Sen. Russ Feingold: Samuel Alito behavior 'inappropriate'

[kpete]

Source: Politico

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sharply criticized Samuel Alito's reaction to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, calling the conservative Supreme Court justice’s behavior “inappropriate.”

During last night's address, Obama took aim at the Supreme Court's decision to gut campaign finance restrictions for corporations and labor unions. While Supreme Court justices typically maintain stoic dispositions during State of the Union addresses, Alito, who joined the 5-4 opinion, appeared to mouth the words “not true” as Obama spoke.

"That's not very judicial of him," Feingold told POLITICO. "Apparently, he thinks he gets to make the law. He should maintain his judicial demeanor, and that was inappropriate."

Feingold, who co-authored part of the law with Sen. John McCain, called it a "lawless decision" and "truly an outrageous act."




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32158.html

[John1956PA]

1. Kudos, Senator Feingold. The decision of the five right-wing justices is indefensible.

Anyone, except for right-wingers like those five, can reason that the Constitution does not guarantee corporations the same level of free speech which applies to individuals.

[pjt7]

2. It's up to Congress to reverse their decision

DO IT!

[JDPriestly]

31. Congress can now regulate the speech of corporations in a

"reasonable" manner ("reasonable" to be defined by the Five Supremes), but it can't change the interpretation of the constitutional rights of corporations that the Five Supremes have imposed on the rest of us.

Wait until the Five Supremes get an abortion case. We now have six Supremes who were raised in the Catholic Church. I have nothing against the religion of the Catholic Church. But I have to point out that Catholicism is the theology that supported the idea of the divine right of kings, the dictatorship of the popes and the necessity of having an intermediary between the sinner and God in order to be redeemed.

Six out of nine is 2/3. I don't think that the population of our country is 2/3 raised Catholic.

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas (raised Catholic), Sotomayor were all raised Catholic in a very authoritarian church. So, what can you expect?

I am not criticizing the Catholic faith. I am criticizing the Catholic attitude toward authority.

[olegramps]

43. Free free to criticize the Catholic Church.

What can be more revolting than the revelation that Pope John Paul II, who the nitwit conservatives are attempting to have declared a saint, beat himself with a belt even when he was on vacation. There is little doubt that he belonged to the secret cult of Opus Dei. That is the same cult that gave us Hansen, the most deadly FBI spy to ever be convicted of being a traitor. Don't be in the least surprised if several members of the Supreme Court are also members of this fascist cult. This includes Scalia and Roberts.

[No Elephants]

119. On the bright side, that might mean Scalia and Roberts are beating themselves with belts.

If so, I wish to remind everyone that I support the Free Exercise clause and the Constitutional right of these Justices to flagellate themselves mercilessly during every spare minute.

God Bless America and this "Honorable" Court!

[lib_wit_it]

141. Spiked belts! Possibly with razor blades embedded!

[RaleighNCDUer]

192. And if they get too tired for such excercise, I'd be more that willing to help. nt

[caraher]

46. I think Sotomayor is probably not going to be a 6th vote on that!

You can't really conclude much about someone's political or judicial philosophy based on whether they were raised in the Catholic Church (as I was). A lot of the overtly authoritarian themes simply do not resonate with many Catholics (though I'd agree that the first five probably do have a lot of affinity for the good old days of the medieval church).

There are people raised Catholic of all political stripes. I agree that there's a lot of support for the worst kinds of authoritarianism in the history of the church, but the experience of Catholicism itself is very different for different people, particularly as it pertains to political views. The great tragedy is that the way the abortion issue has played out, otherwise reasonable Catholic voters have withdrawn support from Democrats (as abortion became the signature issue of the church) and the more authoritarian elements have in turn grown more influential within the church.

I don't think we get 8 years of Bush without people who are basically centrists politically deciding they have to vote "pro-life" even if they elect a butcher in the process...

[JDPriestly]

60. Out of six Supreme Court Justices who were raised Catholic,

one is relatively moderate (not really liberal). That's some evidence that, yes and at this time, the Catholic justices are all conservatives. That is a pretty strong correlation. The sample is small, but that it is the only sample that exists.

[No Elephants]

126. IMO, the evidence that any Justice is conservative is the bent of the President

who appointed him or her and the other circumstances of the appointment. Had Harriet Meier been appointed, she would have been conservative about abortion, notwithstanding that she was not Catholic. There are exceptions to my rule, to be sure, but not as many exceptions to my rule as there are liberal Catholics in America and the rest of the world.

I don't think you want to conflate religion and politics. I think some Republican Protestant Presidents very calculatedly appointed pro-life Catholic conservatives to the Court, rather than appointing pro-life Protestants. That does not mean that something is wrong with having Catholics on the Court, any more than it means it's wrong to have Protestants or Jews or atheists on the Court. That is not a road the Constitution allows us to go down.

Stick with the politics of the Justices and of those who appointed them, and get off religion. For one thing, that is accurate.

[Fight the Right]

131. Catholic justices are de facto conservative?

This an outrageous assertion. Just because they are Catholic judges does not mean that all Catholic judges are conservative. This is a false analogy and is not appreciated. Draw yourself a Venn diagram and realize how stupid this sounds.

Since we are making such analogies, how about this: All Jews are neo-cons because most of the famous neo-cons were Jews? Pretty stupid huh?

Catholics come in all political stripes. I should know I am one. Our Church does not advocate abortion, but it also advocates social justice and (as stated by Pope John Paul II) is anti-death penalty.

[JDPriestly]

157. I am looking at the current Supreme Court.

The five most conservative justices were all raised in the Catholic Church.

It just happens that is the truth. I am not saying that all Catholics are conservative. I know lots of liberal Catholics. I am saying that the conservatives on the Supreme Court are all Catholic. I am also saying that the Catholic Church has, historically, been conservative. Think Galileo. Think Savonarola and the Inquisition. Think the current Pope. The Catholic Church tends to be very, very conservative and very, very authoritarian.

The idea that the Pope is infallible when speaking in certain situations is an authoritarian concept.

Kings had to be blessed by the Pope. Democratic leaders do not generally obtain their legitimacy from the blessing of a Pope.

[Fight the Right]

179. And I'm telling you

You are repeating anti-Catholic lies that are hundreds of years old. I have no respect for that. The entire Western World can trace its roots, its system of law, its political structure, its sense of ethics and morality to the Roman Empire and its successor, the Church.

Copernicus, Galileo, Roger Bacon, and Mendel were to the DAY THEY DIED, CATHOLICS. Galileo's daughter was a nun. Copernicus and Mendel (the father of genetics) were priests. Roger Bacon, the father of the scientific method, was a Franciscan Friar.

What you are repeating, sir, is the variation on the "Black Myth." You should question the fact that your history books were written by the English and the inheritors of their histories. Let me hip you to something else, the Inquisition condemned less than 3000 people in its time. You can say "well that's horrible" and I'll tell you, that's nothing compared to other atrocities that do not get even 1/10th the play.

[ImOnlySleeping]

190. hyperbole

That seems like a wee bit of hyperbole, especially since the Roman empire can own most of their foundations to the Greek and Babylonian empires that came before it.

I do find it funny that your first two examples of great RCs (and lets not pretend that one's religion is primarily a function of your parent's religion) were deemed heretics by the church and were great scientists in spite of the papal office's best meddling.

[caraher]

133. The only sample that exists of SC justices

but it's essentially meaningless to speak of "samples" in such an instance; we can talk about individuals much more meaningfully than by using categories that lump Antonin Scalia and Dorothy Day in one box called "Catholics"

[No Elephants]

117. Being raised Catholic is not the problem. Deciding to impose any one interpretation of the Bible

on everyone in America is the problem. I don't care what anyone believes as long as they don't try to make me live by it or frighten the horses.

Separation of church and state is the issue. Respect that, and I don't care where you attend church.

[wordpix]

215. Congress can regulate conditions of the "free speech" with legislation. Now that money = speech,

however, it's not clear Congress can do a damn thing about controlling corporate money in elections.

A couple of things would limit these corporations :1)Both Congress and people holding stock shares should ensure that the corporations secure a majority vote of shareholders to approve the "corporate right" to free speech er, unlimited money-spending, on an election, specifying who's getting the money.

2) A boycott of a corporation should occur if #1 doesn't.

[skepticscott]

79. Oh, for pity's sake!

Where in the world do you find THAT in the Constitution?? The First Amendment says that Congress cannot abridge the right of free speech. Period. It says NOTHING about who may exercise that right or to what degree...individuals, corporations, or three-headed men from outer space, it makes NO difference!

How many times does your idiotic meme have to be repeated on this site before people get a clue?

[mistertrickster]

80. Corporations aren't people. Does the 2nd Amendment apply to corporations too? nt

[skepticscott]

85. WTF does the 2nd Amendment have to do

with anything? And what does it matter whether corporations are "persons" or not? Show me where the First Amendment limits the right of free speech to persons, people, or anything else. All it says is that Congress cannot restrict it. Period. It says NOTHING about who is allowed to exercise it.

[No Elephants]

132. Not true skepticscott. The Constitution mentions speech AND the press

but not corporations that are not the press.

And whether corporations were considered natural persons or not has a lot to do with the intent of the Framers, which, in turn, has a lot to do with interpreting what meaning Constitutional terms and provisions were intended to have when Americans decided those provisions should be the law of this land. S

There are many rules of construction of laws that I could cite to support that "speech" was never intended to cover a political hatchet job of a movie aired during a campaign. But I don't have the patience to educate you.

And, if the Framers had intended the First Amendment to protect the "speech" of any entities, the Framers would not have found it necessary to specify "the press" in the First Amendment.

There were corporations and similar entities when the Constitution was written. The idea that they "spoke" however, was never in the contemplation of the Framers. The idea that the press "spoke, however, AND merited Constitutional protection, clearly was within the contemplation of the Framers.

Now, I am not saying good arguments cannot be made in favor of giving corporate speech Constitutional protection, but that alone would not justify the Citizens United decision either. Rather, it would get us only as far as balancing the interest of a corporation in airing a political hatchet job of a movie during a political camapaign (as opposed to airing it during the time period McCain Feingold allows) versus the interest of government in ensuring Presidential elections free of undue influence.

If you are going to bully posters rudely and condescendingly about Constitutional construction, please at least present your arguments in a way that shows you know what you are talking about and are intellectually honest, as opposed to a way that suggests only that you are bent on siding with the RW "originalist" hypocrites on the SCOTUS.

[skepticscott]

211. I'd be very interested in hearing

exactly how you would draw a clear dividing line between what you consider "corporate" political speech and individual political speech, and how you would propose to restrict the former without restricting the latter.

And your use of the term "hatchet job" to refer to the movie simply betrays your bias, since I doubt you'd be objecting to a similar movie that had been directed against a target you weren't politically fond of. But such bias has no place in a free speech debate. And what in the world do you mean by "undue influence" in a Presidential election, other than ads that try to get people to vote in a way you think they shouldn't?

[RaleighNCDUer]

193. If a corporation is a person, the 2nd amendment gives that person the

right to bear arms.

You like the idea of corporate armies?

[John1956PA]

88. Abridgment of political speech at the polls is constitutional. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness

is the phrase which is the basis of the individual rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, and it is a phrase which I believe was meant to apply to individuals/persons, not necessarily to enterprises. Another way of stating my belief is that I feel that individual rights are guaranteed to the person, not necessarily to any given enterprise recognized by the law for the purpose of facilitating the ability of one or more persons to jointly engage in commerce or to interact with others persons or enterprises. Although I believe it is beneficial to allow enterprises, such as corporations, to enjoy as many rights guaranteed to persons as reasonably possible, there are certain boundaries. Corporations are not entitled to discharges in bankruptcy as individuals are. Therefore, in bankruptcy situations, corporations are not afforded "equal protection under law" which is constitutionally guaranteed to individuals. As I first stated, Congress may abridge political speech, such as campaign speech at the polls. Under the now-stricken McCain-Feingold provision, Congress abridged political speech by corporations within 30 days of primary elections and within 60 days of general elections. Individuals suffered no such abridgment. In my view, reasoning that corporations enjoy the same degree of political speech as enjoyed by individuals entails a finding of equal protection, and I believe that corporations do not have a constitutional right to equal protection as shown by the aforementioned bankruptcy-discharge example.

[skepticscott]

94. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness

has nothing to do with the Constitution, and is not the basis for the law, so it doesn't really matter how you believe it was meant to apply. And of course "individual" rights are guaranteed to the person, but Constitutional rights are not fundamentally confined to individuals. And "reasoning that corporations enjoy the same degree of political speech as enjoyed by individuals" by no means "entails a finding of equal protection" All it entails is noticing that the First Amendment says only that Congress may not abridge the right of free speech, but says nothing about who may exercise that right or to what degree. Anything else is just your personal belief, which has no weight at all. The fact that in some other situations individuals and corporations have different rights has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

[No Elephants]

134. Sorry, skepticscott, but your personal beliefs are all you have stated, along with your

made up rule of Constitutional construction--i.e., unless the Constitution specifically and expressly says otherwise, a corporation has a Constitutional right to free speech (maybe even a Constitutional right that Congress cannot even limit, as it limits all other Constitutional rights from time to time.

Your personal beliefs and the rule you made up to support them have no weight in Constitutional interpretation, any more than do the personal beliefs of any other poster.

At least you were not gratuitously rude to John in that post, so that's one thing in its favor. And, yes, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution or in any document that has the force of law. So you got that right. So far on this thread, that's two valid things in your favor. I'll keep reading. Maybe I'll come up with a third. And, if the attitude stays gone, maybe I'll even leave your other posts alone.

[skepticscott]

210. My personal belief?

Hardly. All I've done is cite the Constitution and noted what it explicitly says and doesn't say. Here are the specific points I made:


1. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with the Constitution, and is not the basis for the law, so it doesn't really matter how you believe it was meant to apply.

2. And of course "individual" rights are guaranteed to the person, but Constitutional rights are not fundamentally confined to individuals.

3. The First Amendment says only that Congress may not abridge the right of free speech, but says nothing about who may exercise that right or to what degree.

4. The fact that in some other situations individuals and corporations have different rights has nothing to do with the First Amendment.


To say that all of these are nothing but my "personal belief" borders on the laughable, but if you'd care to argue otherwise, or to maintain that any of these are not self-evidently true from a reading of the plain language of the Constitution, have at it.

[lib_wit_it]

137. So, why do TV shows bleep out the bleep words?

[No Elephants]

144. Because the FCC requires that. The airwaves are consdiered the property of the people.

Therefore, the people (in the form of the government elected by the people) have more to say about the airwaves than government may say when I use my own property to speak.

At least, that is the argument used to justify government regulation of radio and TV broadcasts over the airwaves.

Don't ask me if the argument is valid or not. I don't even know what "airwaves" means specifically, let alone who actually owns the airwaves. But, should Big Bird be allowed to spew obscenities at my infant when I am in the kitchen doing breakfast dishes during the brief respite allowed me when my infant is entertained enough to remain in his infant seat quietly, without my being present in the living room with him?? Or should Cookie Monster be allowed to dry hump Barney?

I honestly don't know. But I'm kind of glad they can't.

[lib_wit_it]

145. Sorry, my question was regardin skeptic's comment that the First Amendment says only that "Congres

may not abridge the right of free speech, but says nothing about who may exercise that right or to what degree." How does skeptic then explain the congress passing laws abridging speech on tv?

[No Elephants]

121. Excuse me, but most of those Justices claim to be originalists, strict constructionists,

or whatever term you want to use to mean "The Constitution covers nothing that was not in the minds of most Americans when this provision of the Constitution was first ratifified." The First Amendment was ratified very early on, it being, well the first amendment.

At the time the First Amendment was ratified, people were not thinking of corporate speech. So, Scalia and his surly sock puppet were as hypocritical as it gets when they dissented in other cases and joined the majority in this case. (Well, Thomas dissented from the majority opinion in part--the part that allowed Congress to require that corporations identify themselves.)

Moreover, corporate law has ALWAYS been that corporations, being creations of the legislature and not natural persons, have no rights or abilities other than those granted by the legislature.

Now, whether corporations SHOULD have unlimited First Amendment rights is different issue from whether the Constitution requires that they have such rights. So is the issue whether the interest of the people and of legislatures in clean elections (using the term loosely) outweighs the First Amendment interest asserted by Citizens United. That was prior Constitutional law. You know, some of the precedents that Roberts and Alito swore up and down they would respect during their respective confirmation hearings?

But your meme slams on this site are misplaced. Every Constitutional decision isn't perfectly fine, as long the wording Constitution does not expressly say otherwise. No offense, but that is the silliest rule of Constitutional construction I've ever encountered and I've been reading those rules for a long time.

In other words, skepticscott, you're using a RW straw man to bash the posters on this website, and none too politely either. Maybe you should reconsider.

[puebloknot]

124. Do corporations have vocal cords? nt

[rhett o rick]

125. So you side with CorpAmerica over the working class? Free speech should not be determined

by how much money you have. We all are free to speak but those with money can speak much louder. Do you think that's what our founders felt?

THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THE ABUSES OF CORPORATIONS LIKE THE EAST INDIA CORPORATION.

[No Elephants]

138. I wish. A lot of the Constitution, as it was originally written,

empowered Congress to protect businesses from states foreign governments and pirates. Remember, a lot of the founders were businesspeople--and well to do ones at that, John Hancock (he of the large signature) being a prime example. The idea of the Constitution was to decide what the federal government had power to do, as opposed to the states. (And people, having just overthrown a monarch who had been exploiting them financially) were scared of giving the federal government any more power than was absolutely necessary.)

As written by the Framers, the Constitution said nothing about individal rights. The Framers did not think it was necessary to mention individual rights, on the theory that the Constitution had done nothing to affect individual rights, one way or another. However, people balked at ratifying it unless there was a promise to add protections soon. Hence the Bill of Rights for individuals followed quickly.

So, I would not say the reason the Constitution was originally written was to protect individuals from anything.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals from the federal government, and, after adoption of the 14th amendment, from the SCOTUS ultimately decided that the Constitution binds state governments, too.

None of the justifies the decision of the SCOTUS in the Citizens' United case, though, but that's a whole different line of discussion than the reasons the Constitutions was originally written.

[rhett o rick]

139. But I think you will agree that money should not dictate free speech.

I dont have the same freedom to speak that Exxon does.

[No Elephants]

140. What I agree is that the decision in Citizens United sucks for many reasons.

I think that's all we need for this thread. (The Framers had nothing against money, IMO.)

[420inTN]

205. You DO have the same freedom to speak that Exxon does.

You just can't get as many people to listen.

[420inTN]

202. let me fix that for you...

"THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THE ABUSES OF GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS LIKE THE EAST INDIA CORPORATION."

[wial]

109. I've been thinking lately it's inappropriate to call them "right wing"

when by any reasonable global standard, most American conservatives are far right or extreme right at the least. It's not responsible or compassionate for that matter to consider their bizarre opinions to be within the pale of normal psychology, because they aren't. Like the monsters on the football field or the giants of the basketball court, they are specifically selected for the rare and extreme emotional disturbances needed for seriously believing our post-feudal economic system and near-police state is anything but a lingering twisting crime against humanity and nature.

Where's Woody Guthrie when you need him, I ask you. Is the Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll going to be dirge of American justice and democracy?

The republicans en masse last night looked disturbingly like a posse riding to a lynching.

sociopaths, the lot of them, and I don't think I'm alone in that opinion.

Like Obama said, can we have some common sense, please, instead?

[No Elephants]

123. Please do not follow Clarence Thomas's heinous example. The word "lynching" means something very

specific. That meaning is not asking an African American Supreme Court nominee questions about how he treated a female employee who testified under oath that he harrassed her when he was her employer. That meaning also does not include looking surly because of your political disagreement during the SOTU of an African American President.

Lynching, like Holocaust, has a very specific meaning. You do a disservice to those who were lynched, or lived in fear of being lynched, when you use the term like Thomas used it or like you are using it, much in the same way as you would do a disservice to victims of the Holocaust if you applied that term to some relatively trivial event.

[jaksavage]

3. I loves me some Feingold. nt

[Myrina]

19. Me too!

:loveya: :patriot: Russ!!!

[Dr.Phool]

4. Are you trying to make Mrs Alito cry again.

Oh wait. It took Lindsey Graham to do that. I want to scream every time I hear him too.

[47of74]

5. That little thug Alito can dish it out

But he sure as fuck can't take it.

[AspenRose]

18. Word!

Sniveling coward. Good on Russ for calling him out, too.

[No Elephants]

135. It was his wife who could not take it.

All Alito did was disagree with a statement Obama made in a situation when the Justices are not supposed to react in any way to what the President or anyone else there says or does. But Alito reacted anyway. And his reaction, if it was to the foreign corporation part of Obama's statement, his reaction was probably legally accurate.

If someone criticized me when I theoretically had no ability to defend myself and was wrong on the law to boot, I might have mimed disagreement, too, whether I knew the camera would pick up my reaction or not.

[ProudDad]

161. Wrong

Alito showed he hasn't got "legal demeanor" and should be impeached and removed...

Not to mention he's a slimeball, right-wing fascist piece of shit... Which is another good reason to remove all 5 of the traitorous bastards...

[burning rain]

6. How I love the sham fairness of our media.

the Supreme Court's decision to gut campaign finance restrictions for corporations and labor unions

To the credulous, it looks even-handed to match corporations and labor unions, but it isn't, given that the power of the former dwarfs that of the latter. Typical media deceitfulness.

[harun]

7. Felt that was ridiculous myself. Considering money is power that

battle between Corp's and Unions is about 99% Corp's and 1% Union.

[harkadog]

39. Not really

In 2008 Unions far outspent business in the elections. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.php?level=I&cycle=2008

[harun]

49. Those are 527's which weren't limited before anyway.

[harkadog]

57. Yes , exactly which is why this ruling doesn't mean much.

[No Elephants]

146. Now that the SCOTUS blew up 100 years worth of law, that balance may change.

Think more about who has greater ability to spend, unions, citizens' public interest groups, corporations, bankers' associations, etc. When you come up with the answer, you will see into the soul of Scalia and his sock puppet.

[lsewpershad]

76. I agree Rain

[No Elephants]

128. I thought that, too, at first. But prior SCOTUS cases had upheld limits on how much a union could

spend. Is it dishonest to emphasize unions in a case involving a whole damned movie that Citizens wanted to air smack during a campaign?

Probably, but, given that Citizens United did change prior First Amendment law about unions, referencing unions is not out of left field. For that matter, given prior SCOTUS cases, referencing speech by organizations like the NAACP (which the SCOTUS stressed in the Citizens majority opinion) would not have been out of left field either.

[defendandprotect]

8. Imagine, had Ginsburg done something like that when W was speaking!!

[defendandprotect]

9. misplaced --

[zonkers]

11. I just want to hug that brave woman. She seemed so fragile up there.

[ElmoBlatz]

35. You are aware of course that she is great friends with Scalia

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-25-ginsburg-scalia_N.htm

The rumor is that they have even gone on vacations together.

[No Elephants]

143. And your point is?

[No Elephants]

142. Yes, she did. Breyer looks more frail than Stevens. I felt very bad for them and the other

two Justices who dissented from the bulk of the majority opinion in Citizens. Most Americans are not going to know what the case was about, let alone who dissented.

[fishwax]

177. did you see the pic of her patting Obama?

One of my favorite photos that I've seen from last night:

[zonkers]

191. Thanks.

[Ter]

73. In all fairness

W never blasted the SC's decision in a SOTU address.

[lark]

86. Why should he?

The majority of the Supreme's were put there by him and his dad and voted his way.

[Ter]

91. Just saying

If he had blasted a liberal decision, it's certainly possible that Ginsberg (or another) may have made a face or mouthed something. We'll never know.

And him and his dad combined put four Justices on the bench. One (Souter) turned out to be liberal, so not quite the "majority" you say. Again, just saying.

[Xipe Totec]

185. Just saying what?

That the reaction was justified?

Or that George W didn't blast the SC when they made a liberal decision?

Has the SC made any liberal decisions in the last 12 years?

Just saying.

[Ter]

198. Just saying that it takes two to tango

The reaction would not have happened if they weren't called out on their decision. Someone (you?) said something like "Imagine if Ginsberg had mouthed something to Bush" during a SOTU, and I simply pointed out that Bush never called out the SC in a SOTU.

Yes, there have been plenty of liberal decisions in the past 12 years, ranging from abortion to school prayer. The big one, however, was a 6-3 decision on sodomy laws in Texas. I believe it was 2003, but the name escapes me. I believe Strom Thurmond dropped dead right after the decision. :)

[No Elephants]

148. I believe W had many beefs with SCOTUS decisions, like invalidating some of the Patriot Act, pro-

choice decisions, school prayer decisions, etc.

At first, I was glad that Obama blasted the Supremes over Citizens United, though I did think he should have specified the majority of the Justices. However, the more I think about it, the more I wish he had not done so during the SOTU.

[Mike Nelson]

101. The Supreme Court made him President!

he should be grateful!

[StarryNite]

130. Absolutely!

And it amazes me how short some people's memories are around here.

[No Elephants]

149. It also invalidated portions of his Patriot Act, though.

[defendandprotect]

10. Good for Feingold! -- "lawless" and "outrageous" . ..how about POLITICAL--!!!!

And, how about rather than "inappropriate" . . .

THUGLIKE!!

[UTUSN]

12. "not very judicial" - The jerk is unfit to be on SCOTUS n/t

[Jennicut]

13. Tell it like it is, Russ.

Alito was such a baby.

[dem629]

14. So Feingold is upset that his law is being struck down.

Got it.

I like the first amendment the way it is. Too bad for McCain & Feingold.

[rudy23]

17. You forgot the sarcasm tag nt

[No Elephants]

150. Not only Feingold. McCain filed an amicus brief. And maybe you

should read some of the SCOTUS decisions that came out the other way from Citizens United. Those Justices understood the First Amendment too. No right is absolute. It's always a balancing test. And McCain Feingold did not prohibit showing of this movie at any time of any year, except a short period before an election.

[closeupready]

15. HIGHLY inappropriate.

K&R

[classysassy]

16. The Bush's gifts

Thomas,Alito and Rogers,Thanks #41 and #43,the gifts that keep on giving america hell.

[Greybnk48]

20. Proud he's my Senator. K&R

[JBoy]

21. Alito = Supreme Douche

[Quantess]

32. Douche Supreme

sounds better. :D

[Oldtimeralso]

22. I thought the POTUS was to Give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union.

It is the Executive Branch reporting to the Legislative Branch.
It is not the Executive Branch reporting to the Judicial Branch!

HELL next time don't invite the Extreme Court.

[sybylla]

68. So you don't think reporting the destruction of a century of law

and calling on the legislature to work with him to repair it is reporting the "State of the Union" to the legislature? :crazy:

[No Elephants]

151. Do you contend the purpose of that remark was to inform Congress of the decision on McCain

Feingold? Or that a remark like that is how to get Congress moving on legislation?

[liberation]

116. Your comprehension skills ain't that sharp, are they?

The president is reporting on the state of the country, last I checked the supreme court is part of this nation. Obama wasn't reporting TO the judicial branch, he was reporting ON the judicial branch. Truly not a hard concept to understand, unless you have a specific narrative to hold on to for dear life...

[No Elephants]

152. Oh, please, be real.

[Libertas1776]

23. For 200 plus years

these justices have managed to sit there and keep their traps shut out of respect for the institution of the president. This is just further proof that these new Bush appointees are not your run of the mill justices but outright corporate activist judges out to destroy our democracy.

[ElmoBlatz]

34. And you know this how?

First off, from Thomas Jefferson until William Howard Taft the SOTU address was written, and not a speech. So we have less than 100 years of history on the subject.

Secondly, how do you know that in 1922 when Warren Harding was giving his SOTU address that Willis Van Devanter didn't mutter something under his breath?

[Libertas1776]

36. First off,

I am well aware that from about Adams' time until about Wilson, the SOTU was not delivered in person by the president. Secondly, I was referring to the institutions in general. The court is supposed to be a seen but not heard entity (other than when they make their decisions, of course) especially during a SOTU address. Mouthing off under their breath and shaking their heads is not exactly becoming of a member of an institution who has the binding power to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

[DissedByBush]

100. Should he have insulted the President out loud?

Just as the president had insulted the Supreme Court in his speech?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but don't pretend there was only one wrong here.

[Libertas1776]

103. Excuse me?

The President insulted the Supreme Court in his Speech? More like he called them (those infamous 5) out. There is a big difference between insulting and calling someone out and the President had every right to do so.

[hugo_from_TN]

107. And Alito had every right to respond.

I don't agree with the ruling, but it's pretty lame to invite people to come hear the SOTU, tell them in front of the whole country that they are doing a crappy job, and then be shocked and offended that one of them responds to that. He didn't issue a statement or anything, it was just a human reaction.

[liberation]

115. ... and us telling Alito to f*ck himself is also a human reaction. So what exactly is your point

I am getting a kick out of all these people "who really really disagree with the decision" yet they shill over and over for these very same a**holes who came up with the ruling in the first place.

Good grief...

[U4ikLefty]

155. Kinda makes one wonder if they really do disagree. n/t

[No Elephants]

164. Please stop with KGB tactics. You can think something is not becoming behavior during a SOTU

without agreeing or disagreeing with any political issue or Constitutional decision.

[DissedByBush]

199. Name another time the president has called out the court

In the SOTU speech.

And if you think it is okay, why wasn't it right for Alito to respond?

They do it, at various other venues. But this isn't the place for it. Obama doesn't come out looking good except to his most die-hard fans.

[ProudDad]

162. Nope there were two wrongs

First was the fucked up decision of Alito and his 4 henchmen to sell what was left of the Congress, State Houses and Local governments to sociopaths AKA corporations...

Then Alito's reaction to being called on his shit by the current pResident...

Damn straight two wrongs don't make a right!

We need a Constitutional Amendment making it abundantly clear for once and ALL that CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE and are NOT entitled to the rights and privileges of People!

[bitchkitty]

184. current pResident?

Are you saying, by your phrasing, that you don't believe Barack Obama was duly elected? (Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, it's early)

I'm with you - corporations aren't people. They can't have free speech, because they can't talk, they can't reason, and they have no human feelings or experience.

[No Elephants]

154. You were not well aware until the poster told you, or your earlier

post would not have read as it did. And who are you to decide what is becoming to the Supreme Court and what isn't. I think it is remarkable that those Justices impose rules on themselves. Maybe Obama should have done the same in his SOTU. Disrespecting a Supreme Court decision during a SOTU address is not the highest point of his career. I don't think it's great or classy for a President to let the American people see him taking pot shots at a SCOTUS decision, especially with the Justices having to sit right in front of him, even though they don't especially want to be there.

And what was the point of doing it on camera? Did that really make it any likelier that the Democrats in Congress were going to pass legislation?

[Ter]

113. True but how many times in those 200+ years

Has a court's decision been so blasted in a SOTU address? 5 times or less, but never this directly. I really think it was a bad idea, and will push the Court even further to the right. :(

[No Elephants]

153. Really? 200 years? And during how many of those years did the President

call out the Justices on TV, knowing they were forbidden from responding? How about the respec of the President and of the American people for the institution of the Supreme Court? Or for a fair fight? Would you punch someone who was not able to hit you back? And how about getting the facts about what the SCOTUS did and did not decide in that case right?

Besides, Alito did not yell out, nor is he used to being caught on camera.

[ProudDad]

163. That bunch of right-wing fucks don't deserve any respect...

just a jail cell...

Jaysus, fucking keerist! Is this DU or the fucking tea-bagger board...

[marshall]

24. I wish they had a camera on every single person's face in that room

Their constituents would learn a lot from studying the nuances of their expressions.

[No Elephants]

156. Well, you could put a camera on every face. Broadcasting all that footage would take

quite a lot of time though, as would getting anyone to watch all of it, even people who make their living commenting on such things.

[marshall]

196. Just pull out the highlights, like mouthing off or yawning

That's what people want to see.

[Andronex]

25. The democrats only control...

The democrats only control the legislative and the executive so obviously nothing can be done to rectify the situation, and then there's Lieberman...

What if the democratic party used the power they do have instead of finding another pretext for justifying their inaction.

[smoogatz]

26. A real class act, that Alito.

Jeebus. What a dickweed.

Tell it, Russ.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. And he's among those railing about judicial activism...

Alito's behavior is quite unbecoming. His sense of jurisprudence even less becoming.

[Cha]

28. "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."

<snip>

"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."

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

[Arugula Latte]

29. The Catholic Mafia running the Supreme Ct. needs a big smackdown.

Makes me sick these fanatical douchebags have such power over our lives.

[harkadog]

40. Two ethnic smears in one post. Congrats.

[inna]

64. Bullshit. Neither is an "ethnic smear".

[No Elephants]

158. One is ethnic, the other is religious.

[WriteDown]

65. So are you just anti-Italian or anti-Catholic...

You probably think all Italians are like the Soprano's right?

[Arugula Latte]

69. Gawd no. I love Italy/Italians -- my favorite country on the planet.

However, I can't stand that a medieval, ass-backwards, misogynistic institution like the Catholic Church has so much sway over our lives, though. Don't worry, that's not the only church I can't stand.

Oh, go ahead and call me intolerant of religion. Sometimes I forget that religions are allowed to spew any anti-women, anti-gay crap they want in the guise of "faith," but it definitely doesn't work both ways. But say anything against a silly belief system set out there in la-la land and you're an intolerant hater.

[WriteDown]

71. When you start referring to Italians as Mafia that's when I get my back up...

I'm half Sicilian and heard the jokes all as a kid. Odd that only one Catholic POTUS and several on the SCOTUS.

[No Elephants]

160. Write Down, I asked you nicely in the past not to give me reason to agree with you.

Why must you ignore my pleas (not to mention my "please")?

If I catch you at this again, I may not be as nice to you in the future as I have been until now.

[No Elephants]

159. Sorry, but referring to the Mafia because you don't like what an Italian Justice did

is just not cool. Neither is being intolerant of religion in general, or of Catholics in particular.

[newtothegame]

30. I had NO idea there was that much precedent re: SC Justice's facial expressions until today. n/t

[No Elephants]

175. More like self-imposed restrictions. If you notice, Alito is not responding to any of the criticism

of him going on in the media, blogosphere and on the floor of Congress. He has the Constitutional right so to do, but does not exercise that right. No one can impose that silence on him.

[lonestarnot]

33. Creepy too. Huberistic nature doesn't become a SCOTUS Justice.

Besides he just gives me the willies.

[No Elephants]

165. A Supreme Court Justice disagreeing with Obama's interpretation of a SCOTUS decision is hubristic?

I am no fan of Alito, but hubris?

[lonestarnot]

200. Guess you didn't see his facial expressions or his "that is not true" head shake then.

[lonestarnot]

201. And yes fucking creepy. Look it up. C R E E P Y

[happygoluckytoyou]

37. SCOTUS.... I thought it said SCROTUM.... yes, ALITO should be removed

[No Elephants]

166. A SCOTUS Justice should be removed for making a decision you don't agree with?

That is a much worse interpretation of the Constitution of the United States than even the lousy Citizens United decision.

[MicaelS]

38. We need a Constitutional Amendment

To repeal Corporate Personhood, and we need one now. :mad:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

[onpatrol98]

82. Good Idea!

I like this idea. Repeal corporate person hood.

I thought Alito was tacky. But, good grief. I could care less about what he did during the State of the Union. All he could do is sit there and mumble...well, then again, what court cases are coming up?

[skepticscott]

83. Great idea

NOT!

Would you like to see the FBI be able to raid the offices of the ACLU, Greenpeace, NAACP, or any other organization and seize any corporate records they want, because you took away their Fourth Amendment rights? Would you like to see the constitutional right of corporations to freely contract eliminated? Good luck buying a house, renting a car, going to a sporting event, flying in a plane, or pretty much conducting any business at all. And for cripes sake, the government NEEDS advice from corporations to set sensible policy and regulations...your Section 3 would make all that illegal.

This is just so assinine, I can hardly type the words...

[onpatrol98]

92. And Then The Stars Would Collapse

I'm sure we could build in the appropriate protections. Some smart individual like yourself, would no doubt bring up all those points, and our brilliant politicians could place protections into whatever legislation was created to keep all of those horrible things from happening. I mean...that's what we pay them for, right?

And, then there would be peace around the world.

[skepticscott]

95. You would think

that the people who wrote that in the first place might have thought of a few of those things, if they actually understood the Constitution, and weren't just ranting irrationally.

[onpatrol98]

108. Yeah

Yeah...It would have been nice.

[ProudDad]

167. "I can hardly type the words"

No, that's not your problem...

Comprehension is your problem...

It's NOT "corporate personhood" that allows the protections you imagine would disappear in your fantasy world. Those protections were here (but mostly for affluent white males) LONG before the bullshit head note appeared in "Southern Pacific Railroad v Santa Clara County" in 1886!!! (look it up)

You must do some more homework on this subject before displaying this level of ignorance...

The government "needs advice" from corporations about as much as it does from other sociopaths like Charlie Manson or Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy...

[rhett o rick]

127. Yes but we cant even get DADT eliminated. Good luck with a Constitutional ammendment. nt

[alp227]

41. The new trend: Smearing the President as a liar!

Except this time, unlike "You lie!" Wilson, "Not true" Alito tried to be more classy be staying really really timid. FAIL

[No Elephants]

168. Disagreeing with someone's interpretation of an enormously long Supreme Court opinion

in which you participated is not necessarily calling him a liar. Maybe that is what Alito meant, maybe it wasn't. I don't think we know one way or the other.

[LaPera]

42. Mafioso Sammy "the fish" Alito is a little corporate thug & fascist republican tyrant - Just like

his idol Benito Mussolini.

The corporate mafioso Alito should be impeached!

[WriteDown]

66. Ah, more anti-Italian smears. I can only imagine what you call

Jews you dislike.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[WriteDown]

75. Wow, ethnic slurs seem to be fashionable for you. I guess if a black person...

or hispanic person offends you then all terms are fair game. :eyes:

[provis99]

98. It is perfectly alright to call Scalia a Fascist.

His professor father was in fact a real fascist who swore allegiance to Mussolini. Political scientists recognize that people get their political ideologies from their parents. Hence, Antonin Scalia is a Fascist.

[hugo_from_TN]

106. One of the most idiotic posts I've ever seen on DU.

Your grasp of logic is fascinating.

[No Elephants]

172. Wow.

I guess any conclusions I might draw about the bigotry and reasonging powers of your parents and your kids based solely on what you say would be valid, then?

[inna]

136. that's just fucking ugly and uncalled for.

:thumbsdown:

I understand from your previous pot that you're half Sicilian, but to falsely accuse people of anti-Italian smears (when none of that shit took place) is lame and defamatory.


" I can only imagine what you call

Jews you dislike."


incredibly lame and defamatory. get a fucking grip.

:thumbsdown:

[No Elephants]

174. Speaking of an Italian SCOTUS Justice as though he were a Mafia member is

not anti-Italian? Just because you disagree with a decision of his? In what universe is that not a negative Italian stereotype?

I don't know of anyone here who harasses Write Down more than I do for his political positions, but I have to agree with him on this one.

[No Elephants]

169. Wow.

[mckara]

44. Alito and Roberts Should Be Impeached...

For lying to Congress during their confirmation hearings!

[Deep13]

45. Also, he's dead wrong. nt

[rem3006]

47. You can't make a new law

to change this decision. You have to change the 1st Amendment to the constitution. Basically they found that a corporation and a labor union represent the interests of their owners/ members just like any other collection of people and thus have the right of free speech. No matter what law you would try to write you would still come up against the same thing, the 1st amendment. The very best course of action is not to scream at members of congress but to do a better job of organizing and raising funds for our own advertising and advocacy. Give till it hurts.

[Scruffy1]

59. Lets see -14 trillion dollars versus my paycheck

They already control the radio, tv, and most of the press. If they spent 1% of their profits on election campaigns that comes to 140 billion. In the last election cycle the total was about 1.5 billion. Only 100 to 1 odds. This is easily doable without changing the bottom line by taking it out of the ad budget and getting a tax break for it too.

[ProudDad]

170. No, you don't have to change the 1st Amendment

We would only need to clarify that FACT that corporations are not PEOPLE and don't have the same civil rights as people.

That corporations being creatures created by the state and capable of being uncreated by the state HAVE no inalienable rights but only the rights given them by the state. They can still be granted reasonable rights in order to do business but should not be allowed to destroy democracy.

Corporations used to be time-limited and should be again.

Also, to conflate corporations with unions is bullshit. Unions ARE collection of people banding together to defend themselves against their rapacious employers.

Corporations fit the DSM IV definition of sociopath and exist only to MAKE PROFITS and protect the principles of the corporation from payment for their crimes.

That they have been granted "rights" is a series of corporate-friendly court decisions built on the lie contained in a headnote on the "Southern Pacific Railroad v Santa Clara County" decision in 1886 -- one in which the justices explicitly stated that the case had NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORATION PERSONHOOD and that they were NOT ruling on that.

But it served USAmerican corporate capitalist interests to lie and cheat and steal and fuck us all over to maintain the fiction.

[The Wizard]

48. Alito is unfit to be a hack lawyer in Mayberry

He's the jack off who came up with the theory of the president having divine powers when he worked in a previous Republican administration. Bush as the Unitary Executive without checks and balances was Alito's concept.
The real street thug on the Court is Scalia. Both Scalia and Thomas should be impeached for failing to recuse themselves in Bush v. Gore for a conflicts of interest. Scalia's son worked for the law firm representing Bush and Thomas' wife was on the Bush transition team. Additionally, Scalia ruled in a case involving a close personal friend, Dick Cheney. They played an integral role in inflicting the fascist Bush on the country, and as such should be impeached, indicted, incarcerated, and injected.

[fascisthunter]

50. indeed... it was a lawless decision, and it's extremely dangerous to Democracy itself

which in my book is the definition of treason.

[skepticscott]

84. In YOUR book?

"Your book" doesn't get to define treason in this country. The only definition of treason that counts is in the Constitution. Read it. Then see how idiotic your accusation is...

[No Elephants]

178. Wrong again, skepticscott. And rude again, too.

When courts are interpreting laws and legal documents, the common meaning of words does count, and giving "aid and comfort" to the "enemies" of the United States is certainly open to interpretation.

And the poster never said anything about what "counts." He never suggested arresting Alito or burning him at the stake. The poster simply stated his own opinion--on a message board, which is kind of the place for expressing opinions--while expressly identifying his statement as nothing more than his own opinion.

[skepticscott]

183. Oh, please...

Did you even read the post I was responding to?

"it was a lawless decision, and it's extremely dangerous to Democracy itself which in my book is the definition of treason."

Would you care to enlighten everyone how breaking the law and being dangerous to democracy constitutes treason under ANY reasonable definition or interpretation of the words in the constitution describing that crime? And no, the poster never used the exact word "counts", (strawman much?), but he took for himself the right to define treason any freaking way he feel like and to accuse someone of it just because it gave him some visceral satisfaction. But it's an accusation that gets thrown around much too freely, by Democrats as well as Republicans.

And yes, the poster is free to express his opinion. Just as I'm free to say that his opinion is ridiculous, and without grounding in Constitutional reality.

[Jamastiene]

51. K&R

Look at that pout. Alito should be embarrassed.

[ProudDad]

171. Alito should be circumcized at the neck... (n/t)

[Unvanguard]

52. This is a silly thing to complain about, honestly.

Everyone knows that Supreme Court justices have political views, and it's only human to respond defensively when your decisions are publicly attacked. :shrug:

[Beartracks]

53. "Not True" -- What part isn't true?

I'm no constitutional scholar or law expert or anything, so I am wondering when Alito says that Obama's remarks are "not true" does he mean: a) that corporations can now unduly influence elections is not true, or that b) foreign corporations (operating here, I presume) can now unduly influence elections?

If Alito's ill-timed and un-stoic response was in regards to the matter of *foreign* corporations' potential influence, is there in fact any basis to his position?

[boppers]

62. What part isn't true?

The implication that the ruling opened the doors for foreign corporations to influence politics.

What the ruling said was that the possibility of some foreign influence alone wasn't enough to stop ALL corporations from participating.

The topic was even specifically addressed in the ruling, leaving the door open for laws which allows for citizen corporations a role in participation, but possibly denied to corporations with non-citizen ownership, and thus, participation. It'll come down to a fight over whether the Bill of Rights applies to everybody, or only selected/specific groups.

[boppers]

70. From the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/alitos-face.html

"There’s a big issue and a small issue here. The first concerns the specific nature of the dispute, about the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, In that five-to-four decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Alito, the Court held that corporations, labor unions, and other organizations have the right under the First Amendment to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of elections. Obama may have been overstating the point when he said foreign companies now had the same unlimited rights to participate in our elections. The Court’s opinion carefully said it was not deciding the issue with regard to foreign entities. So the Court may give the green light to these foreign companies—but it hasn’t done so yet. In time, though, Congress will or will not pass a law to revive the limits on corporate spending, and the Court will or will not reject that effort as well."

[SnakeEyes]

67. To be fair...

The court did not touch 2 U.S.C. section 441e which expressly prohibits direct or indirect influence by foreign corporations. And it doesn't touch FEC regulation Sec. 110.20 that expands on that to prevent any loophole from being exploited. If fact, the majority opinion explicitly stated that it's opinion did not change these and was outside the scope of the case. Politifact had a writeup on it.

[Beartracks]

81. Does that mean Alito had a point?

... That is, despite being out-of-line by breaking stoic tradition during the Address?

[ProudDad]

173. Who needs foreign corporations

if there are such things anymore since nearly all the big ones are global...

But who needs foreign corporations when the domestic ones are already horrible?

Face it, folks. This is the worst decision since Plessy v Ferguson...

[Hepburn]

54. Alito simply IS inappropriate....

...and his conduct sucks. Glad Russ called him out.

[Imagevision]

55. Not true? WTF?!!!

[dgibby]

56. Interesting background story on Obama and Alito.

Obama voted against Alito's nomination. When Obama and Biden paid their courtesy call on the SCOTUS, the only justice missing was Alito.

source: Jeffry Tubin/CNN

[closeupready]

72. Aha, that is very interesting indeed.

Is Alito holding a grudge perhaps?

[BlueIdaho]

58. Someone PLEASE make an Alito Joker face!

[Politicub]

61. The nasty Alito should never have been confirmed. He obviously

doesn't understand conduct that is unbecoming. This is where we Dems should have filibustered and held strong.

On the other hand, it doesn't require much intelligence to be in the conserative wing of the court. Their positions are entirely predicatable, and they each of them could be replaced with a trained seal (with all due deference to seals).

[RoccoR5955]

63. Impeach the 5, then try them for treason!

I think that they are being bribed by corporations.

[420inTN]

203. Any evidence? eom

[420inTN]

204. So, it's now inappropriate to disagree with the Pres.?

Glad that wasn't the rule when Bush was in office.

[penndragon69]

77. It's time to eliminate life time appointments.

This act of TREASON by the right wingnut activist supreme court proves that we should terminate life long
appointments to the court.

Why not a simpler plan?

Limit them to a max of 12 years on the bench. Each new admin will get to replace the 3 longest serving
members with new appointments, one appointed-one steps down. With each election, new ideas and attitudes
would enter ( for a limited time).

After 12 years we have an all new sc. Not the same old partisan nut jobs who may rule for over 40 years.
It's time to knock them off their pedestals and bring reason back the the high court.....or am i just stupid?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

78. Alito=1/5th of the SCROTUS element of SCOTUS

[JohnWxy]

87. Well, they haven't been acting with judicial restraint or impartiality since they aborted the 2000

election and selected the Shrub.

cue the Wagner ("Ride of the Valkeries").

[laylah]

89. How to contact the SCOTUS...

www.supremecourtus.gov

The five bastards that have NO allegiance to WE, THE PEOPLE, need to hear from...WE, THE PEOPLE. :mad:

[Uncle Joe]

90. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[hughee99]

93. "He thinks he gets to make the law"? He kind of does, doesn't he? n/t

[Dinger]

96. K & R For My Senator, But Just So You Know . . .

tommy thumpson is probably going to run against him. I think Russ will kick his ass, but I sure as hell don't want a MESSachusetts to happen here in Wisconsin.

[PSzymeczek]

110. I don't think that Senator Feingold

would fail to campaign.

[No Elephants]

176. Feingold would be a much bigger loss than Coakley. was JMO

I am so heartbroken that a Republican gets the seat of Jack and Ted Kennedy, especially a lightweight like Brown. I thought Coakley was a lightweight, too, but at least she was a Democrat.

[liberal N proud]

97. Another right wing asshole with no respect for the office of President

Alito's Joe Wilson moment.

[Fire1]

99. Good for Feingold. He knows protocol. They are to remain

neutral. But of course, with a black man in office, anything goes.

[No Elephants]

180. No protocol for what a President says about a recent Supreme Court ruling during a SOTU, though?

If you know someone is constrained both to be present and remain expressionless, is it ok to attack that person verbally? Isn't that analogous to punching someone whose hands and ankles are tied?

Besides, it's not really protocol. Lack of expression is something the Justices impose on themselves. Some of them have asked in the past not to have to show up at the SOTUA, since they don't speak or even change expression.

Obama has the luxury of speaking out about whatever he wants at any time he wants and having the media cover it. He did not have to use the SOTU to attack the decision, with the Justices sitting there helpless.

But, if he does, he can also defend what he did during the SOTU. And the WH has already done that.

Alito can defend what he did during the SOTU too, but he won't. Not because he can't, but because he imposes that silence on himself.

I think, if you don't want someone to react, don't go after them on national television while they are sitting right there.

[gkhouston]

189. The President didn't attack a Justice verbally; he gave specific reasons as to why

he disagreed with a recent ruling the Court had handed down and said that he hoped Congress could do something to address the potential problems created by the ruling. That's a valid reason to bring it up at the SOTU. If Alito identifies so personally with his judicial decisions that he can't maintain expected social decorum while being subjected to polite criticism, then he doesn't belong on the bench.

[Fire1]

194. Ditto. n/t

[orbitalman]

102. We need to find a way to GUT the SCOTUS of Alito. n/t

[No Elephants]

181. Why only Alito? Five Justices were in the majority of that case.

Or is disagreeing with Obama somehow worse than participating in that decision?

[Mike Nelson]

104. I only wish Alito had made a bigger ass of himself...

...and I hope Obama contintues to target the Court and explain this wrong decision. Over and over.

[AllyCat]

105. I'm a union member and do not agree with this ruling.

labor unions, corporations, or any other organized group of people do not have more say than anyone else just because they have some cash. Thank you Feingold!

There are a lot of things about Alito that aren't judicial. This one just got caught on tape.

[Onisac]

111. One of my favorites for sure n/t

nt

[AsahinaKimi]

112. Thats Twice now the Republicans have basically said

"You Lie" to the Presidents Speech. They will never respect the democrats, ever. Had anyone done this to BUSH Jr., they would be in deep, deep trouble.

[depakid]

114. I actually don't have a problem with it at all

Bush DID lie through his teeth- and often.

Seems to me that all this focus in America about "respect" and "decorum" can end up quite counterproductive and cynical.

[AsahinaKimi]

118. fine ...

So if they don't respect Democrats then maybe its time to kick some ass? They been kicking our ass for 8 years now.

I would love to see a Republican get a good ass kicking. (Metaphorically speaking)

[depakid]

120. I'd like to see something like Question Time

Where these fools have to actually get up and go tête-à-tête, defending their policies and actions, with highlights replayed and discussed on the national news every night.

That also would be a pretty quick way to see who the charlatans are- and who can take the heat (and who belongs on the sidelines or out of office completely).

[No Elephants]

182. I don't think Alito's action was remotely like Wilson's. And Dummya never attacked the Supremes

during a SOTU, or at any other time when they hadd no choice but to be present.

I wish Alito would resign and I wish Bush had been both impeached and prosecuted. But all Alito did was disagree with Obama's statement about a Supreme Court decision. You an disagree about those without being a liar. In fact, four of Alito's fellow Justices disagreed with that case. I doubt Alito considers them liars. Further, Wilson yelled out his charge, knowing and intending that it would be heard. There's no evidence Alito knew the camera was going to catch him, any more than Reid expected to be caught on camera yawning.

And maybe that was just the wrong time and place for Obama to make statements about the Supreme Court anyway.

[skepticscott]

214. I can't quite understand all the people

who have their knickers in a knot about this. It's not as if Alito stood up in the middle of the speech and yelled that Obama was a liar, or called a press conference afterwards to criticize Obama's remarks. He mouthed a few words under his breath about a decision that the court had already made and that he had voted in favor of. Perhaps he should have been mindful that cameras might be on him at that event, but I'm sure everyone there wasn't thinking abut that every moment. Sometimes people just do things like that involuntarily. And frankly, would we prefer to have justices (of whatever ideology) making important decisions that they aren't confident about and willing to defend? As far this little incident being damaging to the court's reputation and impartiality (as some, like Green Greenwald, have argued), I think that's overblowing it a bit. We already knew before this happened that Alito was a far right ideologue and that Supreme Court decisions have become more and more politically polarized, so how does this really change anything, or tell us anything new?

From Obama's standpoint, it was a brassy thing to do, but I frankly can't see much practical good coming from it. In the end, it was not much more than a scrap of red meat for people out there that he knew were up in arms about Citizens United. But did Obama really hope to bully or shame the conservative justices on the Supreme Court into anything? That doesn't seem likely. He couldn't even do that with members of his own party over health care reform.

[Captain Hilts]

122. Next time, he sits in a time-out chair. nt

[donheld]

129. Can he wear the cap too?

[Douglas Carpenter]

147. kick and recommend

[ChucktownMillie]

186. alito reacted because obama lied

if you only want to debate whether alito should be responding to the president in that forum, i would agree that alito or anyone shouldnt be saying anything.

but the president also cant make false statements and not expect some sort of reaction.

whether you agree with the citizens united decision or not, it specifically states that foreign corporations and foreign nationals are prohibited from making donations. so for the president to make the claim that foreign nationals will alter our political elections is outright untrue.

[conservdem]

208. I have heard others say the same. Are you sure you have this right?

[John1956PA]

209. I won't say President Obama lied, but he was a little weak on setting the record straight.

I believe that President Obama should have been more careful with his SOTU comment about the threat of foreign money flowing into US election campaigns. As we all realize, a foreign corporation can create a US subsidiary and use that subsidiary to buy campaign ads. But that charade is something that a foreign corporation could have done before the Citizens United decision. As I understand it, the only restriction that the Citizens United decision lifted was the prohibition for corporations (including subsidiaries of foreign corporations) to buy campaign ads within 30 days of a primary election and within 60 days of a general election. What President Obama said in his SOTU speech seemed to suggest that the Citizens United decision now allows something new - that being the flow of foreign money into US election campaigns. In theory, such flow of foreign money is already prevented by other laws which the Citizens United court acknowledged as valid. I do not care for Alito, but, if I were in his seat when President Obama made his comment, I would have thought, "Not True!"

[newspeak]

213. no, he didn't lie

a so-called american corporation can have foreign vested interest within the company--an individual from SA has a vested interest in Time-Warner, big time. Don't think foreign investors aren't influential in decisions by these so-called american corporations. Maybe you should look who has significant interest in some american corporations, I bet you'd be surprised. So, I'd say Obama didn't lie.

[John1956PA]

217. You are correct, a South Africa investor may currently hold a huge stake in a US Corporation.

Foreign money can flow into US corporations by: (i) foreign corporations setting up US subsidiaries, and (ii) foreigner investors infusing money into US corporations. These are charades/loopholes around US campaign laws which are designed to keep foreign money out. However, the Citizens United case has not opened the door for the creation of such charades/loopholes, since they existed well before that case was decided. I feel that President Obama's words incorrectly suggested that the Citizens United decision created new opportunities for such charades/loopholes to come into being.

[BennyD]

187. much to do about nothing....people in that chamber make faces all the time.

Our side, their side. Has it really come to this where we spend time watching the faces of everyone to see if they wince, smirk, frown, or move their lips? I don't have the time to invest in trying to interpret these "faces" for the purpose of trying to score political points, which at the end of the day is all that it accomplishes. I want CHANGE, real CHANGE! This other crap is just that - CRAP!

[conservdem]

207. Well said.

[Christa]

188. Thank goodness it it out there

for the whole world to see.

[Dimsdale]

195. Sammy, The Sell-Out

I grew up with Alito in Mercerville, NJ. He lived around the corner from the Atlantic Station where I pumped gas. His father would come in to the station to fill up his ratted out Nash, often with young Sammy riding shot gun. From Sept. '67 through June '68 at Hamilton High East (Steinert Memorial), I took a Calculus class with SA as a classmate. He was a decent guy then. Ran cross country, student council etc.

Then, he went off to Princeton and there underwent his conversion to wingnut. I can't see how those of us from the old neighborhoods would be siding with Roberts and Scalia if we had been so fortunate to end up where Alito did. Congratulations, Sammy. You're working hard for a better world. For the rat bastards who would destroy the middle class into which you were born.

[and-justice-for-all]

197. Alito and the rest of the fascist justices who side with the Corporations

are pieces of shit!!

Welcome to the Corporate States of Amerikastan!!

Corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE!!!!

Alito and the like can FUCK OFF.

[woo me with science]

206. Stupid. nt

[tabasco]

212. Bullseye!

"Apparently, he thinks he gets to make the law."

[TomCADem]

216. Damn Straight It Was Inappropriate For A Judge

Just proves that Alito is a Republican hack.