A very good article on Judge Alito's shameful display at last night SOTUS

[NJmaverick]

Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President -- with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

The Justices are seated at the very front of the chamber, and it was predictable in the extreme that the cameras would focus on them as Obama condemned their ruling. Seriously: what kind of an adult is incapable of restraining himself from visible gestures and verbal outbursts in the middle of someone's speech, no matter how strongly one disagrees -- let alone a robe-wearing Supreme Court Justice sitting in the U.S. Congress in the middle of a President's State of the Union address? Recall all of the lip-pursed worrying from The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen and his secret, nameless friends over the so-called "judicial temperament" of Sonia Sotomayor. Alito's conduct is the precise antithesis of what "judicial temperament" is supposed to produce.

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/2010/01/28/alito/index.html

[waiting]

1. So true

And the president did predicate it by saying "with all respect for the seperation of powers", before he criticized the majority decision.

[Robyn66]

2. In the interest of justice "Scalito" should resign

because he has confirmed the Republican bias in the Supreme Court.

[Krashkopf]

60. At the very least . . .

He should recuse himself from every case that has a political overtone to it.

If he doesn't recuse himself, the "Democrat" in the political case should move to recuse Alito, because he is clearly a partisan hack.

[newtothegame]

3. Sorry I don't get it.

:shrug:

The guy shook his head. Slightly. To himself. And said nothing outloud. What's the outcry, and how is a head nod at all a reflection of judicial temperament?

[NJmaverick]

5. This was a political event and the justices are not suppose to be involved

mouthing "not true" is a terrible breach of the idea that justices are above partisan politics. He confirmed that the right wing 5 are not above such matters. Plus he showed an appalling lack of self control.

[newtothegame]

7. Really? I mean I know they're supposed to be above politics.

But again, a head nod?

ed for sp

[DeschutesRiver]

11. Yes, really

I'm a lawyer, albeit a retired one. No, not even a head nod, definitely not any mouthed words like "not true", and esp. disrespectful from a Supreme Court justice. I know lawyers, and I know quite a few judges, state and federal, and you can believe that Justice Alitio was completely aware that he did something way out of bounds.

I am pretty surprised.

[tk2kewl]

26. I am pretty sure if you did that in his court while he was speaking...

...he'd have you charged with contempt

i think most judges would

[Mojorabbit]

50. It wasn't just a head nod

He mouthed the words "completely untrue" in essence calling Obama a liar.

[geckosfeet]

57. Please. It was more than a nod. It was a clear expression of disagreement with the presidents words.

[newtothegame]

71. Ok? This is still a democracy folks. He's allowed to do that.

This is not a monarchy with an infallible, untouchable President, as much as some here apparently want to carry on Bush's legacy.

[yellowcanine]

74. The President had the floor. He didn't. As with Joe Wilson, he needs to suck it up during the

speech. If the tables were turned and Obama muttered and shook his head while a SCOTUS justice was giving a speech, whatever the venue, everyone would be all over him for being disrespectful.

[newtothegame]

78. Right, and they'd be idiots too.

What's our excuse?

[yellowcanine]

82. One person mutters under their breath and soon people are yelling "You Lie!"

Political discourse suffers. It is not idiotic to suggest that when someone has the floor, others should hold their fire and avoid muttering, making faces, etc or doing anything that could be considered distracting to the speaker and other members of the audience. It used to be called common courtesy. Besides, Obama did not address his remarks to the SCOTUS. He did not "call them out". He addressed what he saw as the possible consequences of the decision in the context of calling for a legislative remedy. It was appropriate for a President to do that in a SOTU address. It was not appropriate for a SCOTUS justice to pout, mutter and make faces. It is not a question of free speech. It is a question of common courtesy and adult behavior.

[NOLALady]

90. Especially,

"It is not idiotic to suggest that when someone has the floor, others should hold their fire"

Especially when that someone who has the floor is the President of the United States.

[LanternWaste]

85. he's not feeling any legal consequences of his actions, merely social blow-back...

Of course it's a democracy, hence he's not feeling any legal consequences of his actions, merely social blow-back for his break of both tradition and decorum-- neither factor being inherent or denied in a monarchy or a democracy.

[lark]

83. Why are you minimalizing this

It's not just a head nod, if that was all, no one would be saying a thing. It was his mouthing, it an exaggerated way so it was extremely obvious "that's not true". That's what the hullabaloo is about. It was just anohter way of saying "you lie.

[Recursion]

33. But this wasn't a generic partisan question

Obama called him out, to his face, over a decision he had been a part of, and Alito mouthed a retort without actually saying it.

I think the outrage over this is ridiculous.

[JDPriestly]

47. Supreme Court Justices really are supposed to be above having hurt

feelings and partisan rancor. Their decisions are not supposed to be political. They are supposed to be honest interpretations of the law and the Constitution.

Alito was out of place when he grimaced during the President's speech.

At the same time, I think the President should have been a little more subtle in expressing his criticism of the Court's decision.

Alito, however, was impolite and crude. His conduct was beneath the standard for a Supreme Court Justice. Alito's conduct was more clearly improper than the President's.

[Recursion]

63. I don't see anything improper about Obama's comment or Alito's reaction

Alito as far as we know responded (silently) to one thing: Obama's criticism of his decision. I just don't have a problem with that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. I see - you don't have a problem with open bias on the Supreme Court.

Fair enough. Now we know where both Alito and you stand.

[Recursion]

89. WTF do you mean "bias"?

We know Alito's opinion already. Seriously, what the **** are you talking about?

Obama expressed disagreement with Alito's opinion. Alito silently expressed that he disagreed with Obama's judgment on that. What is the "bias"? What is the problem?

Did Alito say something I don't know about, about something other than a recent decision he had just been a part of? If this were some sort of bias expressing itself, you would think Alito would be mouthing disagreements with Obama's political statements and not just his judicial ones.

Obama made a statement about a judicial decision. It was a judicial subject, not a political or partisan one. If a Justice can't have an opinion about that, I'm not sure what they can have opinions about.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. What audience do you think Alito was playing to?

If your opinion is that he was "involved" in something, what audience was he trying to influence, or defend himself to?

This might seem like a stupid question, but have you ever mouthed the words to a song while you were driving in your car? Ever mouthed the words your muse was speaking inside your head?

[gratuitous]

8. I wasn't close enough to hear if he said anything out loud

But in the clip I saw, he grimaced, shook his head rather emphatically, and mouthed (at least) the words "That's just not true." There are also credible reports that at other times he was turning to talk to the "justices" behind him, and generally behaving like a boy listening to a sermon when he'd much rather be down at the creek catching frogs.

[Bluebear]

18. Slightly?? Head "nod"? Hardly.

[CreekDog]

20. it was more than a head nod

it was a demonstrative nod for everyone to see accompanied by mouthing "not true" also for everybody to see.

i'm not ready to argue with you over whether it's okay until you describe what we are judging accurately.

[omega minimo]

42. CAMERAS

[omega minimo]

43. .

[liquid diamond]

46. I can't stand the guy, but I think this is blown way the fuck out of

proportion. "You lie!" was much worse than a SC Justice mouthing "That's not true."

[Sherman A1]

58. Agreed

The President has a right to criticize the court's ruling and do so in his SOTU (which I don't necessarily believe to be a wholly "political" event but rather a Constitutional requirement) and the justice has a right to disagree with that criticism.

I personally agree with the President's view, nevertheless I believe that the justice did nothing more than shake his head in disagreement and there was no outburst as we saw with the SC Congressman who was nothing more than rude and in breach of decorum.

[Gman]

66. No. He shook his head, looked straight at Obama and mouthed

"That's simply not true." It was completely inappropriate. It wasn't his forum. He injected himself directly into partisan politics.

[newtothegame]

70. Didn't know the President was that off limits?

:shrug: This isn't a monarchy. What's with the off wit his head mentality?

[Gman]

93. Well, maybe something like going on 250 years of protocol and honor

which conservatives have literally no respect for.

[dem629]

81. If it had been Breyer doing that to Bush, the reaction here would be different.

This is politics, like sporting events, where people cheer for their team and boo the other team no matter the facts/contradictions/hypocrisy/etc.

This is really no big deal, either way. What difference does it make?

[FSogol]

4. I wish Justice Ginsberg had stood up and given the universal sign for "Up Yours" before

stomping out.

[AlinPA]

6. Very good article that makes a lot of sense.

[ncguy]

9. While I don't like all of the effects

of the Court's ruling, legally, it was the right ruling. I was clearly the legally right ruling, inlight of other first amendment cases. I think that it was President Obama who should have said, "Congress, we need to fix this with a new law." and not made a political attack on the Court for doing their job and deciding thing based on teh law.

Second, I don't think that this ruling will be bad for us. It may be early on, but it will give real voice to the unions, and it will allow more direct input from all groups. If the NRA can raise millions of dollars, $35 dollars at a time, so can democaratic interest groups.

[NJmaverick]

10. The right wing five's new law declaring Corporations super citizens

with none of the responsibilities but all the rights (and then some) is not the "right ruling" by any stretch of the imagination.

[snappyturtle]

15. Agreed. It's not only 'not right' but scary...imho. nt

[The Wizard]

62. The operative words

"....with none of the responsibilities but all the rights..."
When Exxon is able to buy key Congressional seats that will determine their profit margin, and do it without any adverse consequences, the system that leans heavily toward the moneyed interests becomes that much more powerful and the common man gets a shorter end of the equation.
Unfortunately, the great dumbing down has given Republicans enough leverage with the electorate to have a large portion of the working class support a party diametrically opposed to best interests of the vast majority.
The Court's flawed decision will hasten the trip to corporate feudalism and a permanent serf class beholden to the corporations that rig markets and pay scales for the benefit of the wealthy elites. In essence a fascist state based on feudal principles will be the result of this convoluted decision unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed or certain members of the Court are impeached and replaced with honest brokers who will overturn this bizarre edict made by Justices who are nothing more than corporate hacks in black robes.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. A corporation is not a public interest group -

unlike the NRA or a union, where the membership decides the agenda and backs that agenda with dues and fees which they willingly give in support of that agenda, a corporation is a feudal organization, and the underlings have NO voice in how it is run or what it's agenda is or should be. It gets its money not from contributions, but from profits generated by people who have no stake in that corporations agenda. And those corporate profits DWARF the resources of even such powerhouses as the NRA.

For instance - a lot of conservatives (and not a few liberals) are all up in arms about the message in the movie 'Avatar'. It has an anti-imperialism theme, a pro-environment theme, an anti-racism theme, and has made a LOT of money for News Corporation i.e., Rupert Murdoch. IOW, he can take millions, hundreds of millions, of liberals' dollars made from that movie and use those millions to oppose the very themes the movie promotes. Money that those liberals would NEVER donate to those causes.

And that is equal to the influence of the Steamfitter's local?

How do you counter that influence? Boycotts of the corporations? With the way the corporations are all in each others' business, the only effective boycott would be to never buy anything, from cars to toothbrushes.

I'm not a fan of the NRA, but it is a member-supported organization and when it takes political stands they are in accordance with the membership. There is not a corporation in the world that is a member-supported organization (except maybe Amway - which is more a pyramid scheme than a corporation).

This is NOT a 'free speech' issue. The people - the REAL people - who run the corporations have all the free speech they want. The corporation does not speak with its own voice, it speaks with THEIR voice - and it is THEY who should be held accountable for that speech.

[catbyte]

21. Wow. Well said.

Awesome analysis, RaleighNCDUer. You cut right to the heart of the matter.

Well done.

:applause:

Diane

Anishnabe in MI

[ncguy]

25. The NRA, and the SIERRA club are corporations

Look, one of the bigger recent fines hit the Seirra club, for handing out leaflets that compared candidates position on environmental issues.

The Sierra club should be allowed to leaflet all they want. The NRA should be allowed to leaflet all they want. At any time.

I think this "sky is falling routine" is silly. Guess what, Ford, Microsoft, etc, etc, want to sell their products to everybody. Dems, REpugs, independants, Greens, etc. I don't think you are going to see public companies making big hot button issue campaigns.

As far as New Corp goes, guess what, they were EXEMPT from the old law. This court ruling does not change ANYTHING AT ALL that News Corp could do then or now.

As far as countering that influence, either of the previously exempt corporations, or now, all corporations: You and everyone else has to act like an informed consumer. If Toyota backs issues you like and Ford backs the other side, then buy Toyota. I think you will see a great silience on most issues from most public companies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. Corporations can put virtually unlimited money into astroturf organizations

and the public has no way of knowing that 'American Concerned Citizens for American Concerns' is actually 100% funded by XYZ, Inc.

We cannot be informed consumers if they are allowed to hide the information. As it stands, with this ruling, there are NO controls.

And, as I pointed out, Sierra Club and NRA are MEMBER SUPPORTED ORGANIZATIONS. What they put out there is with the overwhelming, if not necessarily unanimous, support of the people who pay their fees and dues to that organization.

A corporation, however, uses private profits not membership dues. GE can put out a multi-million dollar campaign without the consent of a single person who buys GE products, and yet the consumers are the ones funding the campaign. It ain't the same thing at all.

The reality is, when GE puts cash into a campaign it is not GE's speech - it is the speech of the CEO and Board of Directors of GE. There is literally NOTHING that GE could say on any subject that is NOT the will of the corporate managers. Therefore, in truth, the 'free speech' being exercised is that of the corporate managers, not the fictional entity of 'the corporation'.

THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. It is a PAID SPEECH issue - the ideas of the corporate managers, and them alone, paid by corporate profits which come from ALL consumers.

It opens the door for BILLIONS of dollars to be pumped into an already monetarily bloated, corrupt electoral system.

We have seen the LAST free and fair election in this country.

[BrklynLiberal]

32. Wish I could K&R your post.

[colorado_ufo]

51. And if corporations are people

and have a right to free speech, do they also have a right to register and vote? Do they get recorded on the census? If they dissolve, should they get a death certificate?

[lunatica]

28. What part of Corporations are people in your mind?

And though we all know that money talks, what expertise does it have that it's equal to people talking? Money doesn't do diddly shit unless some person or corporation is using it. Money is not free speech any more than soap is.

[rhett o rick]

41. When you say it was the "right ruling" you seem to be indicating that you know what the founders

intended when writing the Constitution. This decision was the fascist five's interpretation of the Constitution. There is no such thing as a "right ruling". These 5 justices have an agenda of CorpAmerica rule and ruled to promote that agenda. You seem to agree with their "interpretation". I do not. The founding fathers developed the Constitution to protect average citizens from the power that can be used by corporations. The Constitution was not written to protect corporations. Corporations have been allowed, by citizens, some immunity from certain laws to allow them to be aggressive in their developing products that may be beneficial to citizens. Citizens allow corporations to live and can pull the plug. It is past time to pull the plug. Corp-frankenstein is getting out of hand.

[ncguy]

69. I don't have to know what the founders thought, I know what they agreed on.

I think the founding fathers intended on a nearly absolute freedom of speech. I think they would have been abhorrent of the idea that government could stop that Sierra Club from handing out political leaflets. I think they wanted unions to be free to speak and assemble.

And, where the rule of law comes in, if we are going to give rights to one, we give them to all. I'm not saying that I like the message that will be spoken, anymore than I like the message of white supremest marching around. But, these allowing these hateful marches and speeches in the past proved two things.

First, that people got it. THese marches didn't help the nazi cause, they raised the awareness of normal people against these 'people'.

Second, it shows principle and confidence in the people. yes, we will let you hear a hateful message because we have faith in you, the people, that you will chose wisely in the marketplace of ideas.

The ruling wasn't perfect, but it was better than the alternative of saying, some groups are allowed free speech, and other aren't. If you let that ruling stand, it is only a matter of time before the speech being punished isn't a right-wing book about Hillary, but a book about the environment written and published by a corporation.

[rhett o rick]

91. I disagree. Corporations differ from groups and unions in that they are given special privileges to

exist. Enough privileges to compete and produce. They are not humans, they are not citizens groups, they are not unions, they are a special type of organization and we humans can determine how much privilege they get. This ruling says that corporations are an entity outside the control of the populace. The ruling says that free speech is not absolute but equal to wealth. The more money you have, the move speech you will have. You seem to think that the populace will be able to set the inequity right. How? CorpAmerica owns all the news outlets. Most of the populace wont even know they are being lied to daily. This is a disaster.

[beardown]

98. You need to learn what the founders thought of corporations.

They had experienced the over bearing power of corporations and tried to make provisions to prevent them from dominating the new nation.

And there's a difference between free speech and free propaganda. Touting free speech without responsibility is akin the right wing's agenda touting free markets. Both are Reaganesque pleasant and simple sounding positions until you realize that they aren't applied in a perfect world and the average citizen needs protection from the excesses that WILL occur from both of them. Along the lines of the old standby about crying fire in a crowded theater.

Too many complexities and issues to cover in a reply on a message board. Read up on the founders and their writings on corporations and then decide for yourself if the founders would have backed corporations to have freedom of speech. You may find that if they had a hint of what this right wing, bias, agenda setting group of five would make this decision that we would have had 11 original bill of rights and the 11th would have clarified that rights of the people mean real people.

[LiberalFighter]

45. What labor unions might raise for this would be far outweighed by corporations.

[JDPriestly]

49. That right-wing groups can raise $35 at a time is not the problem,

it's the fact that right-wing groups can raise $35 million at a time that is the problem.

It's an awful ruling -- just horrible.

We will have the Chinese, the Russian mafia, the Saudi Arabians, Venezuela, you pick the country you don't like buying a corporation as a front in the U.S. and using it to run propaganda. This is a horrible, horrible decision.

[PRETZEL]

12. In a somewhat perverse way

I'm glad that was picked up.

Not so much so the Alito has shown his true colors, that was a definite given even before his confirmation but what I think has happened is that now a SC justice will have to defend this decision not so much to the attorneys who will use this for precedence in future cases but now the American public wants to know what this will mean. People aren't going to want the various talking heads giving their take on it.

I think what we have now is an opportunity to demand what this decision means and that will have to come from the source and he will have to be put into terms that most people will be able to understand.

He did all this with a shake of the head and the mouthed words "No it won't"

[NJmaverick]

22. I thought he mought "that's not true"

[Bitwit1234]

13. What's the email to get to the supreme court

lets all constantly and incessently send Alitio and Roberts and Scalia emails. Just call them republican tools. And shame shame shame. Where do I look to get it.

[Guilded Lilly]

14. Nothing is as it has been

nor what it should be when it comes to temperment maturity in politics.

Apparently all bets are off over grown up behavior when it comes to...particularly Republican... politics.

[NJmaverick]

16. Last time you had a republican congressman calling our President a liar

this time you have the shameful dsplay by the republican justice. It's the republicans that are dragging our politics into the sewer.

[Guilded Lilly]

19. Yup...

and they will continue to do so. They represent, for the most part, the dregs of the media and a slice of citizenry in this country that has lost a lot of integrity and quite a bit of their sense of deceny. Not that they really LEAD anyone but their own self centered ambitions.

Ugly leaders (though what they lead other than the party of NO) for an ugly mind set. These Republican old farts (and they are of my generation so I can call them that!) are the worst of what this country has to offer.

It didn't used to be that way. Not to this extreme.

[branders seine]

23. the fascist gang of 5 on the SCOTUS have intentionally made themselves

political players and have destroyed two centuries of credibility.

Bush v. Gore and now this? Any pretense of judicial probity is gone. The SCOTUS majority is a fascist gang of political operatives.

[NJmaverick]

24. and here most of us thought the Iraq war was bush's most damaging move

[BrklynLiberal]

31. Knowing it would lead to this kind of court was exactly why many of us were

beyond consoling when pres shit-for-brains got into office..not just once, but TWICE!!! It was obvious that the president from 2000-2008 would be in a position to make drastic changes to the Supreme Court..and Bush was not the one I wanted making those changes.

What a different world we would all be living in if the Supreme Court appointments in the last decade had been made by President Al Gore!!!!!!!!


.and we have not even begun to see what will happen to Roe v Wade. Obviously precedents mean absolutely nothing to the gang of five.

[Art_from_Ark]

40. Absolutely

What a different world this could have been if the rightful winner of Election 2000 had been able to serve as President.

[tomp]

36. i don't see how that conclusion can be avoided.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. K&R!

[concerned1]

29. The Fascist Five deserve zero respect from me

[BrklynLiberal]

30. This conclusion by Greenwald makes it all the more disgusting that Senators like Schumer, not only

voted for him, but fought the filibuster that the more progressive Senators wanted.

I cannot wait to vote Schumer out..

It was clear from Sam Alito's confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well. Much of the public will view his future "judicial" and "legal" conclusions -- and those of his fellow Court members -- with an even greater degree of cynicism. And justifiably so. Whatever impulses led him to behave that way last night, they have nothing to do with sober judicial reasoning or apolitical restraint.

[tomp]

37. i'm with you on shumer. my senator is a piece of crap. nt

[defendandprotect]

38. Agree re Schumer . . . was he ever liberal or just pretending ? Big disappointment!

[bertman]

34. Thanks for posting that, NJMaverick. Rec.

[defendandprotect]

35. Agree . . temperment more suited for dictatorships . .. !!

[deek]

39. What about the female judge sitting on the end?

Don't know what her name is...

She kept looking at Alito and made some interesting facial expressions. Do you think Alito was not just mouthing it to himself? What's your take on her reaction?

[Turborama]

44. K&R! Thanks for posting n/t

[TexasObserver]

48. Alito is like Scalia, without the brains and self restraint.

And I'm not suggesting Scalia is smart or has self restraint, just that Alito is a pouty little wannabe Scalia.

[Lindsey]

52. IMO, this ruling is the worse since Bush v. Gore....

And yes, many of us (who are political junkies) have had a deep sense of fear that rulings like this would occur with Bush appointments and now this is what we're stuck with. We need to figure out what needs to happen to reverse this horrible ruling.

[DearAbby]

53. Founding Father - Author of the Constitution

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

[TexasObserver]

56. Awesome quote.

[wizstars]

73. Indeed an awesome quote, but...

TJ is not the author of the Constitution. That title would go more to James Madison. Just a friendly little historical FYI.


:hi: I really do like the quote. So appropriate, from a truly great political thinker. I will be keeping it handy--thanks for posting it!

[NoFace]

54. As much as I hate the guy and what he's done I think the article is overreacting a bit. NT

[riverbendviewgal]

80. New here...how long have you been looking

I have been looking for years...here on DU....but I am pro Obama, Progressive and certainly don't hate "the guy". why are you here?

[malaise]

55. Excellent

Glen nails it again.

[austin78704]

59. This is bullshit

Everyone seems so damned mad at a gesture, but I've never seen this kind of outcry over an actual SCOTUS decision. Not even the decision Obama was in the middle of deploring at the time. A gesture is a gesture, big fucking deal. And a republican in power acting like an asshole isn't exactly news either.

I think most people like to bitch about this kind of stuff instead of real issues because real issues would require too much effort. But bitching about this sort of stuff is what people like Glen Beck do all the time.

[riverbendviewgal]

79. Real issue is the Alito has made his politics known

and that is the real issue. Gee your aren't republican by any chance are you?

[austin78704]

97. Alito made his politics known in more substantive ways already

He's a shitty judge.

Harping on something inconsequential as a gesture while being silent about actual judicial decisions makes us look petty. Of course, so does calling anyone who differs in opinion a republican makes you look petty as well.

[ChucktownMillie]

61. alito reacted because obama lied

alito should not be responding during the state of the union. but what caused the reaction?

obama stated "open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

the ruling states "Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value..."

the president can disagree with the decision, sure. but to completely fabricate what the decision was to congress and the american people is another matter altogether.

[riverbendviewgal]

77. Another Republican....gee they are popping like little gophers.

anyone here on DU notice this?

[brendan120678]

87. Normally I'd welcome you to DU, seeing your low post count...

But you've been here for four years!!

Maybe you forgot...if you're trying to be a deep-cover troll, you need to at least comment on articles once in a while.

[jeanmarc]

88. doesn't prevent subsidiaries of foreign corps on American soil

It's quite easy to move money around from one subsidiary to another and have the effect of a foreign corporation funding an election of their favorite candidate.

[Vermontgrown]

64. The American

people can thank the former administration for the rudeness that has occured not just in the capitol but nationwide. They dumbed down this country to a level not seen since, well, ever for that matter. The right wing activist judges were chosen by te former admin, so what does that say about the choice.

[riverbendviewgal]

76. You are a repubilican, eh?

sounds like it to me...I love obamba..and he is too articulate for you I believe.
Dumb down...You are so hilarious.

[BennyD]

65. I would have preferred the President to have addressed his displeasure

of the SC in a different setting at a different time. The fact that a few other Presidents have used the opportunity of the SOTU address to condemn the actions of the SC, doesn't meant that it's right. I happen to think it is undignified of the office of the President to call ANYONE out like that during the SOTU.

Another venue? Sure - just not this one.

my 2-cents.

[Scruffy1]

67. When your house is burning

Its ok to yell FIRE

[riverbendviewgal]

75. You sound like a Republican and a

Bush supporter.

[riverbendviewgal]

86. Thankfully you still have 2 cents

Obama helped you keep it.

[anachro1]

68. He was a Bush appointee

What other behaviour were we expecting, REALLY?

[riverbendviewgal]

84. we all know that Alito is a Bush appointee

and that you it seems, are a Bush supporter.

That Bush who drove the country down to near bankruptcy, made the rest of the world look down on the America who tortures people. Bush the guy who said "well done, Brownie" during Katrina....Bush the president who took America to a war on lies. Bush was the president who vacationed when given a warning about airplanes to be used as bombs in a terrorist attack. Bush is the one who spent about a quarter of his terms on vacation. Bush is the one whose administration ignored the warnings about Wall street's corruption.

Yeah, Alito is such a good nominee for Bush but not the rest of the country.


Here is a paragraph from Joe Bageant's website. It is from a letter of a friend, John Brown, that only emphasizes what I have been thinking of America. I have started watching the new TV series about Gladiators which shows the citizens cheering on for all the blood of the gladiators. This is in SPARTACUS: BLOOD AND SAND. I think of those spectators as the teabaggers and Republicans...and Obama is Spartacus. The first episode he survived 4 gladiators against his one sword. Obama will survive. or the Empire is dead. My US history teacher told the class that Empires last 200 - 250 years. How old is America?


http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/01/tea-baggers-are.html
Excerpt:
Tea Baggers are our canary in the coal mine
Lastly and most importantly, I think the Tea Baggers are really our canary in the mine that we are entering our late empire period. Crisis and decline in such situations does not lead to discrediting the failed ideologies that caused the given crisis, but rather the belief that we are failing because we where not faith full enough to those ideals. (Think of the crisis in Islamic world and the rise of fundamentalism.)

When it comes to history, shit just flows down hill.

[anachro1]

92. Bush supporter?

In your dreams. I want him tried for mass murder.

[woo me with science]

95. "Verbal outburst"?

Um, no.