• 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'

It shows he has no control over his emotions. Oh, and the camera is rolling.
Kinda like a commander in chief that throws a fit everytime he doesn't get his way, or says that a Supreme Court decision that was based on "shall not be infringed" was wrong because there will be a competition now involving money not friendly to his party. Or that nice little bitch session he had on a radio show pre-presidency complaining about the constitutional framework not allowing him to exercise his visions for United States domination. That kind of lack of control?
 
How was it not "impartial"? Alito didn't make a political statement. Obama outright misrepresented what the Court decided. That's a factual matter, not one of opinion. The Court specifically, overtly, in plain language, did NOT address the matter of foreign influence. Obama should have known that, probably did know what, yet he said the Court made it OK. That's either a lie or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Alito wasn't arguing with him on policy or on opinion. He was reacting to a bald-face misrepresentation of verifiable fact.

They did make it ok by implication. By not addressing it, they allowed multinational corporations to buy airtime in support of their chosen issue or candidate. Any company that has public stock has at least one share that is owned by someone who isn't a citizen, its unavoidable.
 
They did make it ok by implication. By not addressing it, they allowed multinational corporations to buy airtime in support of their chosen issue or candidate. Any company that has public stock has at least one share that is owned by someone who isn't a citizen, its unavoidable.

No, they did not. They specifically, overtly carved out an area that Congress may still regulate in light of their decision.
 
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.

I would take you to town over this, but Zyphlin already did, and you made up for it with the shoe comment which had me laughing. You are batting 1 for 3 this morning, which is a star player in baseball.
 
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.

Why shackle the Supreme Court like that? Members of Congress routinely shows their displeasure at presidential comments during the SOTU by sitting with their arms folded or shaking their heads at things with which they disagree, and I don't see this as any different. I don't see why the Supreme Court should be held to a different standard.
 
It shows he has no control over his emotions. Oh, and the camera is rolling. I might feel differently if there weren't TV cameras all over the place. But you are a public figure when on national TV, and I think you should show restraint.

He wasn't being emotional. It was a simple, low-key reaction to an insult that the POTUS gave during a SOTU address.

If anyone here is being emotional, it's that classless thug we have turning the White House into a joke. He couldn't even control his angsty disappointment at his own failures long enough to give a SOTU address without whining about another branch of the government.

Yeah, and you want to talk about restraint. Puh-leeze.
 
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.

Where would you put your attempt to turn the term "bank roll" into some kind of great political sign? As dishonest and disgusting or more so?

:doh :rofl
 
Of course, it is a non-event. Make no mistake - Obama loves America just as much as Alito does. Alito loves America just as much as Obama does. However, each's philosophy is different, and each has an honest disagreement with the other. Both positions, Obama's and Alito's are honest and valid positions, in respect to the Constitution. I disagree with Obama's position, and believe Alito is correct. However, I am not going to bash Obama over such nonsense.

If the shoe was on the other foot, that is, if it was a Republican president making a statement saying a decision to uphold that law is wrong, and if a Liberal justice, who had cast a vote to uphold that law had said "Not true", you would be calling for the impeachment of the Supreme Court justice. That is the way hyperpartisan political hackery works.

I think the difference is Obama loves power a lot more than Alito does. Not unusual of products of the Chicago political machine.

Again, I don't understand why we continue to throw out pointless hypotheticals. We just had 8 consecutive Republican State of the Union speeches and nothing comparable to this. The shoe is not on the other foot. This is something that Obama did, not the Republican party, so there is no need to qualify it. He needs to be held accountable for his actions and that's what I'm trying to do.
 
I think the difference is Obama loves power a lot more than Alito does. Not unusual of products of the Chicago political machine.

What is your proof that on his stance on power? How can you feel justified making this assertion if you are not a mind reader?
 
What is your proof that on his stance on power? How can you feel justified making this assertion if you are not a mind reader?

Well, other than the topic of the thread, massive government control of heathcare and auto industries come to mind, his sleazy dealing with the census bureau, his desire to "spread the wealth around", do you really need much more than that?
 
The State of the Union is not the venue for expressing disagreement in this manner. I think it was in extremely poor taste. JMO

I agree. They should not attend these events.

Here's the difference - do you actually think Alito intended to have people see him disagree? Do you think he was trying to stick it to Obama by attacking him or drawing attention to himself? Or do you think that he was simply reacting to a bald faced lie in a completely understated fashion?

I'm sure he's terribly embarassed that the cameras saw him doing this, much like you or I would be if we were there and the cameras caught me shaking my head or explaining something to a neighbor in the back. Would that mean that I was being classless or trying to disrespect Obama?

How is saying that you disagree with a ruling breaking decorum?

Saying that you disagree with a ruling would be one thing, though it hasn't happened in 30+ years. Saying you disagree with a ruling and straight up lying about it is another.

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.

For ****s sake, no they did not. Please link me to the 100 year old ruling that they overturned. I mean, if it's being mentioned everywhere, it should be easy. Let's see it.

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.

First, they could have done the exact same thing before. Does that mean that it would have been okay to accuse McCain of allowing foreign corporations to contribute to candidates?

Second, there are those who think that the Court's decision in a case like Loving could be used to support a gay marriage claim. Would it be fair for the president to have attacked the Supreme Court back then and accuse them of legalizing gay marriage? No, because the fact that some think a ruling could be used for something later on does not mean that the ruling addressed that issue.


So, a corrupt judge mouths "not true" in response to the exposure of his corruption.

I would be surprised had he nodded in agreement, but I'm glad he was caught in the act here.

Oh, by all means, please explain how Alito is a corrupt judge. Show me the trail of dirty money that he's receiving for this decision or how he's otherwise being paid off.

The fact that he disagrees with you on a legal issue does not make him corrupt. This type of crap is beneath you.

They did make it ok by implication. By not addressing it, they allowed multinational corporations to buy airtime in support of their chosen issue or candidate. Any company that has public stock has at least one share that is owned by someone who isn't a citizen, its unavoidable.

...And they could have done the exact same thing before. Guess what else they could have done - lobbied directly. They've been doing that for decades.
 
Well, other than the topic of the thread, massive government control of heathcare and auto industries come to mind, his sleazy dealing with the census bureau, his desire to "spread the wealth around", do you really need much more than that?

Yes I do.

Lets see, hes trying to help people get health care.

He intervened in the auto industries to try and save jobs (cue rant about unions).

What sleazy dealings with census?

Spread the wealth around is what liberals do.

Except for the census thing, which I am not sure to what you referring to, you are pretty much describing a liberal here.

Are you sure you aren't just being paranoid?

Besides, what good would power do if he has to give it up in 3 or 7 years?
 
Last edited:
Yes I do.

Lets see, hes trying to help people get health care.

He intervened in the auto industries to try and save jobs (cue rant about unions).

What sleazy dealings with census?

Spread the wealth around is what liberals do.

Except for the census thing, which I am not sure to what you referring to, you are pretty much describing a liberal here.

Are you sure you aren't just being paranoid?

Besides, what good would power do if he has to give it up in 3 or 7 years?

And how could I forget the $800 billion patronage pit that he called a stimulus?!

Obama directly took over the census bureau immediately after taking office, moving it to the executive branch, then appropriated an additional $1B to it.

Obama shifts Census oversight, triggering angry protest by Republicans (2/6/09) -- GovExec.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/11/dems-downplay-obamas-plan-oversee-census/

It gives him tremendous influence over elections for the next ten years.
 
Last edited:
And how could I forget the $800 billion patronage pit that he called a stimulus?!

Obama directly took over the census bureau immediately after taking office, moving it to the executive branch, then appropriated an additional $1B to it.

Obama shifts Census oversight, triggering angry protest by Republicans (2/6/09) -- GovExec.com

It gives him tremendous influence over elections for the next ten years.

I fail to see how the stimulus is a power grab. That's just Keynesian economics.

It looks like to me he wants to try and make sure that the census gets those who fall through the cracks. Which is in the third paragraph. I could see what they would need more funding for that.
 
I fail to see how the stimulus is a power grab. That's just Keynesian economics.

It looks like to me he wants to try and make sure that the census gets those who fall through the cracks. Which is in the third paragraph. I could see what they would need more funding for that.

I'm glad you like covering for the chosen one so much, because you'll be doing a lot of it for the next three years. Your guy is a disaster and everyone knows it. You're not fooling anyone.
 
Lets see, hes trying to help people get health care.
Then there needs to be less government interference and more consumer choice, that would actually bring costs down, instead, he wants MORE government control in every aspect of it, that isn't helping.

He intervened in the auto industries to try and save jobs (cue rant about unions).
That didn't work to begin with. But it took alot of nerve form him to make a personnel decision on behalf of GM, and a complete ignorance of the American business model.

What sleazy dealings with census?
How about the idea of subcontracting it to ACORN for starters.

Spread the wealth around is what liberals do.
Spreading other people's wealth using confiscatory tax rates is not a noble thing to do.
 
That didn't work to begin with. But it took alot of nerve form him to make a personnel decision on behalf of GM, and a complete ignorance of the American business model.

I find it extremely disappointing that half the country lacks the basic common sense to realize that taking money from profitable businesses and giving it to failing businesses on net is not going to "create" jobs.
 
Where would you put your attempt to turn the term "bank roll" into some kind of great political sign? As dishonest and disgusting or more so?

:doh :rofl

What kind of "great political sign". I said it was a lie, which it was, unless we're to believe that the highly intelligent presidential scholar didn't realize what the court ruling he is talking about actually did, in which case it was just ignorant misrepresentation.

This ruling does not allow any corporation to "bank roll an election".

No ones proven me wrong on that. All they've done is go "umm, urrrrr, uhhhh, you're nit picking because you're taking exactly what he said and actually expecting it to mean what the words are defined as, grrr"

Care for a discussion, or more trollish oneliners?
 
What kind of "great political sign". I said it was a lie, which it was, unless we're to believe that the highly intelligent presidential scholar didn't realize what the court ruling he is talking about actually did, in which case it was just ignorant misrepresentation.

This ruling does not allow any corporation to "bank roll an election".

No ones proven me wrong on that. All they've done is go "umm, urrrrr, uhhhh, you're nit picking because you're taking exactly what he said and actually expecting it to mean what the words are defined as, grrr"

Care for a discussion, or more trollish oneliners?

I mostly agree with your assessment, except the part about being highly intelligent. If he were highly intelligent, his understanding of economics would be better than a teenage stoner in a Che Guevarra T-shirt. Unfortunately it's not.
 
For ****s sake, no they did not. Please link me to the 100 year old ruling that they overturned. I mean, if it's being mentioned everywhere, it should be easy. Let's see it.

I cannot find 100 year old rulings, but Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce is 20 years old, and was overruled.
 
Because it's only "judicial activism" when they do sumpin' you don't like eh?

What gives you the impression I liked the decision? I simply recognize the First Amendment rights the court was upholding and that it ultimately was a correct interpretation of the Constitution. Personally I am concerned this will inevitably lead to more political corruption on both sides: Quid pro quo.
 
Tillman act.

Oh, the Tillman Act was a Supreme Court ruling? I was under the impression that it was a law.

Furthermore, the Tillman Act didn't even cover this:

We asked Schumer's staff about the 100-year-old comment, and they pointed us toward a 1907 law called the Tillman Act. They cited the dissenting opinion issued this week, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, that said, "The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907."

...

The Tillman Act said corporations could not "make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office." Now, does this mean that independent expenditures are outlawed, or just direct contributions? We looked at several court opinions and legal articles, and everything we looked at suggested that back then, people weren't thinking of campaign contributions in those terms. And in 1947, Congress came back and passed another law, the Taft-Hartley Labor Act, banning corporations and unions from making independent expenditures.

...

So what about Schumer's comments that the Supreme Court "decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures." This glosses over a lot of detail. Yes, it was more than 100 years ago that the first law limiting corporate spending was passed. But we don't see evidence that the Tillman Act even envisioned a distinction between direct contributions and independent expenditures. And the ban on direct contributions still stands.

PolitiFact | Campaign finance ruling on United Citizens is historical, but 100 years is a stretch

The oldest ruling that the court reversed was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce from 1990.

Lobbiests have strict rules. This opens the gates for a new form of bribery.

And for maybe the 400th time since this ruling came down, I'll ask if anyone can give me some specific examples of how this case allows for a new form of bribery that didn't exist before.
 
The oldest ruling that the court reversed was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce from 1990.

I just want to point out that I got this in before the lawyer did. YAY ME!

Sorry, been up about 30 hours so far and getting a bit odd.
 
This ruling does not allow any corporation to "bank roll an election".

No ones proven me wrong on that. All they've done is go "umm, urrrrr, uhhhh, you're nit picking because you're taking exactly what he said and actually expecting it to mean what the words are defined as, grrr"

Care for a discussion, or more trollish oneliners?

Pffft. You're so loopy on the matter, it would be utterly pointless to try to have a rational discussion with you.

But, please do carry on. :spin: :rofl :2wave:
 
I just want to point out that I got this in before the lawyer did. YAY ME!

Sorry, been up about 30 hours so far and getting a bit odd.

RightinNYC is a lawyer? Is there a projectile vomit smiley?


j/k.


sort of.
 
Back
Top Bottom