Court decision - I guess it's okay when republicans do it

Scalito and Roberts are slime.

[LiberalFighter]

91. Part of the reason that Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are slime is

because they are all Federalist Society members.

Thomas might be now but don't know. Back when he wasn't a Justice they probably wouldn't let him because he wasn't a real attorney.

[Frank Booth]

21. That was great. The Supreme Court never gets called on their bullshit.

It was especially great coming from a Constitutional scholar equally or more knowledgeable than any of the five cynical bastards on the right.

[NikolaC]

22. That and the looks on their faces were one

of my favorite moments in the speech. Loved the smackdown that the President gave them.

[SeattleGirl]

25. That was so great when he did that!

Those five deserve swift kicks in their collective asses, but Obama's a little too classy to do that.

But at least he called them out in front of everybody!

[optimator]

26. hypocrtical to cry about "special interests"

President Wall Street, we know your interests and it ain't democratic voters.

[Tx4obama]

28. President Obama did NOTHING wrong

We have THREE branches of government, I think it's fair for them all to bash each other, and if it's not fair then NONE of them should be allowed to do so!

The Congress folks bash the President all the time
The President knocks the Congress... so he should also have the right to bash the SCOTUS ;)

p.s. It was RUDE and inappropriate for Alito to grimace and mouth words 'during' the speech, he should have waited until 'after' the speech.

[No Elephants]

46. First you say they should all be allowed to bash each other, then you say it was

fine for Obama to bash, but rude and inappropriate for Alito to respond. Those statements are inconsistent with each other.

IMO, the Court should be left alone. Respect for the rule of law and the Constitution are two of the best things about out system of government. The Executive and the Legislative cannot disrespect our legal system, but expect the public to do so. However, just this one time, the comment was more than warranted because the Citizens United decision was egregious. This unprecedented evet should NOT become a habit, though.

The Court should NOT bash any other branch. Bad enough that they get to invalidate legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. That's enough power and spite for them.

Nor should the President and Congress bash each other too freely. It's a government, not a reality show. It should be dignified and respectful, the way two heads of state of two equal nations should treat each other (comity). Not subservient and not disrespectful, either. However, respectful and restrain criticism to the public is sometimes justified on the part of the Executive and Legislative Branches because, ultimately, the true head of state in this country should be the people.

[Turborama]

30. Remix of Alito shaking his head....

Put together by CSJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcWuG2LO3E

[troubledamerican]

31. The Fascist Five are Demonic

[spicegal]

42. Ever since Gore V Bush, I've believed we have a partisan SCOTUS, and

this decision certainly proved it. I've lost all faith in the SCOTUS. In it current make-up, they will always rule in favor of power and wealth.

[Hubert Flottz]

47. BTW, didn't Alito swear that he wouldn't "Legislate from the bench"

So he lied on his application...fire him.

[No Elephants]

49. The decision was wrong. It was not "legislating from the bench,"though.

That concept is a piece of Republican misrepresentation, used to inflame people whenever the Republicans don't like what a court decided. Legislating from the bench is not what judges in this country do. They decide disputes that come before them, period. Sometimes, to decide a dispute, they have to interpret a statute and/or the Constitution, as they did in this case.

Citizens United sued in court, claiming that the campaign law violated its first amendment rights to air the movie Hillary.. Under our Constitution, the courts decides whether or not the plaintiff's claim has merit. To decide that, the Court had to interpret the Constitution.

The Court agreed with Citizens, when it should have disagreed. Neither decision--agreeing or disagreeing--however, would have been legislating from the bench. The court was just doing its own job of ruling on Citizens United's claim. The outcome was was wrong, it's true. But coming out the wrong way does not mean a court was legislating.

[Hubert Flottz]

52. The court reversed legislation that had been in place for over a

hundred years. Something it should take congress and the people to do. Taking liberties with our liberty might be a more applicable description. Twisting the laws on the books to create a new government more to their liking without regard for the damage it does to the country. Kind of like they did in the case of Bush vs Gore...

[onenote]

67. so you don't believe the SCOTUS should have struck down Jim Crow laws?

Your position that the SCOTUS has no business striking down legislation on constitutional grounds not only echoes the position that the RW often has taken when the SCOTUS has struck down laws, it is contrary to over 200 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence.

[CynicalObserver]

88. Could you specify exactly what legislation you think

had been around 100 years that scotus reversed? The sections of CFR in question in the case that were overturned are only ~9 years old.

[droidamus2]

55. Maybe but

I think the term 'legislating from the bench' refers to the idea that when a court ignores long standing precedents set by the same court and in some cases uses what those accusing them believe is convoluted logic they are implementing a predetermined agenda rather than making a true 'judicial' decision. Whether this idea is right or wrong or there is a better term to indicate the idea is arguable. I believe it is clear that the conservative block on this court will make decisions based on their personal philosophies rather than precedent and the Constitution if the result furthers wealth and power in the realm of their fellow Conservatives. Certain rotund radio hosts make the claim that 'this is a culture war' I believe the Conservatives (those with the ability to do something about it) truly believe this and they intend for there to be only one winner (them) and I think the Conservatives on the SCOTUS and the lower courts were put there to help make that happen (Okay not all of them but strategically positioned members).

[onenote]

69. by your standard, Brown v. Board of Education was "legislating from the bench"

(and the same might be said for Roe). But that's why criticizing the court for "legislating from the bench" is pernicious and wrong. The court interprets the constitution. While it weighs precedent, it is not required to follow it if it concludes that the prior cases were wrongly decided under the Constitution. I think that the court got it wrong in Citizens United, but what they did was no more "legislating from the bench" than the correct decisions to ignore contrary legislative judgments and judicial precedents in Brown and Roe

[droidamus2]

131. Not my point

Taking just the 'precedent' part of my argument isn't the point (actually I agree that bad precedents should be overruled) but if you take the other parts of my argument that is what makes it legislating. Overturning a precedent not with strong judicial arguments to back it up but to do so with arguments that are widely seen to be lacking is 'part' of 'legislating from the bench'. Now I don't mean just disagreement but arguments seen as without merit (a corporation is a person is a good example). Then add in the perception (wrong or right) that the justices involved seem to have a predetermined agenda to effect society in way that is only tangential to the decision you get the idea of legislating. In the end the perception of 'legislating from the bench' is in the eye of the beholder. If you agree with the decision then it is 'well thought out and a good decision' if you disagree then you may (not always) label it as 'legislating from the bench'. Without a doubt there may be a need to come up with a better label that more succinctly describes what happens in these cases. As the Republicans use the 'legislating' label it is just a way to tell their constituents that this is something you shouldn't like and should be real mad about. Yes it is usually nothing but a political ploy to argue a decision on an emotional level rather than on the merits.

[veganlush]

125. SCOTUS did more than consult the constitution in this case..

about the hillary movie...they reversed 3 previous decisions and went back further than they needed to. this is definitely well beyond what the other side who call "activism" and legislating from the bench.

[Hosnon]

134. Compared to other countries (particularly European), our judges are practically legislators.

Our system is rooted in the common law, not civil law.

But even judges in a civil law system "legislate" because if mechanical interpretation were possible, human judges wouldn't be necessary.

[Tanelorn]

48. At least he is beginning to HAMMER someone. Obama

Obama you are the man. You have both nine months and two and
half years to stick to the nay sayers and be respected for it.
From now on lets have that change we can believe in.

[LiberalFighter]

94. By my reckoning Obama has 2 years, 10 months and 23 days.

I'm confused by your nine months and two and half years statement.

[Tanelorn]

160. Mid-term election???

[Vattel]

50. The Court left open

the question of whether the contributions of foreign corporations could be limited. Didn't Obama read the decision?

[fasttense]

64. You need to read the dissenting opinion.

It clearly lays out the ramifications of the Dancing Supremes ruling. It allows for foreign corporations. It's not just President Obama's opinion it is the 4 dissenting judges opinions too.

[DailyGrind51]

53. Since when do 5 determine the fate of over 300 million?

[onenote]

70. ever since the SCOTUS has had 9 justices

Of course, the 300 million can overturn a constitutional ruling by the SCOTUS by amending the constitution if there is the political will and support for doing so.

[Myrina]

97. Great, and when the fundie wing petitions to toss out Roe ...

and Miranda, and Brown v. Board, and and and ....


Constitutional Amendment = BAD IDEA.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. Article III of the Constitution states that judges........

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behaviour", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.

History of federal impeachment proceedings

Congress regards impeachment as a power to be used only in extreme cases; the House has initiated impeachment proceedings only 63 times since 1789 (most recently against Judge Samuel B. Kent from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas), and only the following 18 federal officials have been impeached:

* Two presidents:
o Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act. President Johnson was acquitted by the Senate, falling one vote short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 35-19 to remove him. The Tenure of Office Act would later be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
o Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles. One was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote) and an article which accused Clinton of abuse of power by a 48–285 vote. The Senate fell far short of the necessary 2/3 needed to remove him from office, voting 45-55 to remove him on obstruction of justice and 50-50 on perjury.
* One cabinet officer, William W. Belknap (Secretary of War). He resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
* One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which declined to try the impeachment.
* One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate.
* Thirteen other federal judges, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency. The Senate did not bar Hastings from holding future office, and Hastings won election to the House of Representatives from Florida. Hastings's name was mentioned as a possible Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, but was passed over by House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, presumably because of his previous impeachment and removal. Source U.S. Senate

[deacon]

58. They gave us bush, and bush gave us this. Radical Judge Roberts. n/t

[groundloop]

60. Tough to add anything meaningful to this discussion - WAY TO GO PREZ !!

He's absolutely correct, this was a horrible decision.

[Democat]

61. Some "justices" need to be investigated!

I hope Democrats are smart enough to have investigators keeping a close eye on Roberts and Alito. It's not out of the question to believe that these two Republicans activists could be having meetings with their masters to make sure they make the "right" decisions on every important case.

[fasttense]

66. Wasn't Roberts complaining about NOT getting paid enough?

Now, he's not complaining. What happened? I don't honestly believe he thinks it's improper to complain about low pay when over 10% of America is out of work. Why did he stop complaining about his $200,000+ salary?

[Igel]

126. No.

He was complaining about the federal judiciary not getting paid enough.

As chief justice, all federal judges are nominally his employees and he's their manager. If he thinks that all the various judges on the bench need a pay raise, like any manager he should ask the people in charge of the money to give them one.

After all, the same can be said for the president. Making $400k, yet he asks for a raise for federal employees, even though there's 10% unemployment (and that only after the pool of job seekers declined), and even though wages have gone down. And even though public employee salaries are generally higher than comparable private sector salaries (especially beyond the lowest pay grades) and they have greater job security and, in many cases, better health care. Moreover, as states and the private sector have lost money, few federal employees have been laid off.

Roberts isn't not the first with this complaint, either. The complaints been around for a long time. And he's still complaining about it--it's just not all that useful to complain about it when the budget's set.

[penndragon69]

68. Obama Nailed it !

[pattmarty]

71. Again, he gave a fantastic speech. Now he HAS to deliver something..............

.............anything to show his admin is not just drifting. My opinion on the gist of the speech is it was something for everyone, a strictly political speech.

[Jefferson23]

74. Alito, just a tad defensive, eh?

From Glenn Greenwald on the subject:
Thursday, Jan 28, 2010 07:29 EST

Justice Alito's conduct and the Court's credibility


snip* Right-wing criticisms -- that it was Obama who acted inappropriately by using his SOTU address to condemn the Court's decision -- are just inane. Many of the Court's rulings engender political passions and have substantial political consequences -- few more so than a ruling that invalidated long-standing campaign finance laws. Obama is an elected politician in a political branch and has every right to express his views on such a significant court ruling. While the factual claims Obama made about the ruling are subject to reasonable dispute, they're well within the realm of acceptable political rhetoric and are far from being "false" (e.g., though the ruling did not strike down the exact provision banning foreign corporations from electioneering speech, its rationale could plausibly lead to that; moreover, it's certainly fair to argue, as Obama did, that the Court majority tossed aside a century of judicial precedent). Presidents have a long history of condemning Court rulings with which they disagree -- Republican politicians, including Presidents, have certainly never shied away from condemning Roe v. Wade in the harshest of terms -- and Obama's comments last night were entirely consistent with that practice. While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either. And, as usual, the disingenuousness levels are off the charts: imagine the reaction if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done this at George Bush's State of the Union address.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[newtothegame]

76. The Supreme Court ruled on sec. "A" of the law, not sec. "E" which covers foreign corporations. As a

law professor he should know this.

[OllieLotte]

81. Please explain.

[newtothegame]

92. From the NYT...

The majority opinion in the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, specifically disavowed a verdict on the question of foreign companies’ political spending.

“We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates. Some analysts or observers have warned that the principle could open the door to foreign corporations as well.

President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections. But he is too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies.

Also from CNN fact check...http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/cnn-fact-check-overseas-corporations-okd-for-campaign-cash/

[jsamuel]

98. but can't you have an American company that is owned in part by foreign people

who can then funnel the money through the American company?

Or an American company that is owned by a multi-national company?

[OllieLotte]

115. You think President Obama knew this or choose to ignore it?

Doesn't look right.

[liberal N proud]

77. He hammered just about everyone but his wife and the people

It was great to see someone who did not patronize the status quo.

[Blue Owl]

79. I hereby give Obama permission to tar and feather the five

n/t

[orbitalman]

80. Sledge Hammering The SCOTUS is MORE than deserved. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

102. Scalia, is that you? Or are you just one of the other

four imbeciles or their staff.

[Johnny Harpo]

82. As he Should..Just Because Its A SCOTUS Decision Does Not Mean Its Correct

or in the best interest of the country.

[ooglymoogly]

154. Many on DU believe that if the Supreme Court rules

up is down, or the earth is flat, or buildings are people, that makes it so and will argue till blue in the face to that end.

[SlingBlade]

83. Hammers ?

Oh, That'll teach those mean old Neo-Cons !

[Autonomy]

85. The SCOTUS has been making extraordinarily bad decisions

since Bush v Gore, often reversing many decades of common law. Eventually, I believe, this period will be taught in law schools and polisci classes as one that did not adhere to stare decisis, and allowed itself to be an extremely partisan court -- iow, everything a court is not supposed to do.

A future court will have to overturn these crap decisions, but until then, we always have the legislature. I guess we need an Amendment for campaign finance reform. Ugh.

[peace frog]

104. Obama hammers SC: Good, so now what?

What does Obama and/or Congress plan to do to render this horrific decision null and void?

[humbled_opinion]

107. Now Obama has really done it.....

I have renewed hope in our President. It was a brave and necessary thing to do and he did it. Here, here, Many more Mr. President Many more...

[Krashkopf]

109. "HAMMERED" - Were we watching and listening to the same speech?

I saw, and heard, Obama say . . . "and that's why I am urging Democrats and Republicans to" . . . then his voice actually faltered . . . "pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

GASP! The Supreme Court literally killed small "d" democracy in America, and the President figuratively "urged" the Congress to send them to bed without supper!

What the President should have said, firmly, was "and that's why I am proposing that Democrats and Republicans immediately pass an Amendment to the Constitution that clearly, and unequivocally states that Rights guaranteed under the Constitution apply to NATURAL persons, only, NOT to Corporations, Unions, or any other non-human entities."

[Mithreal]

137. +1, but that would be too strong!

[jobendorfer]

111. At this point I am so jaded I don't care what Obama says

I'm much more interested in what he DOES.

If I see him introduce or sponsor a constitutional amendment that ends the insane notion that corporations have free speech rights,
or better yet, ends the even more insane notion that flinging arbitrary amounts of money at politicians has something to do with
free speech, I'll get a little interested. If I see him, on a weekly basis, exhorting the Congress and the nation to actually pass it,
I'll get more excited.

Until then, it's just talk.

J.

[peace frog]

112. Less talk, more action

Obama crafts and delivers a great speech. That he is equally great at delivering on promises/exhortations is another matter.

[Cha]

121. Who cares..You don't know anything he's even done..

So you're spouting words on the internet.

[Mithreal]

138. That DU'er just left the door open to support the President

and you slam it back in his or her face?

That strategy may come back to bite.

[Cha]

157. It's just talk..that's all it is..Just talk.

[RoccoR5955]

117. The justices who voted against WE THE PEOPLE

should be impeached, and tried for treason!

[Cha]

122. "Alito's 'Not True' Was Out of Line; Court Deserves Obama Smack"

<snip>

.."So, kudos to Barack Obama, that former constitutional law professor, for saying it right to the justices' faces last night.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," said the president. "They should be decided by the American people."

<ship>

"The Court deserved the smackdown it got from the President of the United States last night, and Justice Sam Alito's rude protest--this year's Joe Wilson outburst--was just further proof of what a bunch of political hacks the justices have become."

<much more>
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2010/01/28/alitos-not-true-was-out-of-line-court-deserves-obama-smack.html

[Generator]

129. They almost fell out of their robes

it was pretty darn exciting.

[marshall]

164. Some of them didn't even look like they were conscious

They sat there like stone statues even when the people behind them were leaning over them clapping. Sotomayor wasn't even blinking, and she definitely showed no reaction to Alito or anything else that was goign on.

[SemperEadem]

130. Obama basically told the SCOTUS 5:

"With all due respect, you 5 ain't shit".

The guilty make the most noise, hence Alito forgetting where he was.

[Mithreal]

135. This hammer?

I am sure he has already made up.

[Uncle Joe]

143. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

[laylah]

144. Contact the felonious 5...

www.supremecourtus.gov

[Mithreal]

146. I did earlier in the week. Must write them, they won't take comments over the phone.

They are much above our petty concerns. Seems like if they want to legislate or ignore Stare decisis, they should not be able to hide from the public. They have more than explaining to do.

[muntrv]

152. What Obama did is no different than republicker presidents slamming Roe v Wade.

[WoodyM]

156. As general rule,

Supreme Court decisions should not be unfavorably spoken about in a President’s “State of the Union” message. However, a decision that will have as much affect on this nation as this one will should be spoken about. After all, the speech he was making was the “State Of The Union”

[ooglymoogly]

158. At this moment, these 5 "men" are the 5 most dangerous thugs

in the entire world. I would bet the smarter countries are beginning to arm themselves and forming alliances against the coming wars initiated by this country that are inevitable; From this grotesque decision by these 5 thugs, the military industrial complex has won, and won totally; From this very decision they are now unfettered for continuous war and world domination. Cheney must be chortling in his fist and high-fiving himself all over the place. The neocons have officially won. The other shoe has dropped; Not with a thud but a barely noticed whisper considering the deadly consequence and enormity of this ruling that will, within 20 years, turn this country into hell on earth.

[robcon]

161. The president doesn't get to "hammer" the Supremes...

any more than Justice Robert gets to hammer Obama's decisions.

The Supreme Court is final: the only redress is impeachment or amendment.