Judge Alito is this year's Joe Wilson...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/alito-was-rude-but-right_b_440207.html

In my opinion, I think Obama was rude to scold them during his State of the Union address. It’s called checks and balances.

“Mind your own damn business, Mr. President,” may have been a more appropriate response.

It’s also false what 0 said. But I guess when you speak in arrogance, facts don’t matter.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made headlines last night when he nodded and mouthed “It’s not true” in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Facing six of the nine Justices, who were sitting right up front, Obama criticized the recent landmark Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate political speech.

Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision. Obama said, “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

Halfway through this sentence, Alito started to nod vigorously to express his disagreement. Then he mouthed, “It’s not true.” Some people are saying that Alito is this year’s Joe Wilson, who infamously shouted, “You lie” during an Obama speech to Congress.

There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don’t support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.

But the Court did not overturn “a century of law.” The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.

There is “a century of law” restricting direct corporate contributions to candidates. Last week’s decision didn’t address that law. While the logic of the opinion–which says corporate speech is entitled to the same protection as individual speech–calls into question the corporate contribution ban, it doesn’t overturn it. And the Court has traditionally treated direct contributions differently from so-called “independent expenditures”–ads that discuss candidates but financed by private parties without the candidate’s help.

Alito may have been right on the facts, but his nodding was still remarkably bad form.

Longstanding tradition holds that Supreme Court Justices sit silently during the State of the Union. Unlike the senators and representatives, they don’t stand up and clap for things they agree with. The Justices are supposed to stay about the political fray.

If Justices shouldn’t stand and clap when they agree, they shouldn’t nod vigorously and mouth their disagreement when they think the president is wrong. Staying above the fray goes both ways.

You know Washington has become way too partisan when Supreme Court Justices can’t even control themselves.

too bad the Constitutional Lawyer himself didnt see that McCain Feingold was a huge violation of 1A

The Supreme Court acted stupidly as Obama would put it :smiley:

It seems the only reason he went into Constitutional law was to learn how to manipulate the document.

…so Obama directly chastises the Supreme Court in the SOTU speech for the first time in…well…EVER…and Alito visibly showing disagreement with Mr. Law Professor’s conclusions is the great offense? THAT is the story everybody is running with?

How bloody desperate to believe does one have to be to ignore Obama’s statement and then get pissed off at Alito for shaking his head?

That’s not just kool-aide level…that’s on your knees orally servicing the Dear Leader level cult worship.

I still have yet to see ANY academic work Obama did while a professor. Ordinarily to be a professor one has to actually publish something significant now and then…even if their primary function is teaching, they are expected to participate in research and to publish.

I would think that one could point to a long standing tradition of the president not lecturing the SCOTUS about a decision that he disagrees with.

Alito could have gotten up and walked out, now that would make a statement. Nice position to put government lawyers in for the next case. Hope Alito gets his swipe back.

On a bigger subject, how can you grade people on constituional law when it seems that every decision is 5-4. If 4/9ths of the court get it wrong all the time, that must be one heck of a curve.

he wasn’t really a professor, he was a guest speaker. But the MSM spins professor. Heck we cant even find his master’s thesis or college transcripts.

For someone touting transparency all up and down the election trail, he went to great lengths to get his entire history legally sealed…

It was in poor taste to go after the high court during the SOTU

my bad, really meant “guest lecturer” but you get the idea. He wasn’t teaching.

He is employing FDR like tactics to try to demonize and isolate the SCOTUS.

I think as the dems get more desperate to pass their ideology onto the American people they are going to take more drastic steps. As Pelosi said today if jumping over the fence doesn’t work they are going to pole-vault. If that doesn’t work they are going to parachute in. They are determined to subvert the rule of law to get their agenda through.

They are already talking about amending the Senate rules to do away with the filibuster so they no longer need 60 votes to pass something. They know they are fucked in November but want to set themselves up to diminish its impact. They don’t care what the American people want, and they want to diminish the effect of our votes.

I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point they want another FDR like court packing when it comes down to it.

Obama has routinely showed he has no respect for separation of powers. He wants to be king. The only reason he hasn’t attacked Congress more than he has is they, too, are still at it full bore. If Congress had moderated after the Scott Brown win they would be on the block next to SCOTUS. He will blame everyone else for what he perceives as “injustices” because that is what his entire adult life has been about. He will be the only one capable of righting wrongs.

i heard Waxman being interviewed on NPR today, basically saying that it doesn’t matter what the polls and the american people think, that they are going to pass some type of healthcare bill anyway. :mad: douche

“…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, …”

not a government of AIG, by GM, for citibank…

:mad:

we do need healthcare reform of SOME kind.

Yup, it reminds me of that old WC Fields quote about why, considering his lifestyle, he was carrying a bible, : “Looking for loopholes” was his answer. Unfortunately, that’s the way that many people, especially Obama, read the Bill of Rights. They don’t look to try and understand the fundamental rights, they look for loopholes.

This.

Very bad form, IMO. He aired specific criticism in a forum that essentially forbids a response. Even worse is that the charge is essentially untrue. Typical for BHO, though.

we do need healthcare reform of SOME kind.

Yes. I couldn’t agree more.

SOME kind, but certainly not whats being proposed now.

that was my first thought and reading the ole play book of a former hero…he just wont stop digging & i hope it continues to backfire.