Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on January 28, 2010, 12:48:26 PM
-
Has a sitting pres. ever openly chastised the supreme court in a state of the union address before?
Obama is truly the biggest narcissist in the world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api)
-
Has a sitting pres. ever openly chastised the supreme court in a state of the union address before?
Obama is truly the biggest narcissist in the world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6148956n&tag=api)
I don't know that it has ever happened before at least to the Supreme Court.
Fascinating aspect of The ONE's arrogance in that he says "with due deference" just before using the Bully Pulpit to rebuke the Supreme Court (not just their decision...he made it more personal). you could tell that Judge Alito was irritated to say the least and wanted to call The ONE out as the liar that he is.
-
Has a sitting pres. ever openly chastised the supreme court in a state of the union address before?
...
According to this Historian it was unprecedented:
Supreme Court Historian: After President’s “Insult,” Won’t Be Surprised If Supreme Court Doesn’t Attend Next Year’s State of the Union Address
January 28, 2010 2:00 PM
A noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.
“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”
Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.” His opinion has nothing to do with animus towards the President, for whom Powe said he voted enthusiastically.
President Obama took the apparently unprecedented step of assailing a Supreme Court decision in his speech last night
...
Full article:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/supreme-court-historian-after-presidents-insult-wont-be-surprised-if-supreme-court-doesnt-attend-next-year.html (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/supreme-court-historian-after-presidents-insult-wont-be-surprised-if-supreme-court-doesnt-attend-next-year.html)
-
Not a big Obama fan, but I like the fact that he took a jab at the USSC justices because that ruling is not only unconstitutional, it will cause problems if it isn't reversed.
-
Not a big Obama fan, but I like the fact that he took a jab at the USSC justices because that ruling is not only unconstitutional, it will cause problems if it isn't reversed.
I usually agree with you politically but please tell me how it is unconstitutional for companies to donate what they want to political candidates? Ethical? no .....Slimy? yes, but not unconstitutional. If anything it will help rid of the dems in congress in November. We know who supports Dems and who supports the GOP. I see no issue here. :)
FYI - the only thing that makes this somewhat "unconstitutional" is that it is leaving open the possibility that foreign corporations could donate money to American candidates. If though it leaves it open to happen, the act of doing this is STILL Illegal and the donor would still be prosecuted. As would an American subsidiary of a foreign company
-
I usually agree with you politically but please tell me how it is unconstitutional for companies to donate what they want to political candidates? Ethical? no .....Slimy? yes, but not unconstitutional. If anything it will help rid of the dems in congress in November. We know who supports Dems and who supports the GOP. I see no issue here. :)
FYI - the only thing that makes this somewhat "unconstitutional" is that it is leaving open the possibility that foreign corporations could donate money to American candidates. If though it leaves it open to happen, the act of doing this is STILL Illegal and the donor would still be prosecuted. As would an American subsidiary of a foreign company
I don't believe that it's unconstitutional at all. I don't see how that argument could be made. For some reason, it's perfectly acceptable for labor unions to fund democrats, but if you open the doors to corporations, it's somehow wrong. Well Mr. Prez, corporations also represent the people. You just don't like "those people" because they tend to be free-market capitalists.
-
I don't believe that it's unconstitutional at all. I don't see how that argument could be made. For some reason, it's perfectly acceptable for labor unions to fund democrats, but if you open the doors to corporations, it's somehow wrong. Well Mr. Prez, corporations also represent the people. You just don't like "those people" because they tend to be free-market capitalists.
Exactly. He doesnt like the ruling because it is going to fuck him up in November - legal or not. Notice how he said he would vow to overturn it soon? Yes - he knows.
But shame on Sam Alito for barely shaking his head in disagreement. What a crock of shit. A sitting prez can openly chastise the supreme court for something he personally doesn't agree for political reasons, but if one of the justice shakes his friggin head, he gets scorned all over the media by those little faggots Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Alito is a good man and has a great story back to when he parents came over from Italy dirt poor. Hes more of an American success story than Mr Hussein Obama.