We Have a New Home! Please Click Below to Go to the New Freedom’s Lighthouse!

freedomslighthouse.net

Blog Archive

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Obama Slams the Supreme Court in State of the Union Address as Justice Alito Shakes His Head "No" - Video 1/27/10



Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Here is video of President Obama during his State of the Union Address essentially trying to intimidate the Supreme Court by berating their decision to give free speech rights to American Corporations in political campaigns.

After Obama slammed the Supreme Court for their decision, you could see Justice Samuel Alito shake his head and appear to say to himself "not true," as the Democrats stood and applauded all around the Supreme Court members.

I don't know if there is precedent for a President to do something like this or not in a State of the Union Address with the Court sitting in front of him, but it seems to me this was way out of bounds and totally disrespectful.

11 comments:

Anonymous,  January 27, 2010 at 10:54 PM  

It was a sad day in America to see the POTUS do that to the Supreme Court. VERY SAD. SHAMEFUL !!!
IMPEACH OBAMA.Not fit to be POTUS.

Anonymous,  January 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM  

THis is exactly why I am embarassed to call myself even an ex-democrat at this point.

The party I had been part of for decades is dead. I have no idea who or what this party is anymore.

This is absolutely disgusting behavior, for a president to be berating a seperate but equal branch of govt.

This will only make Independents flee the democrat's party even more.

Anonymous,  January 27, 2010 at 11:17 PM  

The frenzied leap to applaud this gross insult to the court by the likes of Schumer, Holder, Geithner and the rest of these cretins is just as shocking.

This week alone now over 50,000 jobs have been lost through Walmart, Verizon, Caterpillar etc and this idiot Obama just lies his head off for 90 excruciating minutes. Obama is a Narcissist fraud.

Diogenes January 28, 2010 at 12:06 AM  

It was a bad decision by the Court. They're not infallible. No Court is, no human being is. They make mistakes. You don't believe it? Take a look at Plessy v. Ferguson. Take a look at Schenck v. US. Take a look at Korematsu v. US.

They deserve to be called out when they're wrong. It was done in a respectful manner and the President clearly said, "with due deference to the Court" meaning the COurt had the power to decide what they decided, but they (in Obama's opinion) goofed. The fact is that the conservative majority, for whatever reason, went well beyond what the respondent even ASKED the Court to do!

Anonymous,  January 28, 2010 at 6:28 AM  

Well said, Diogenes. The court has blundered and now we, the people, will have to waste yet more time passing a law to restore the democratic fundamentals of our government. A corporation is _not_ a person, perhaps it should be best likened to a shark. It may not be evil, since it is only trying to feed, but it needs strong constraints on its actions.

-Steve

Anonymous,  January 28, 2010 at 7:12 AM  

Wow, Steve. I actually own my own small business. It is a corporation. I had no idea I owned a shark! I certainly had no idea that it needed strong constraints on its actions. I do, however, have an idea that you don't have a clue what you're talking about!

Larry S January 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM  

Is your corporation entitled to First Amendment rights? Not you as an individual -- of course you do -- but a corporation? Do all of you strict constructionists on the right really think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment? Especially since corporations didn't truly exist back then? Where's all the screaming about judges legislating from the bench? Bottom line is, neither conservatives or liberals mind judicial activism one bit -- as long as the judges are activist towards our own particular point of view.

Brian January 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM  

The court just removed the restriction that had been placed on free speech rights. That is not legislating from the bench.

Larry S January 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM  

Don't be disingenuous and don't dodge the question: is it your position that the Founding Fathers' "original intent" was to extend First Amendment rights to corporations? Because that's what the Supreme Court just did.

Brian January 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM  

Don't accuse me of being disingenuous. I believe the Founding Fathers wanted to extent "free speech rights" to everyone. That's what the court upheld.

Larry S January 29, 2010 at 4:49 PM  

Oh, please. The Founding Fathers wanted nonexistent, inconceivable, inhuman "people" called corporations be granted free speech rights? And those free speech rights include the right to spend unlimited millions on political campaigns? NONE of that was in the realm of possibility when the First Amendment was drafted. You can argue that the Court reached the right decision. if you choose, but you cannot pretend that it's predicated on the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It's judicial activism, it's legislating from the bench -- it's just judicial activism and legislating from the bench that happens to correspond to your particular worldview. And that's OK -- just call it what it is. Don't pretend it's something it's not.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP