If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News) Obvious The US Supreme Court cannot afford to be seen taking the side of one corporation over another corporation   (cbsnews.com) divider line 314
More: Obvious, Chief Justice John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Samuel Alito, campaign finance reform, law students, modern history, US Supreme Court, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

15784 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2010 at 4:18 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



314 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-10 03:42:12 PM
t wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history,

fullstop.

The decision of the Supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.

* Letter (7 April 1832) on the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States.

* John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
o As quoted in The American Conflict (1865) by Horace Greely, as a reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Andrew Jackson (attributed).

So right there the author is completely wrong - there is at least ONE other US President who has gone head to head with SCOTUS. And Jackson was far more disrespectful of SCOTUS than Obama has been.

Of course, the author did put a weasel clause into his statement when he said '...in modern history...' but that only serves to emphasize just how far he's reaching with his commentary. Let us be clear - not only has the office of the President called SCOTUS to account in the past, but it is the DUTY of the office of the President to do so if and when - in good conscious - they believe SCOTUS has made a bad decision.

Based on the weasel comment alone, this article is a biased piece of crap and should be (and can be) safely ignored.
 
2010-03-10 03:48:07 PM
Additional information about the author, Jan Crawford.

she's a friend of Justice Roberts and Stevens. kinda makes me wonder about her right there.
 
2010-03-10 03:49:46 PM
from the original article:

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

The White House fired back at Roberts' comments Tuesday evening.

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," spokesman Robert Gibbs said.


Clearly, the current white house has no class when it perceives itself as being right.

Andrew Jackson didn't have any class, either, Weaver95, and if you're using him as an excuse for one branch of government to treat the judicial branch--that can't fight back--like crap, that's lame.

There's a reason why the congress has parliamentary procedure--it is to promote debate in an atmosphere of decorum and civility, because without it political arguments can descend into chaos, and then nothing gets accomplished. It should apply in this case, too
 
2010-03-10 03:53:53 PM
albo:
Andrew Jackson didn't have any class, either, Weaver95, and if you're using him as an excuse for one branch of government to treat the judicial branch--that can't fight back--like crap, that's lame.


read up on the background behind Jackson's reasons for disagreeing with SCOTUS. you might find them more relevant to modern events than you realize.

I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so.
 
2010-03-10 03:57:48 PM
Weaver95: I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so

but to call them out in a state of the union address when he knows they can't respond or rebutt?

that's not classy and actually quite immature, especially considering it was a blatant political jab, not a policy point since the opinion was already delivered.
 
2010-03-10 03:58:24 PM
Was that article written by a 16-year-old girl?
 
2010-03-10 04:00:48 PM
albo: Weaver95: I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so

but to call them out in a state of the union address when he knows they can't respond or rebutt?

that's not classy and actually quite immature, especially considering it was a blatant political jab, not a policy point since the opinion was already delivered.


I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.
 
2010-03-10 04:03:16 PM
NewportBarGuy: Was that article written by a 16-year-old girl?

no, she's a lawyer.
 
2010-03-10 04:06:09 PM
Weaver95: I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

he can hold a press conference anytime he wants.

i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.
 
2010-03-10 04:08:00 PM
Weaver95: t wasn't enough that Mr. Obama, for the first time in modern history,

fullstop.

The decision of the Supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.

* Letter (7 April 1832) on the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States.

* John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
o As quoted in The American Conflict (1865) by Horace Greely, as a reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Andrew Jackson (attributed).

So right there the author is completely wrong - there is at least ONE other US President who has gone head to head with SCOTUS. And Jackson was far more disrespectful of SCOTUS than Obama has been.

Of course, the author did put a weasel clause into his statement when he said '...in modern history...' but that only serves to emphasize just how far he's reaching with his commentary. Let us be clear - not only has the office of the President called SCOTUS to account in the past, but it is the DUTY of the office of the President to do so if and when - in good conscious - they believe SCOTUS has made a bad decision.

Based on the weasel comment alone, this article is a biased piece of crap and should be (and can be) safely ignored.


I know you are 180 years old Weaver ;), but, for most of us, "Modern History" means in the last 40-50 years. I think a lot of people also use it to mean "since TV was invented".

You point out later that you considered that a weasel statement, but, I think it exactly goes to the "since TV was invented" use of the term. IE, since SOTU have been seen by a wide audience live.

I don't disagree necessarily that the article was weak overall, but, I think he used that point fairly.
 
2010-03-10 04:08:30 PM
albo: i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

If the President wanted to make his point forcefully, then yes - that was the time and place for it. And you know what? i'm glad he did it. SCOTUS needs someone to occasionally remind them that they are not running the show.
 
2010-03-10 04:08:54 PM
albo: Weaver95: I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so

but to call them out in a state of the union address when he knows they can't respond or rebutt?

that's not classy and actually quite immature, especially considering it was a blatant political jab, not a policy point since the opinion was already delivered.


Roberts has responded, sounding like any other politician. Unless you're Joe Wilson, no one can rebut the President during a during a joint session speech. They do it to the media afterwards, just like His Holiness the Chief Justice.

And who says the SCOTUS is above reproach? They are of equal importance and power as the other two branches of government according to the Constitution, and those two get slammed all the time. They deserve to be slapped around a bit after how political they've become in the past decade, especially after Scalia opened them up to public scrutiny with that interview. Placating to their esteem turns them into a panel of aloof monarchs.
 
2010-03-10 04:12:14 PM
Lumpmoose: They deserve to be slapped around a bit after how political they've become in the past decade, especially after Scalia opened them up to public scrutiny with that interview. Placating to their esteem turns them into a panel of aloof monarchs.

Indeed. SCOTUS deserves no greater level of respect than anyone ELSE in government. And to think that somehow the black robes are somehow more important than Congress or the President is very dangerous.
 
2010-03-10 04:21:18 PM
Didn't the bushie judge start the whole thing?
 
2010-03-10 04:22:02 PM
I love when people show the public just how self-important they are.
 
2010-03-10 04:24:58 PM
Yes, it's just trashy to criticize the court's decisions after-the-fact. No one in modern history has done it.

*cough* Roe v. Wade *cough*
 
2010-03-10 04:25:31 PM
Thanks for that opinion, cheerleader.
 
2010-03-10 04:25:43 PM
albo: i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

I can't believe you think that SCOTUS is calling out a co-equal branch of government in their written decisions, knowing full well that the President can't respond or rebut any of their statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the court.
 
2010-03-10 04:26:03 PM
Roberts will never stand for the little guy vs the big guy.
he hasn't yet and won't in the future. he's a company man.
 
2010-03-10 04:26:49 PM
albo: Weaver95: I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

he can hold a press conference anytime he wants.

i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.


So I guess you have a problem with the president addressing any concerns he might have with congress during the state of union address as well?
 
2010-03-10 04:27:24 PM
MooseUpNorth: I can't believe you think that SCOTUS is calling out a co-equal branch of government in their written decisions, knowing full well that the President can't respond or rebut any of their statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the court.

wat?
 
2010-03-10 04:27:57 PM
Ezekiel Rage: Yes, it's just trashy to criticize the court's decisions after-the-fact. No one in modern history has done it.

Roberts only questioned the venue. He clearly stated that criticizing the court is proper in other circumstances:

"He didn't slam Mr. Obama for singling out the Court, as some have done. He said people have a right to criticize the Court if they disagree with a decision. "I have no problems with that," Roberts said."
 
2010-03-10 04:28:35 PM
Let's not forget FDR and his campaign to expand the size of the Supreme Court so he could pack it with judges sympathetic to the New Deal.
 
2010-03-10 04:28:39 PM
albo: Weaver95: I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

he can hold a press conference anytime he wants.

i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.


Bullshiat. What the SCOTUS did was overturn almost 100 years of precedent. Obama called them on it, and very strongly. It's very clear Obama sides with his citizens on this topic. What the SCOTUS did is bad for America and bad for her citizens. The fact that the author is giving Obama shiat for standing up for what he believes makes me doubt everything she's ever said, and will ever say. She's not a neutral party in my opinion.

Nobody with a brain thinks this ruling is good for America.
 
2010-03-10 04:28:43 PM
MooseUpNorth: albo: i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

I can't believe you think that SCOTUS is calling out a co-equal branch of government in their written decisions, knowing full well that the President can't respond or rebut any of their statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the court.


*snert*

/good one heh
 
2010-03-10 04:29:52 PM
"All that, of course, was too much for Justice Samuel Alito, who shook his head and silently mouthed, 'not true.' "

What? A politician.... not telling the truth?

How long has THIS been going on?
 
2010-03-10 04:30:24 PM
Weaver95: Additional information about the author, Jan Crawford.

she's a friend of Justice Roberts and Stevens. kinda makes me wonder about her right there.


Thanks Weaver!
 
2010-03-10 04:30:49 PM
CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
 
2010-03-10 04:32:12 PM
MooseUpNorth: albo: i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.

I can't believe you think that SCOTUS is calling out a co-equal branch of government in their written decisions, knowing full well that the President can't respond or rebut any of their statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the court.


No, it's okay when the judges do it. They're judges. Obama's just a politician.
 
2010-03-10 04:32:13 PM
Otherwise Just Fine: Weaver95: Additional information about the author, Jan Crawford.

she's a friend of Justice Roberts and Stevens. kinda makes me wonder about her right there.

Thanks Weaver!


to tell the truth, I didn't know anything about her until I started poking around online about the author. the more you read, the more the picture comes into focus. She's a cheerleader for the SCOTUS authoritarians.
 
2010-03-10 04:33:08 PM
Weaver95: albo: Weaver95: I stand by my comments - if the President believes SCOTUS is wrong, then he has a duty to say so

but to call them out in a state of the union address when he knows they can't respond or rebutt?

that's not classy and actually quite immature, especially considering it was a blatant political jab, not a policy point since the opinion was already delivered.

I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.


This. Campaign finance is not a blatant partician issue - Americans across the political spectrum overwhelming support keeping big single donors out of the election process. SCOTUS had their heads up their asses on what might be the most important issue of our time, and someone called them out for it - get over it.
 
2010-03-10 04:33:58 PM
Is there any particular reason why the author felt the need to drop President Obama's title through out the the article? The Justices have theirs, so why doesn't the President have his?
 
2010-03-10 04:34:21 PM
Gamer Grrrl: No, it's okay when the judges do it. They're judges. Obama's just a politician.

Of course, that only applies to Democratic politicians. If they're criticizing Republicans, it's another matter.

/ Two words: "judicial activism".
 
2010-03-10 04:34:40 PM
Ever read a Supreme Court transcript, or almost any court for that matter.

Judges routinely "call out" both attorneys and parties, call them names, make disparaging remarks, etc. and the subjects of this treatment have to sit there and take it.

Oh boo hoo, poor justices couldn't respond to the president.

Self important hypocrites. Aiding the far right in the dismantling of our democracy one piece at a time. I wish I could afford to buy a politician.
 
2010-03-10 04:34:54 PM
RussianPooper: So I guess you have a problem with the president addressing any concerns he might have with congress during the state of union address as well?

congressmen can, and do, hold a press conference after the address to rebut any political and policy charges the president makes during his speech.

the supremes can't, and don't, do that because they can't politic or address issues they may have to rule on.

it's a pretty easy difference to recognize. and for the executive to take advantage of that traditional decorum to make political points is not very classy.
 
2010-03-10 04:35:18 PM
albo: from the original article:

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

The White House fired back at Roberts' comments Tuesday evening.

"What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections - drowning out the voices of average Americans," spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Clearly, the current white house has no class when it perceives itself as being right.

Andrew Jackson didn't have any class, either, Weaver95, and if you're using him as an excuse for one branch of government to treat the judicial branch--that can't fight back--like crap, that's lame.

There's a reason why the congress has parliamentary procedure--it is to promote debate in an atmosphere of decorum and civility, because without it political arguments can descend into chaos, and then nothing gets accomplished. It should apply in this case, too


It is no accident that the country is more divided than it has been in a long time. From Day One, Obama declared war on Fox News (which was strategically retarded), then referred to anyone concerned about government spending racist and then biatched about how the other side won't play nice.
 
2010-03-10 04:35:32 PM
Ezekiel Rage: Yes, it's just trashy to criticize the court's decisions after-the-fact. No one in modern history has done it.

*cough* Roe v. Wade *cough*


Ya, I think I remember Reagan pretty much doing this during one of his SOTU speeches. I'm too lazy to google it right now, so I could be wrong, but I do seem to recall that Reagan had no problem criticizing the Supreme Court.
 
2010-03-10 04:35:48 PM
libbynomore2: Weaver95 2010-03-10 03:42:12 PM

Let us be clear - not only has the office of the President called SCOTUS to account in the past, but it is the DUTY of the office of the President to do so if and when - in good conscious - they believe SCOTUS has made a bad decision.


True, but if he's going to do that the larger obligation is to be correct on the facts and Obama was not.


With that said, the State of the Union Address is a completely innapropriate forum for such an attack.


I notice you had to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find another President to have attacked the court. #1. Completely different time. No TV, no radio, and not observed by millions of people. #2. I don't suppose it means anything to you that no President has done something like that since ( until Obama ).

Obama is an uncouth, pompous jackass.


Pompous would be winning the 2004 presidential election by a slim margin and claiming to have "political capital" and that you intend to "spend it". Thats pompous
 
2010-03-10 04:35:54 PM
plastroncafe: Is there any particular reason why the author felt the need to drop President Obama's title through out the the article? The Justices have theirs, so why doesn't the President have his?

It's standard practice in journalism to refer to Presidents as "Mr."
 
2010-03-10 04:35:58 PM
libbynomore2:
I notice you had to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find another President to have attacked the court.


so because something happened more than 6 months ago, it's automatically invalid?

those who do not learn from history yadda yadda....
 
2010-03-10 04:36:04 PM
albo:

Andrew Jackson didn't have any class, either, Weaver95, and if you're using him as an excuse for one branch of government to treat the judicial branch--that can't fight back--like crap, that's lame.

There's a reason why the congress has parliamentary procedure--it is to promote debate in an atmosphere of decorum and civility, because without it political arguments can descend into chaos, and then nothing gets accomplished. It should apply in this case, too


On the one-year anniversary of the controversial Supreme Court decision expanding the government's power of eminent domain, President Bush issued an executive order preventing federal agencies from seizing private property except for public projects such as hospitals or roads (new window)


It's only a bad thing when the other party's guy does it!
 
2010-03-10 04:36:28 PM
As long as Congress defines corporations as 'people', the court is going to have to allow them the same rights as real people.

Get your congress weasel to change the definition, and then we can change the price of a congressman way donations are made.
 
2010-03-10 04:37:00 PM
Gamer Grrrl: albo:

Bullshiat. What the SCOTUS did was overturn almost 100 years of precedent. Obama called them on it, and very strongly. It's very clear Obama sides with his citizens on this topic. What the SCOTUS did is bad for America and bad for her citizens. The fact that the author is giving Obama shiat for standing up for what he believes makes me doubt everything she's ever said, and will ever say. She's not a neutral party in my opinion.

Nobody with a brain thinks this ruling is good for America.


The ButtHurt is strong in this thread...
 
2010-03-10 04:37:37 PM
i945.photobucket.com

Just keep stirring that pot... stirrin it up...
 
2010-03-10 04:37:47 PM
plastroncafe: Is there any particular reason why the author felt the need to drop President Obama's title through out the the article? The Justices have theirs, so why doesn't the President have his?

"Mr." is an acceptable traditional and style way to do it.

and here's CBS's approach, coincidently:
Link (new window)
 
2010-03-10 04:37:59 PM
whimofsteel: As long as Congress defines corporations as 'people', the court is going to have to allow them the same rights as real people.

Get your congress weasel to change the definition, and then we can change the price of a congressman way donations are made.


Know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?
 
2010-03-10 04:38:16 PM
trippdogg: This. Campaign finance is not a blatant partician issue - Americans across the political spectrum overwhelming support keeping big single donors out of the election process. SCOTUS had their heads up their asses on what might be the most important issue of our time, and someone called them out for it - get over it.

If Obama was serious about overturning the SCOTUS decision then he would have announced his intention to work on a constitutional amendment.

Obama was just throwing a jab and that was inappropriate.
 
2010-03-10 04:38:16 PM
albo: Weaver95: I disagree - that is exactly the place and time to do so. It's the 'state of the union address'. If the President feels SCOTUS is f*cking up, that's the venue for his commentary.

he can hold a press conference anytime he wants.

i can't believe you think that Obama calling out a co-equal branch of government on the floor of the House, knowing full well that they can't respond or rebut any of his statements either there or later, was an appropriate display of decorum on the part of the president.


Didn't the Chief Justice responding and rebut at a later date, hence this article about the administration responding, trying to get the last word?

/I don't think they were trying to 'get the last word,' but that's what the article implies
 
2010-03-10 04:38:22 PM
chapman: plastroncafe: Is there any particular reason why the author felt the need to drop President Obama's title through out the the article? The Justices have theirs, so why doesn't the President have his?

It's standard practice in journalism to refer to Presidents as "Mr."


that's because his title IS Mr.
set by Mr. Washington, who declined to be His Majesty.
 
2010-03-10 04:38:23 PM
Gamer Grrrl

Bullshiat. What the SCOTUS did was overturn almost 100 years of precedent

Yeah they should never overturn 100 years of precedent, just look at the problems Brown v. Board of Education has caused us.

/ducks under desk
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »