Another "YOU LIED" moment for Obama

[Danno 1,228]

Justice Alito mouths 'not true'

VIDEO> http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive...lie_moment.html

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

"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," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

"All you have to do is read the dissent, the four justices who said this will defintely open the floodgates to big corporate special interests. Anybody who thinks that's not true is out of touch with the American political process." Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen told POLITICO he expects to unveil the package in the next 10 days to two weeks.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was glad the president called out the Supreme Court.

"He [Alito] deserved to be criticized, if he didn't like it he can mouth whatever they want," Weiner said. "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the real world. They got a real world reminder tonight, if you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on it."

But one conservative legal expert took sides with Alito -- at least on the substance of Obama's comments.

“The President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, in The Corner blog on Nationalreview.com.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

"All you have to do is read the dissent, the four justices who said this will defintely open the floodgates to big corporate special interests. Anybody who thinks that's not true is out of touch with the American political process." Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen told POLITICO he expects to unveil the package in the next 10 days to two weeks.

Anyone surprised?

[William33 110]

Rotten legislslators.....The President has my vote, in that foreign entities should not dictate or significantly influence US policy....

[scandal 951]

Anyone surprised?

I'm surprised only in that they are pursuing a routine legislative effort.

I think the SCOTUS decision calls for something more daring and aggressive to restore the balance in the exercise of political speech. We need a Constitutional amendment.

[Pooky 3,805]

I'm surprised only in that they are pursuing a routine legislative effort.

I think the SCOTUS decision calls for something more daring and aggressive to restore the balance in the exercise of political speech. We need a Constitutional amendment.

A Constitutional Amendment to exclude corporations, unions and other similar types of organisations from unlimited campaign finance contributions? Don't you think that's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

And do you think such a route has a hope in h3ll of getting passed?

You're an optimist, aren't you?

[Ali G. 37]

I'm surprised only in that they are pursuing a routine legislative effort.

I think the SCOTUS decision calls for something more daring and aggressive to restore the balance in the exercise of political speech. We need a Constitutional amendment.

Say it isn't so. We actually agree on something.

Only a corrupt third world country would allow corporations to have a say in the day-to-day operation of their nation. hence, them being corrupt and third world. A corporation should have no place in dictating the direction of a country, let alone public policy; something I am used to under Aus's constitution. Just saying...

[Ali G. 37]

"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," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Spot on there.

Coming from abroad, I am just not used to the fate of the country being decided by a group of people that are not even elected into their position by the people; known as the US supreme court. We tend to elect government leaders to represent our views, rather than take the opinion of judges. Need I bother boast whose system is not only more respected in first world countries but which system actually delivers the goods (widely used).

Edited January 28, 2010 by Booyah

[SMR 368]

Say it isn't so. We actually agree on something.

Only a corrupt third world country would allow corporations to have a say in the day-to-day operation of their nation. hence, them being corrupt and third world. A corporation should have no place in dictating the direction of a country, let alone public policy; something I am used to under Aus's constitution. Just saying...

Yes, we may need an amendment. But the President is way out of line for calling out the supreme court on this. The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the Constitution. Although the case can be made that campaign finance and speech from corporations should be restricted, only a very twisted understanding of the English language would allow one to think that this speech is not Constitutionally protected. When the Constitution becomes outdated, it is not the responsibility or even right of the Supreme Court to simply alter the interpretation of the Constitution. If it were, our democracy would quickly collapse into an autocracy ruled by the Supreme Court.

When it is said that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, that doesn't mean that it changes meaning as times change. It means that it contains a process that allows for it's own alteration in an orderly manner. I don't like corporations controlling elections any more than most people. But I think it's far more dangerous if we don't expect the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in the most logical and literal way.

[Ali G. 37]

Compared to most other first world countries I have lived in or even studied, the US is evidently ruled (controlled) by the Supreme Court; amongst other courts. It's why I never heard of x vs y case deciding the fate of the country in Aus. Heck, we don't even have a bill of rights, yet are highly renowned (worldwide) for equality and our high standard of living for all.

You guys treat your constitution like some sort of holly grail that must never be altered to reflect the times. Think about it, at the time the constitution was initially ratified, the first stake was hammered in the ground at spot to be named Sydney. Yes, it's that old and reflects a totally different era. A time when corporations did not sell out the country for a profit. Hence there being no need to legislate against it.

It's not about ignoring it but about modernizing it to reflect 2010, rather than 1788. Something common in most other first world countries.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Booyah

[Danno 1,228]

Compared to most other first world countries I have lived in or even studied, the US is evidently ruled (controlled) by the Supreme Court; amongst other courts. It's why I never heard of x vs y case deciding the fate of the country in Aus. Heck, we don't even have a bill of rights, yet are highly renowned (worldwide) for equality and our high standard of living for all.

You guys treat your constitution like some sort of holly grail that must never be altered to reflect the times. Think about it, at the time the constitution was initially ratified, the first stake was hammered in the ground at spot to be named Sydney. Yes, it's that old and reflects a totally different era. A time when corporations did not sell out the country for a profit. Hence there being no need to legislate against it.

It's not about ignoring it but about modernizing it to reflect 2010, rather than 1788. Something common in most other first world countries.

Dude we are in it for the long-haul.

When you make up the rules as you play the game.... it has a predictable conclusion.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Calling out the justices during a state of the union can backfire in a big way for him in the future.

[Ali G. 37]

Dude we are in it for the long-haul.

When you make up the rules as you play the game.... it has a predictable conclusion.

A country that fails to adapt seizes to exist. I know this may be news for some but history spans back further than the 300 plus years the US was established. After all, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but republicans are driving this country into the ground faster than a machine can hammer a post into the ground, yet don't even realized it. You eat, breathe and sleep the constitution yet ignore the first handful of words in it "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,". We the people not you the individual, you the corporation etc. You refuse to invest in America and on Americans (cough cough "we the people"), but rather, prefer to squander the money in the military and have a select few individuals, who exploited Americans ("we the people") amass the majority of it.

The most laughable thing to me is how poor those residing in the Midwest to the South are, yet how staunchly these same folks defend republican economic ideals. Ideals that have been proven wrong by every other rich and successful nation might I add. You beat on about money but refuse to accept or acknowledge the ways of those who are beating you at it.

[Nagishkaw 510]

A Constitutional Amendment to exclude corporations, unions and other similar types of organisations from unlimited campaign finance contributions? Don't you think that's like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

And do you think such a route has a hope in h3ll of getting passed?

[Ali G. 37]

Danno I have a challenge for you. Well for everyone actually.

Draw a line from Detroit to Oklahoma City, to New Orleans, to Jacksonville, to Richmond and then back to Detroit. Now combine all of those cities and states. We are talking about over 150 million people right? Now try come even close to modern dynamic and prosperous cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Vancouver. In other words, 150 million people cannot even come close to three foreign cities made up of 10 million people. Does this not say something to you?

Why do you think that is? Why do you think these cities and countries have been so successful, while the region I pointed out is so poor and backwards? There has to be a point where you realize that the old ways, the Reagan ways, have failed and do not work in 2010. That clinging onto to things said in the 18 century no longer apply in the 21st.

Through my travels I find that people in this region tend to have little interest in education, blame or distrust the government, cling to their guns and feel the military is a viable decent career path. Some of the best and worst people you will meet but they definitely have their priorities wrong; as well as a warped sense of reality.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Booyah

[Nikita2Charles 32]

Simple example

Why we have extremely limited HIGH SPEED TRAIN in this country and sepcially in California.

I can only talk regarding california, The airlines lobbied heavily against the High Speed Rail saying it would cut down to their bottom line, some Fundamental issues, Building the countries Infrasctructure SHOULD NEVER EVEN BE OPEN TO LOBBYST DISCUSSION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_ra...e_United_States

See where the fear is coming

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog...s_high-spe.html

“…Southwest Airlines succeeded in preserving its dominance… Thanks to successful lobbying by Southwest Airlines…the THSRA [Texas High Speed Rail Authority] was officially shut down in 1994, successfully discrediting the concept of efficient high-speed passenger rail among Texans and setting progress back on updating statewide transportation by decades in one swift blow.”

Southwest Airlines has much to fear from high speed rail because its commuter business between San Antonio, Austin and Dallas/Fort Worth would be decimated. Studies from abroad show a successful high speed line could cut the airline traffic of these lines in half. It has already happened in Spain along the Madrid-Barcelona corridor of the Spanish AVE.

With all these powerful interests aligned against Texas rail, it is no surprise that the project has not yet laid one meter of track. This resistance is starting to lose strength and Texas, the lion’s den of high speed rail opposition, looks set to progress with a line that will bind together Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma in the coming years.

Welcome to United Corporation of America(global) with the ruling, Where's USA?

http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/07/06/ai...ntral-corridor/