ALITO: What Kind Of Adult Is INCAPABLE Of Restraining Himself-Let Alone A Robe-Wearing SC Justice?

[kpete]

Excellent

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.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/28/alito/permalink/8af1830501e6a75921e183ce8ecf00e7.html

[virgogal]

1. A human one? eom

[jgraz]

15. Alito? The evidence is against you.

[apocalypsehow]

27. One notes you've finally swapped that avatar from the moral equivalent of Alito's side of the aisle.

So you've really got very little room to talk when it comes to such "evidence"....

[Mz Pip]

2. Why should anyone be surprised?

He's as partisan as the rethugs sitting behind him. So now everyone who hasn't been paying attention for the past couple of years knows it too.

Seriously, if he really believes that the 5-4 ruling against the limiting of campaign contributions doesn't open the floodgates for corporations with international ties to influence our elections then do, dear Sam, explain what it really does mean in an editorial to the NY Times. If we've got it wrong, please do educate us. :sarcasm:

[live love laugh]

36. It takes a "special" person to be that partisan--him and all Cons have that in common.

Remember their illustrious leader was this guy...

[Cha]

3. Glad he couldn't control himself in front of the whole world..

lt's going to make it easier to strike down the court 5 decision.

"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." President Obama in the SOTU~

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

[Tejas]

8. Who, the President?

"by foreign entities"


Please feel free to link where any foreign entity is allowed by Federal Law to contribute to any local, state, or federal election. It's against federal law, and still is despite what the President said. The recent SCOTUS ruling dealt in no way with that aspect but in fact emphasized that it would remain to be illegal.


Try reading a SCOTUS ruling once in a blue moon, sheesh!

[merh]

11. So foreign controlled corporations that are US corporations

won't be allowed to buy all the advertisement necessary to get their candidate elected?

[Tejas]

25. You tell me, links appreciated because all I have is

the SCOTUS decision. To warp it (as President Obama did twice) into a scenario where mainland China could potentially buy the House and Senate is absolute gibberish.

Don't you think that if it were true, it would already have happened?

[provis99]

35. You read through a 183 page SC decision in a week?

You're either incredibly dedicated, or incredibly masochistic.;)

[merh]

37. No it is not.

It was done before, when the laws limited the expenditures.

Go do some research on the US Chamber of Commerce fuuding of judicial campaigns in Mississippi, Alabama, Texas and Minnesota.

They were limited, yet they successfully put conservatives on the bench. Now the floodgates are open and yes, corporations that are controlled by the Chinese will be able to buy advertisements to insure that their selected candidates get into office.

Now the limits don't exist because SCOTUS ruled that they infringed on the corporations' freedom of speech. That is what Citizens United v. FEC did, it held the laws that set the limits unconstitutional.

[merh]

38. You don't know what the FEC laws provide, or rather what they

used to provide relative to buying of advertisements, do you?

You haven't read Citizens United v. FEC, have you?

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?

[Vattel]

47. Here's the facts (I think):

The Supreme Court ruling struck down law that limited campaign spending by corporations, whether controlled by foreign or domestic interests. The majority opinion explicitly left open the question of whether the speech of foreign-controlled corporations could be legally limited in ways that the speech of domestic-controlled corporations could not. So Obama's rhetoric was misleading and, well, unfair to the Court. Which is not to say that Alito's reaction wasn't inappropriate. It was.

[merh]

50. Wrong, you may want to think again.

Those kinds of corporations -- domestic corporations owned by or controlled by foreign governments, foreign corporations or foreign individuals -- are not in any way prevented by section 441e from spending corporate treasury funds to influence U.S. elections.

Prior to the Citizens United decision, these corporations were prevented from spending their funds on expenditures to influence federal campaigns by the general prohibition on corporate campaign spending. But now that that prohibition has been struck down, these foreign-controlled domestic companies are free to spend their treasury funds directly to influence U.S. elections.

Thus, there is no statutory prohibition against foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making expenditures to influence federal elections, following the Citizens United decision.

Citizen United Decision Does Open a Major Loophole for Foreign Interests to Participate in Federal Elections Through Domestic-Controlled Corporations, Congress Needs to Act Quickly to Close the Loophole

[shraby]

17. Where's yer profile?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[shraby]

41. I like to have some idea of who is throwing out the

"stuff".
Do you actually think that the corporations foreign or otherwise with extremely deep pockets can't buy up all the television/radio time to push the candidate of choice? I mean all the air time with leaves the opposing candidate with virtually no way to get his/her message out. The corporations have deep enough pockets to do this in every blinking state for ever candidate for the federal house and senate seats. They can and probably will.

[Cha]

23. I going with the President over that fucker alito.

[Tejas]

29. Fine, as far as policy goes, but to pull a "Chavez" in front of the whole world?

huh?

[spooky3]

4. I guess Republicans don't like being held to account after all.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[splatshot]

10. I second that...

[Binka]

14. Oh Poor Baby Do You Want Some Cheese With That Whine?

:wtf: Indeed. Take your little freeper supporter with you Tejas when you go into the sunset. Toot Toot little fool.

[Tejas]

18. Did you have a point or just childish insults?

[Binka]

42. I Have A Point And You Seem To Have Gotten IT!

Childish insults my ass.

[Tejas]

44. obvious troll is obvious,

come back when you have the fortitude to join a debate.

[treestar]

22. Freepers usually hate the Court

Now suddenly they love it! :rofl:

[treestar]

21. That's fine

The separation of powers means that they can criticize each other - wait, that's the first amendment. They can actually get in each other's way.

[Tejas]

31. For Chavez maybe.

[gratuitous]

26. Why would the folks who didn't vote to overturn settled law walk out?

You are aware, aren't you, that the subjects of the State of the Union speech are at the sole discretion of the Chief Executive? And that Presidents have for years offered their opinion on the actions of the other two branches of the government? I suppose anyone who disagrees with anything in the President's address should feel free to just get up and walk out.

[Tejas]

32. "Presidents have for years offered their opinion" - laughable

Did we watch the same SOTU?

Feel free to show where in SOTU history that a President has called out another branch as President Obama did.

[gratuitous]

33. Sorry, you can do your own research

But if you don't have the memory to recall activist judges and overturning Roe v. Wade, then I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

Back to my original question, which you seem to have avoided: Why would the Justices who didn't vote to overturn 100 years of settled law see fit to walk out of the State of the Union address when the President of the United States, a lawyer and constitutional scholar in his own right, offered his opinion?

[Tejas]

43. um.....you stated it, you prove it.

And calling President Obama's call-out an "opinion" is disengenuous at best.

[merh]

49. I did prove it.

You really should just stay out of conversations that are about things you know nothing about.

[merh]

39. Facts aren't your strong suit, are they?

Reagan called out SCOTUS for their school prayer ruling.

FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with more Justices if they ruled against his New Deal laws.

All the damned conservative POTUS (and lawmakers) who have complained that Roe v. Wade being bad law.

...

In 1988 President Ronald Reagan made an indirect jab at the Court's school prayer rulings when he said, "And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment." In the same speech Reagan also urged the Senate to confirm Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court -- the very justice whose handiwork in Citizens United Obama was criticizing.

President Warren Harding in 1922 also urged passage of a constitutional amendment to counteract Supreme Court rulings -- the decisions that placed child labor "outside the proper domain of federal regulation," as he put it. Harding added, "We ought to amend to meet the demands of the people when sanctioned by deliberate public opinion."

In 2006, President George W. Bush thanked the Senate for confirming John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. and paid tribute to Sandra Day O'Connor, whose retirement become official the day of the speech.

Only President Calvin Coolidge routinely included the Supreme Court in his State of the Union addresses, but not to praise or damn it. It appears he had a "laundry list" approach to the speech, making sure to mention every sector of government, including the Supreme Court. In 1924, Coolidge offered the Court a helping hand, urging Congress to give the justices more discretion over their docket to reduce a congested docket. "Justice long delayed," Coolidge said, "is justice refused."

UPDATE: An alert reader notes that in his January 1937 State of the Union address, Roosevelt criticized the Supreme Court without using those words. Upset that the Court had thwarted his efforts to pull the nation out of the Depression, Roosevelt a month later introduced his ultimately unsuccessful "court-packing" plan that would have allowed him to expand membership of the Court and add justices of his own choosing. Here is what Roosevelt said in his State of the Union address: "The Judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making democracy successful. We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good. The process of our democracy must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free government."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/01/high-court-is-rare-topic-for-state-of-the-union-speeches.html

[Tejas]

45. Oh, so since Reagan and Bush did it, it's just peachy keen. WTF?

I was not aware of those particular schoolyard antics of Reagan et al, but now see that it's been parroted across the web.

Just thought our President was better than that.

[merh]

48. I replied to your comment.

Feel free to show where in SOTU history that a President has called out another branch as President Obama did.

You should try to become informed before spouting nonsense.

[merh]

40. Where'd you go?

Come on, I provided you with facts.

Now what do you have to say?

[fishwax]

6. it's not that he couldn't control himself -- he just chose not to. He's a partisan.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Exactly.

[begin_within]

7. "Alito" and "adult" in the same sentence?

That should cause the software to crash.

[autorank]

9. A Zealot Judge k*r

He's Nuke 'em High Alito, Mr. Guardian of everything sacred, in his mind.

What a pathetic excuse for justices the five are who voted for The Money Party permanent rule.

[tulsakatz]

13. Chris interviewed Jonathan Turley today on Hardball about that.........

he asked if SC justices are like the guards at the tomb of the unknown soldier in that they are supposed to remain unemotional. Jonathan said the guards have more options regarding emotions than SC justices. And he even called what Alito did 'exceptionally injudicial'.

He went on to say that SC justices are supposed to remain neutral on issues especially related to party loyalty.....I guess Alito failed that test!

[LiberalFighter]

16. He thought Obama said he was playing with himself under the robe.

[treestar]

19. And you can bet he would not tolerate that in the courtroom

from lawyers or litigants.

[zonkers]

24. What a freak. What a pain in the ass he must be to know in real life.

[omega minimo]

28. Gettin tired of saying I TOLD YA SO

Actually have avoided it up til now...... wasn't Alito's EMOTIONAL TEMPERMENT AND PERSONAL ARROGANCE ON FULL VIEW DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING?

[undeterred]

30. John Edwards was apparently incapable of restraining himself.

:shrug:

[tomm2thumbs]

34. A resident of C-Street? Member of The Family?

or is that just too obvious

[whistler162]

46. Yet you have over a 1000 posts on DU?

Odd one would postulate you would have learned the answer to this question long ago!