• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Alito mouths 'not true'

Yes. You have made an accurate assessment. If this was a speech provided by the Supreme Court and Alito was speaking and Obama was in the audience, I would be disgusted with Obama as well. I stand by my assertion that this is not the venue for a Supreme Court Justice to disagree with the President.

Its also not the venue to blatantly lie about a Supreme Court Ruling to criticize it either, an action not done since Gerald Ford apparently.

Yeah, Obama just sounds terribly rude.

If I flat out lie about what you did I think you'd call it "rude" even if I said it very sweetly.

From reports it seems what Obama done is something that has not occured in over 30 years, and that's taking a shot at a Supreme Court ruling in the SOTU. That's essentially a break of decorum, doubly so when it appears after a fact check that Obama's statement was completely false
 
Last edited:
Oh brother. That's a really mature response there. :roll:

LOL

And freaking out about what someone says to theirself is mature?
I'm not the President so I'm not held to any type of standard. But my view still stands - people are making a big deal out of nothing.
The President is not some type of Czar or King, as is evident by our country's defined lack of organized broohah over the presidency.
 
Its also not the venue to blatantly lie about a Supreme Court Ruling to criticize it either, an action not done since Gerald Ford apparently.



If I flat out lie about what you did I think you'd call it "rude" even if I said it very sweetly.

From reports it seems what Obama done is something that has not occured in over 30 years, and that's taking a shot at a Supreme Court ruling in the STOU. That's essentially a break of decorum, doubly so when it appears after a fact check that Obama's statement was completely false

It was not a flat out lie as you characterize it.

washingtonpost.com

The court did upend a 100-year trend that had imposed greater limitations on corporate political activity. Specifically, the court, in a 5-4 decision, said corporations and unions could spend freely from their treasuries to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

The supreme court did overturn a 100 year old ruling. Whether or not it will harm our democracy is a matter of opinion, not fact.

They may not directly spend on a candidate, but they can now pretty much do want they want for or against a candidate, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
 
It was not a flat out lie as you characterize it.

washingtonpost.com

The supreme court did overturn a 100 year old ruling. Whether or not it will harm our democracy is a matter of opinion, not fact.

They may not directly spend on a candidate, but they can now pretty much do want they want for or against a candidate, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

What Obama said:

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.

That is an outright lie, that the constitutional scholar Obama should konw. Corporations can not "bank roll" elections for individuals. The ruling over turned a facet of the law prohibiting corporations from running advertisements with money from their general funds rather than from a PAC. What is DOESN'T overturn is a different part of the law that keeps corporations from directly financing a campaign.

America's "most powerful interests" can not "bank roll" any election, not based simply on this ruling. Its ludicrous and flat out misrepresentation that I can not fathom such a "Incredibly intelligent" constitutional laywer like Obama did not realize.
 
What Obama said:



That is an outright lie, that the constitutional scholar Obama should konw. Corporations can not "bank roll" elections for individuals. The ruling over turned a facet of the law prohibiting corporations from running advertisements with money from their general funds rather than from a PAC. What is DOESN'T overturn is a different part of the law that keeps corporations from directly financing a campaign.

America's "most powerful interests" can not "bank roll" any election, not based simply on this ruling. Its ludicrous and flat out misrepresentation that I can not fathom such a "Incredibly intelligent" constitutional laywer like Obama did not realize.

You are nitpicking here. If a corp has enough money than it is not disadvantaged by not having a political infrastructure, it can build one, so it doesn't need to give money directly to a candidate. This allows corps to say what they want to on behalf a corp, which amounts to the same thing. Sure he could have clarified his statement a little better, but what he said is essentially true.
 
It was completely inappropriate of Obama to use the bully pulpit against the Supreme Court. Particularly because it was a lie, but even aside from that it was totally disrespectful of the separation of powers and the way our government is supposed to work.
 
It's amusing to read what offends the left. Alito was probably stunned by Obama's arrogance.
 
It was completely inappropriate of Obama to use the bully pulpit against the Supreme Court. Particularly because it was a lie, but even aside from that it was totally disrespectful of the separation of powers and the way our government is supposed to work.

Just because its the supreme court does not mean it cannot act stupidly or against the interest of the country. His manner was wrong, but his opinion on the matter is completely legitimate.
 
Just because its the supreme court does not mean it cannot act stupidly or against the interest of the country. His manner was wrong, but his opinion on the matter is completely legitimate.

It's fine that he has an opinion. I have disagreed with the supreme court before. That's not the issue. The issue was his inappropriate action. It's not the president's place to use the state of the union to embarrass or intimidate Supreme Court justices. It was a really slimy, shameful thing to do.
 
You are nitpicking here. If a corp has enough money than it is not disadvantaged by not having a political infrastructure, it can build one, so it doesn't need to give money directly to a candidate. This allows corps to say what they want to on behalf a corp, which amounts to the same thing. Sure he could have clarified his statement a little better, but what he said is essentially true.

No, its not nit picking. Its what he said. YOU don't get to say "No no no, you have to pay attention to this OTHER thing he said, not that one" and complain I'm nit picking.

HE said it. He stated that coprorations were going to be "bankrolling" elections. Not that they were going to be showing ads. Not that they'd be influencing the population. That they'd be bankrolling hte elections themselves.

Thats a flat out lie.

Just because you tried to defend him, got it wrong because you tried to point to a different statement, and are now having to back peddle doesn't mean its "nit picking".

He said what he said. He said what he said in a way that's been unprecedented for over 30 years it seems like. And he said what he said without no factual backing.

For years we've had liberals on this site telling us Bush "lied" by saying that Iraq was responsable for 9/11 and when its shown that he never actually said that they go "Well, he implied it and he gave the impression of it, so he lied".

Yet we take something Obama LITEREALLY ACTUALLY SAID and I'm told that's "nit picking"

For the love of christ.
 
Last edited:
It's amusing to read what offends the left. Alito was probably stunned by Obama's arrogance.

It's amusing to see some one try and characterize the comments of a couple as the thoughts of the whole, especially when proof that it is not the whole within this very thread.
 
It's amusing to see some one try and characterize the comments of a couple as the thoughts of the whole, especially when proof that it is not the whole within this very thread.

Oh spare me Redress, you know whom those words were aimed at and why. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it. Sheesh you've got thin skin this morning.
 
Indeed, how dare you get upset when Mr. V broadly insults an entire political spectrum of which you belong to. He's supposed to be able to widely insult entire swatches of the population and the ones he doesn't REALLY mean to insult are supposed to just know it. JEEZ
 
No, its not nit picking. Its what he said. YOU don't get to say "No no no, you have to pay attention to this OTHER thing he said, not that one" and complain I'm nit picking.

HE said it. He stated that coprorations were going to be "bankrolling" elections. Not that they were going to be showing ads. Not that they'd be influencing the population. That they'd be bankrolling hte elections themselves.

Thats a flat out lie.

Just because you tried to defend him, got it wrong because you tried to point to a different statement, and are now having to back peddle doesn't mean its "nit picking".

He said what he said. He said what he said in a way that's been unprecedented for over 30 years it seems like. And he said what he said without no factual backing.

For years we've had liberals on this site telling us Bush "lied" by saying that Iraq was responsable for 9/11 and when its shown that he never actually said that they go "Well, he implied it and he gave the impression of it, so he lied".

Yet we take something Obama LITEREALLY ACTUALLY SAID and I'm told that's "nit picking"

For the love of christ.

That's because you are. Bankrolling and unlimited spending, even if not direct ARE THE SAME THING. At this point a politician doesn't have to even run ads, all they have to spend money on is making appearances at various events.
 
Last edited:
That's because you are. Bankrolling and unlimited spending, even if not direct ARE THE SAME THING. At this point a politician doesn't have to even run ads, all they have to spend money on is making appearances at various events.

Accept its not UNLIMITED SPENDING, not when it comes to elections.

"Bankrolling" or "Unlimited Spending" would mean that the politician wouldn't even need to spend money on appearances, staff, events, travel, etc. THAT would be blanket "Unlimited spending". THAT would be "Bank rolling" by definition.

Being able to spend money on Political Ad's is NOT bankrolling an election.
 
Indeed, how dare you get upset when Mr. V broadly insults an entire political spectrum of which you belong to. He's supposed to be able to widely insult entire swatches of the population and the ones he doesn't REALLY mean to insult are supposed to just know it. JEEZ

Being totally fair, literally the entire left half of the building gave a standing ovation when Obama made those comments last night.

And polling about the speech showed that liberals widely thought it was excellent.

Plus I only heard one liberal commentator (Juan Williams) actually say he thought it was inappropriate on television.

Maybe a few internet people said otherwise, but it's an easy observation to make that the left supported Obama's actions and think that Alito was actually the one who was out of place.
 
Indeed, how dare you get upset when Mr. V broadly insults an entire political spectrum of which you belong to. He's supposed to be able to widely insult entire swatches of the population and the ones he doesn't REALLY mean to insult are supposed to just know it. JEEZ

....

Don't make me throw a shoe at you son. It's early in the morning.
 
Accept its not UNLIMITED SPENDING, not when it comes to elections.

"Bankrolling" or "Unlimited Spending" would mean that the politician wouldn't even need to spend money on appearances, staff, events, travel, etc. THAT would be blanket "Unlimited spending". THAT would be "Bank rolling" by definition.

Being able to spend money on Political Ad's is NOT bankrolling an election.

And thats why I think you are nitpicking, making appearances is a minor expense, to the point where its not significant.

Either way, I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think I am right, you think you are right, so be it.
 
Last edited:
Being totally fair, literally the entire left half of the building gave a standing ovation when Obama made those comments last night.

And polling about the speech showed that liberals widely thought it was excellent.

Plus I only heard one liberal commentator (Juan Williams) actually say he thought it was inappropriate on television.

Maybe a few internet people said otherwise, but it's an easy observation to make that the left supported Obama's actions and think that Alito was actually the one who was out of place.

I think you're completely and utterly deluding yourself to believe that if the situation was flip flopped and it was a Republican up there and the Surpreme Cout just over turned, say...the recent ruling that over turned DC's gun laws....that republicans wouldn't stand up to a man and cheer as well.

Its kind of the protocol in the state of the union. What a lot of people aren't getting, or are just willfully being ignorant of it this time because it suits thier purposes, the "one side claps, other side doesn't clap" thing is pretty much tradition. Its essentially the ettiquite for this thing. The Democrats cheering doesn't make any indication about the views of the left any more than the republicans not cheering tax cuts being any indication of the views of the right. Its more about the ceremonial tradition of the SOTU than anything.
 
I think you're completely and utterly deluding yourself to believe that if the situation was flip flopped and it was a Republican up there and the Surpreme Cout just over turned, say...the recent ruling that over turned DC's gun laws....that republicans wouldn't stand up to a man and cheer as well.

Its kind of the protocol in the state of the union. What a lot of people aren't getting, or are just willfully being ignorant of it this time because it suits thier purposes, the "one side claps, other side doesn't clap" thing is pretty much tradition. Its essentially the ettiquite for this thing. The Democrats cheering doesn't make any indication about the views of the left any more than the republicans not cheering tax cuts being any indication of the views of the right. Its more about the ceremonial tradition of the SOTU than anything.

There were a handful of times last night that Obama got applause from Republicans and not Democrats- during the part of the speech about free trade for example. There is absolutely no obligation by anyone to give a standing ovation to every talking point, particularly not as enthusiastically as they did to his supreme court comments.

I don't feel the need to discuss hypothetically what the reaction would be if a Republican did the same thing, because we just had a Republican president for 8 years and he never did, and never would (even though he disagreed with some decisions the court made), because clearly he understood that it was inappropriate.
 
Justice Alito mouths 'not true' - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com


Obama yacks about bipartisanship and then hurls a beanball at the Supreme Court. He speaks out of every side of every orifice this twit.

But... if you want the Democrats to go asunder like a balsa wood boat in a hurricane... he's doing it... for this speech, except for its incessantly nagging tone, will be forgotten, as his hundred plus other appearances in the past year.

The speech will be remembered... for its grating nature.

Can't wait for November; he just screwed a whole lot of Democrats.
.
alito must be a real asshole. so well mannered.
 
The President is not some type of Czar or King, as is evident by our country's defined lack of organized broohah over the presidency.

what does that mean?
 
There were a handful of times last night that Obama got applause from Republicans and not Democrats- during the part of the speech about free trade for example. There is absolutely no obligation by anyone to give a standing ovation to every talking point, particularly not as enthusiastically as they did to his supreme court comments.

Again, that's generally the tradition. The President tends to give a few minor things that will make the other side clap and his side be quiet. This is not uncommon. Go back and watch old state of the unions. I garauntee you you'll find things that were questionable by a Republican president that the Republicans all erupted for. Its just how these things go. Your pathetic attempt to turn it into some kind of great political sign is as dishonest and disgusting as Disneydudes attempt to do so earlier in this thread.
 
That was poor form and disrespectful. Might as well have thrown his shoe at them to really send the message. They are the final word on the Constitution and the case they ruled on had nothing to do with foreign corporations. It wasn't true. Congress should make legislation banning that and it didn't require a shot at the Supreme Court to make the point.

Because it's only "judicial activism" when they do sumpin' you don't like eh?
 
Back
Top Bottom