Alito

[Baldy]

Nice backpedaling. Just a few days until National Signing Day! You might be able to get a scholly as a DB, Native!

Nice stretch, but weak attempt...

Reagan didn't even mention the Supreme Court, much less publicly admonish them in the State of the Union address you quoted. Obama pulled his stunt mere hours after the court made it' decision. Reagan's comment was over 12 years after the ruling and 3 or 4 justices later.

[JoltinJoe]

I think I did answer your question. I think if you read Justice Scalia's dissent in the Austin case, which was essentially the position adopted by Justice Kennedy the other day, you might see this in an opposite way -- what this law actually is a means by which incumbents (who else would be targeted by a corporation) insulate themselves from political commentary and criticism -- an extraordinary concept under the First Amendment.

The remedy is not to restrict speech, but to require proper disclosure. I can't understand why corporations can funnel money to PACs with warm and fuzzy names (when their real intent is to string high-tension power lines across your child's playground) and you have no idea who is really paying for the ad or what the PAC actually stands for.

If you require genuine disclosure, at a certain point corporate political commentary would even become counter-productive. If Exxon Mobil were running ads day and night targeting your congressman, you would feel pretty good about voting for him.

Good points, but let me argue this from the conservative/personal liberty standpoint.

Corportions, unions, etc are groups of people, that may or may not be democratic in nature. Can't collective power in regards to wealth and the ability to influence elections outweigh the voice of single individuals? For example, I read a stat somewhere that 9 corporations control 90% of the US media. Can't the consilidation of media power limit the speech of the individual? Rupert Murdoch is Australian, does he not have at least some control over what is produced by Fox and the Wall Street Journal? How would conservatives feel if he were Chinese?

I think the answer to your first question is yes. To your second question, certainlny the consolidation of media power can overpower individual speech. However, Ithe Supreme Court has never struck down government regulations which would limit a corporation's media holdings although those regulations have (probably unwisely) been watered down over the past few years. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of the stat you cite -- first time I have ever seen it.

[ngineer]

Then you have no mind or just a biased selective memory.

Would you be so kind as to cite an example?

Both Ronald Reagan and GW Bush criticized Roe v. Wade in SOU's and called Congress to do an end run on the decision.

[native]

Nice backpedaling. Just a few days until National Signing Day! You might be able to get a scholly as a DB, Native!

What is "is," skelly?

[houndawg]

An attack?

Alito's not smart enough to understand the implications of his own ruling. He and his four friends should be ridiculed and chastised at every opportunity.

Once again, an attack by the left. When will the left come up with something original in regards to:

Republicans = dumb
Democrats = smart

When somebody invents a smart Republican.

[Col Hogan]

I think I did answer your question. I think if you read Justice Scalia's dissent in the Austin case, which was essentially the position adopted by Justice Kennedy the other day, you might see this in an opposite way -- what this law actually is a means by which incumbents (who else would be targeted by a corporation) insulate themselves from political commentary and criticism -- an extraordinary concept under the First Amendment.

The remedy is not to restrict speech, but to require proper disclosure. I can't understand why corporations can funnel money to PACs with warm and fuzzy names (when their real intent is to string high-tension power lines across your child's playground) and you have no idea who is really paying for the ad or what the PAC actually stands for.

If you require genuine disclosure, at a certain point corporate political commentary would even become counter-productive. If Exxon Mobil were running ads day and night targeting your congressman, you would feel pretty good about voting for him.

Good points, but let me argue this from the conservative/personal liberty standpoint.

Corportions, unions, etc are groups of people, that may or may not be democratic in nature. Can't collective power in regards to wealth and the ability to influence elections outweigh the voice of single individuals? For example, I read a stat somewhere that 9 corporations control 90% of the US media. Can't the consilidation of media power limit the speech of the individual? Rupert Murdoch is Australian, does he not have at least some control over what is produced by Fox and the Wall Street Journal? How would conservatives feel if he were Chinese?

Better check those facts again, kalm...Murdoch became a U.S. citizen in 1985...he can have all the control he wants...

[Skjellyfetti]

Nice stretch, but weak attempt...

Reagan didn't even mention the Supreme Court, much less publicly admonish them in the State of the Union address you quoted. Obama pulled his stunt mere hours after the court made it' decision. Reagan's comment was over 12 years after the ruling and 3 or 4 justices later.

Nice backpedaling. Just a few days until National Signing Day! You might be able to get a scholly as a DB, Native!

What is "is," skelly?

And the backpedaling has to do with Native putting new requirements on his request.... which was originally a President questioning Roe v. Wade at a State of the Union with the Supreme Court held as a captive audience.

I provided that.

Now, you insist the language must be similar and it must be within a certain timeframe of the decision. That's not what was originally asked for... hence my response.

[native]

Nice stretch, but weak attempt...

Reagan didn't even mention the Supreme Court, much less publicly admonish them in the State of the Union address you quoted. Obama pulled his stunt mere hours after the court made it' decision. Reagan's comment was over 12 years after the ruling and 3 or 4 justices later.

What is "is," skelly?

And the backpedaling has to do with Native putting new requirements on his request.... which was originally a President questioning Roe v. Wade at a State of the Union with the Supreme Court held as a captive audience.

I provided that.

Now, you insist the language must be similar and it must be within a certain timeframe of the decision. That's not what was originally asked for... hence my response.

Skelly's answer: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."

Correct answer: Although both Presidents Reagan and Obama both raised Constitutional issues in the referenced State of the Union addresses, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the levels of personalization, partisanship and accuracy in their approaches.

Obama's approach, filled with inaccuracies, was more of a direct personal "attack" on the Justices seated before him.

[Ivytalk]

Yup, stick to your Con Law, Perfesser Joe. A political pundit you ain't.

Meanwhile, Barry pulled a disrespectful and sophomoric stunt. If he'd done that to the DE Supreme Court, our CJ would've bitch-slapped him into next week.

Don' be a hater, Ivy. In times of trouble, we always turn to the Hahvarhd Law Review.

So do I, JJ. Funny thing is: I can't find a single article written by Barry Sortero '86!

[JoltinJoe]

Don' be a hater, Ivy. In times of trouble, we always turn to the Hahvarhd Law Review.

So do I, JJ. Funny thing is: I can't find a single article written by Barry Sortero '86!

How did he become editor of the Harv.L.Rev. by publishing only an unsigned case note?

[houndawg]

I don't see what the big deal is, all this ruling does is make the status quo official. Anybody on the planet with the money can buy as much influence through lobbyists as they can afford. So has it always been, so shall it ever be.

[houndawg]

Don' be a hater, Ivy. In times of trouble, we always turn to the Hahvarhd Law Review.

So do I, JJ. Funny thing is: I can't find a single article written by Barry Sortero '86!

I'll bet you kept calling Muhammad Ali by his slave name back when he changed it.

[travelinman67]

Would you be so kind as to cite an example?

Both Ronald Reagan and GW Bush criticized Roe v. Wade in SOU's and called Congress to do an end run on the decision.

And were vociferously criticized for their statements.

[houndawg]

Both Ronald Reagan and GW Bush criticized Roe v. Wade in SOU's and called Congress to do an end run on the decision.

And were vociferously criticized for their statements.

So what's the problem?

[kalm]

Good points, but let me argue this from the conservative/personal liberty standpoint.

Corportions, unions, etc are groups of people, that may or may not be democratic in nature. Can't collective power in regards to wealth and the ability to influence elections outweigh the voice of single individuals? For example, I read a stat somewhere that 9 corporations control 90% of the US media. Can't the consilidation of media power limit the speech of the individual? Rupert Murdoch is Australian, does he not have at least some control over what is produced by Fox and the Wall Street Journal? How would conservatives feel if he were Chinese?

Better check those facts again, kalm...Murdoch became a U.S. citizen in 1985...he can have all the control he wants...

My bad.

But the question still stands.

What prevents a foreign controlled corporation from making campaign contributions?

[ngineer]

And the backpedaling has to do with Native putting new requirements on his request.... which was originally a President questioning Roe v. Wade at a State of the Union with the Supreme Court held as a captive audience.

I provided that.

Now, you insist the language must be similar and it must be within a certain timeframe of the decision. That's not what was originally asked for... hence my response.

Skelly's answer: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."

Correct answer: Although both Presidents Reagan and Obama both raised Constitutional issues in the referenced State of the Union addresses, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the levels of personalization, partisanship and accuracy in their approaches.

Obama's approach, filled with inaccuracies, was more of a direct personal "attack" on the Justices seated before him.

You wouldn't know a 'personal attack' if it bit you in the ass. He did not focus on the Justices' personalities but their policy decision, which is what it was. He didn't call them names, i.e. "communist", "pinko", "idiot" or anything of the sort. He criticized their decision, no different than Reagan and Bush have criticized Roe v. Wade in the past, which is their perogative. Whether it was several days (as opposed to several hours) or several years, a criticism of the SCOTUS by the POTUS is not unprecedented and the fact he did it their faces, in a respectful manner, rather than just run our press releases or by surrogates makes sense. The Court overturned years of precedent by a 5-4 decision. CJ's over the years have recognized that if you are going to overturning precedent, doing it by 5-4 decisions only creates a foundation for greater discord. Especially when doing so in an 'activistic' way. Roberts and Alito crapped on stare decisis despite their promises during their confirmation hearings.

[kalm]

Skelly's answer: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."

Correct answer: Although both Presidents Reagan and Obama both raised Constitutional issues in the referenced State of the Union addresses, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the levels of personalization, partisanship and accuracy in their approaches.

Obama's approach, filled with inaccuracies, was more of a direct personal "attack" on the Justices seated before him.

You wouldn't know a 'personal attack' if it bit you in the ass. He did not focus on the Justices' personalities but their policy decision, which is what it was. He didn't call them names, i.e. "communist", "pinko", "idiot" or anything of the sort. He criticized their decision, no different than Reagan and Bush have criticized Roe v. Wade in the past, which is their perogative. Whether it was several days (as opposed to several hours) or several years, a criticism of the SCOTUS by the POTUS is not unprecedented and the fact he did it their faces, in a respectful manner, rather than just run our press releases or by surrogates makes sense. The Court overturned years of precedent by a 5-4 decision. CJ's over the years have recognized that if you are going to overturning precedent, doing it by 5-4 decisions only creates a foundation for greater discord. Especially when doing so in an 'activistic' way. Roberts and Alito crapped on stare decisis despite their promises during their confirmation hearings.

And even if Obama broke with decorum, there are certainly times where it's appropriate to do so.

ngineer is an up and comer.

[native]

Skelly's answer: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...."

Correct answer: Although both Presidents Reagan and Obama both raised Constitutional issues in the referenced State of the Union addresses, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the levels of personalization, partisanship and accuracy in their approaches.

Obama's approach, filled with inaccuracies, was more of a direct personal "attack" on the Justices seated before him.

You wouldn't know a 'personal attack' if it bit you in the ass. He did not focus on the Justices' personalities but their policy decision, which is what it was. He didn't call them names, i.e. "communist", "pinko", "idiot" or anything of the sort. He criticized their decision, no different than Reagan and Bush have criticized Roe v. Wade in the past, which is their perogative. Whether it was several days (as opposed to several hours) or several years, a criticism of the SCOTUS by the POTUS is not unprecedented and the fact he did it their faces, in a respectful manner, rather than just run our press releases or by surrogates makes sense. The Court overturned years of precedent by a 5-4 decision. CJ's over the years have recognized that if you are going to overturning precedent, doing it by 5-4 decisions only creates a foundation for greater discord. Especially when doing so in an 'activistic' way. Roberts and Alito crapped on stare decisis despite their promises during their confirmation hearings.

Criticize the decision if you wish, but Obama LIED yet again, and Obama personalized his remarks regarding the SCOTUS decision.'

Interestingly enough, I will admit that Body Odor's favorability ratings went up after the SOTU address, but only among Democrats, not among independents or Republicans.

[kalm]

You wouldn't know a 'personal attack' if it bit you in the ass. He did not focus on the Justices' personalities but their policy decision, which is what it was. He didn't call them names, i.e. "communist", "pinko", "idiot" or anything of the sort. He criticized their decision, no different than Reagan and Bush have criticized Roe v. Wade in the past, which is their perogative. Whether it was several days (as opposed to several hours) or several years, a criticism of the SCOTUS by the POTUS is not unprecedented and the fact he did it their faces, in a respectful manner, rather than just run our press releases or by surrogates makes sense. The Court overturned years of precedent by a 5-4 decision. CJ's over the years have recognized that if you are going to overturning precedent, doing it by 5-4 decisions only creates a foundation for greater discord. Especially when doing so in an 'activistic' way. Roberts and Alito crapped on stare decisis despite their promises during their confirmation hearings.

Criticize the decision if you wish, but Obama LIED yet again, and Obama personalized his remarks regarding the SCOTUS decision.'

Interestingly enough, I will admit that Body Odor's favorability ratings went up after the SOTU address, but only among Democrats, not among independents or Republicans.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Here's two pro and con articles on the subject. Show me where the lie is?

http://washingtonindependent.com/74610/ ... rporations

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth ... 41936.html

[ngineer]

Both Ronald Reagan and GW Bush criticized Roe v. Wade in SOU's and called Congress to do an end run on the decision.

And were vociferously criticized for their statements.

Okay. So? Obama is being 'vociferously criticized' by the right for his statment. So? It's fair game....

[Woof]

And even if Obama broke with decorum, there are certainly times where it's appropriate to do so.

So then your ok with Joe Wilson "breaking with decorum" when the president lies to Congress and the American people, right ?

The one and only reason Obama took this pot shot at the SC is because he is afraid the ruling has the potential to level the fund raising playing field.

[native]

And were vociferously criticized for their statements.

Okay. So? Obama is being 'vociferously criticized' by the right for his statment. So? It's fair game....

Usually Obama gets high marks for style, at least. In this case, he fails both style and substance.

[houndawg]

You wouldn't know a 'personal attack' if it bit you in the ass. He did not focus on the Justices' personalities but their policy decision, which is what it was. He didn't call them names, i.e. "communist", "pinko", "idiot" or anything of the sort. He criticized their decision, no different than Reagan and Bush have criticized Roe v. Wade in the past, which is their perogative. Whether it was several days (as opposed to several hours) or several years, a criticism of the SCOTUS by the POTUS is not unprecedented and the fact he did it their faces, in a respectful manner, rather than just run our press releases or by surrogates makes sense. The Court overturned years of precedent by a 5-4 decision. CJ's over the years have recognized that if you are going to overturning precedent, doing it by 5-4 decisions only creates a foundation for greater discord. Especially when doing so in an 'activistic' way. Roberts and Alito crapped on stare decisis despite their promises during their confirmation hearings.

And even if Obama broke with decorum, there are certainly times where it's appropriate to do so.

ngineer is an up and comer.

He does show some promise, but then everybody looks like a world-beater against poor ol' native.

It's kind of like Rocky Marciano whupping up on Joe Louis: sure he beat Joe Louis, but Joe Louis was 74 at the time. Hell, native has his gloves up but he just kind of stumbles around the ring in a daze, throwing feeble punches at imaginary opponents and blurting out Tourette's-like verbal ejaculations about "the libruls".

[kalm]

And even if Obama broke with decorum, there are certainly times where it's appropriate to do so.

So then your ok with Joe Wilson "breaking with decorum" when the president lies to Congress and the American people, right ?

The one and only reason Obama took this pot shot at the SC is because he is afraid the ruling has the potential to level the fund raising playing field.

Now that you mention it, I do kinda like the British system where they are all yelling at each other. And I didn't the Joe Wilson outburst was that big of a deal.

But I do think there's a differnence between a speaker respectfully calling someone out in the audience and someone in the audience interupting a speaker while he's talking.

[Ivytalk]

And even if Obama broke with decorum, there are certainly times where it's appropriate to do so.

ngineer is an up and comer.

He does show some promise, but then everybody looks like a world-beater against poor ol' native.

It's kind of like Rocky Marciano whupping up on Joe Louis: sure he beat Joe Louis, but Joe Louis was 74 at the time. Hell, native has his gloves up but he just kind of stumbles around the ring in a daze, throwing feeble punches at imaginary opponents and blurting out Tourette's-like verbal ejaculations about "the libruls".

ngineer is a crusty old phart. I know, because i am one myself!

Anyway, ng is a hardworking litigator who loves his school's team and the Phillies. Helluva guy!!