• 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'

Crunch said:
I seriously doubt that....



2 USC 441e - U.S. Code - Title 2: The Congress - 2 USC 441 - Sec. 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals - vLex

This law was not changed or in any way part of this SC decision, so why would anyone think that it opened the door to foreign electioneering?

Barry was lying, and he knew he was lying.... deal with it.
Click to expand...

Would you please provide evidence that he knew he was lying? I can't wait to see what you come up with. I'm waiting.............
 
aps said:
Would you please provide evidence that he knew he was lying? I can't wait to see what you come up with. I'm waiting.............
Click to expand...

So you're saying he wasn't lying, and is just stupid?
 
aps said:
Oh, you're assuming that his misrepresentation was intentional. LOL Okay.
Click to expand...

Look at what he said vs. the truth. It was either intentional or with reckless disregard. (Which is what I said originally; go back and look.) Either way it amounts to the same thing. He's a celebrated Constitutional Law professor, editor of the Harvard Law Review, etc. He knows how to read a case. He knows the difference. So either he did it intentionally, or he simply didn't care enough to check. Which would mean, of course, he's commenting on a case he hasn't read.

Either way, if you're going to get soooooo (bafflingly) bothered by Alito for simply, quietly mouthing "not true," you'd think such a display on Obama's part might upset you, too. But I guess not.
 
Harshaw said:
This is what Obama said:



Besides the "century of law" canard, he makes it sound like the decision was affirmatively that foreign corporations were protected, when what actually happened was that an overbroad restriction on corporations was struck down. They specifically said they didn't reach any question on foreign contributions.
Click to expand...

I will give you the 100 years part since I find no actual references to anything over 20 years old. However, isn't it that since they didn't touch the foreign contribution part, it is why it left open the possibility?
 
Ideally Obama shouldn't have disrespected the Supreme Court, but since he did Alito should have tried to keep his decorum as a Justice. The other Justices seemed uncomfortable too, but the supreme court should have high standards.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I will give you the 100 years part since I find no actual references to anything over 20 years old. However, isn't it that since they didn't touch the foreign contribution part, it is why it left open the possibility?
Click to expand...

I don't follow.

Sec 441e (not struck down) prohibits foreign nationals and foreign corporations from making contributions or expenditures.

As for the idea that domestic corporations could be under control of foreign interests, etc., that's specifically still something Congress can address; this decision doesn't prevent that.

But even without that, existing FEC regulations (not struck down) prevent a nominally-domestic foreign-owned entity from participating. 11 CFR 110.20(i):

Participation by foreign nationals in
decisions involving election-related activities.
A foreign national shall not direct,
dictate, control, or directly or indirectly
participate in the decision-making
process of any person, such as a
corporation, labor organization, political
committee, or political organization
with regard to such person’s Federal
or non-Federal election-related activities,
such as decisions concerning
the making of contributions, donations,
expenditures, or disbursements
in connection with elections for any
Federal, State, or local office or decisions
concerning the administration of
a political committee.
Click to expand...

EDIT: link: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/janqtr/pdf/11cfr110.20.pdf
 
Last edited:
Anarcho-fascist said:
Ideally Obama shouldn't have disrespected the Supreme Court, but since he did Alito should have tried to keep his decorum as a Justice. The other Justices seemed uncomfortable too, but the supreme court should have high standards.
Click to expand...

Ginsburg fell asleep during the speech. How's THAT not disrespectful?
 
Harshaw said:
Ginsburg fell asleep during the speech. How's THAT not disrespectful?
Click to expand...

Considering her health problems and the meds she is most likely on, I am willing to give her a pass. Actually, as long as you don't disrupt, I could care less what you do in the audience.
 
Redress said:
Considering her health problems and the meds she is most likely on, I am willing to give her a pass. Actually, as long as you don't disrupt, I could care less what you do in the audience.
Click to expand...

Just making the comparison. Alito didn't disrupt anything, except maybe aps's day.
 
Harshaw said:
Just making the comparison. Alito didn't disrupt anything, except maybe aps's day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I said that earlier. I did not see anything he did during the speech that I can find room to complain about.
 
Harshaw said:
Just making the comparison. Alito didn't disrupt anything, except maybe aps's day.
Click to expand...

No. He didn't disrupt anything.

Gloves come off after Obama rips Supreme Court ruling - CNN.com

Justice openly disagrees with Obama in speech - White House- msnbc.com

Achenblog - Justice Alito mouths not true

I love what this guy said:

It could be argued that a president should not publicly challenge the legitimacy of a Supreme Court decision, especially with the justices sitting in the audience. A president is a politician with opinions about political matters, but he generally should foster respect for court decisions.

But it can equally be argued that Justice Alito needs to acquire some adult impulse control. Is Justice Alito so personally insecure that he couldn't just let the court's written opinion stand for itself? The court has its own forum for presenting opinions, and it's not at the State of the Union address.

Justice Alito needs better impulse control | Midwest Voices
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that Boehner and Cantor behaved similarly and I haven't seen much, if any, footage about that. Oh, that's right, they're politicians. Supreme Court Justices are NOT.
 
aps said:
No. He didn't disrupt anything.

Gloves come off after Obama rips Supreme Court ruling - CNN.com

Justice openly disagrees with Obama in speech - White House- msnbc.com

Achenblog - Justice Alito mouths not true
Click to expand...

What's new here? What did he disrupt? If it hadn't been caught on camera, would anyone know it happened, including anyone sitting behind or in front of him (and most people to either side, for that matter)? No. I'd hardly call that a "disruption."

Why this is such a big deal to you is beyond me. :roll:
 
aps said:
No. He didn't disrupt anything.

Gloves come off after Obama rips Supreme Court ruling - CNN.com

Justice openly disagrees with Obama in speech - White House- msnbc.com

Achenblog - Justice Alito mouths not true

What's interesting is that Boehner and Cantor behaved similarly and I haven't seen much, if any, footage about that. Oh, that's right, they're politicians. Supreme Court Justices are NOT.
Click to expand...

Well let's look at this "disruption" again:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzP_s-Ynr0M&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Justice Alito Says "Not True" During State Of The Union[/ame]

MY GOD what an emotional disruption, why it brought the whole speech to a grinding halt, errrr oh yeah no it did not. Was not even known about until an editor went back through the speech video and caught the massive and loud "disruption" afterward. Links to pundits calling what we see above an emotional outburst/disruption does not negate what actually occurred. Now they are filling the 24/7 news cycle with fodder and writing blogs, but what can be your possible motivation for acting so at odds with reality here? Beyond partisan ideology?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Sotomayor didn't even notice. Yeah, break out the tazers, that guy was off the hizzle.
 
Harshaw said:
What's new here? What did he disrupt? If it hadn't been caught on camera, would anyone know it happened, including anyone sitting behind or in front of him (and most people to either side, for that matter)? No. I'd hardly call that a "disruption."

Why this is such a big deal to you is beyond me. :roll:
Click to expand...

When Obama speaks, you are only allowed to cheer or listen intently. I'm going to go ahead and be the first to say that Alito's "disruption" was probably because he has inherent racist tendencies. Do you think he would have been so rude and obnoxious with a white president?
 
RightinNYC said:
This type of crap is beneath you.
Click to expand...

I have to say, that I certainly resent this sort of insinuation. You have known me for what, 5 years now? You should know my character by now, and know what kind of person I am. This "crap" is beneath me, indeed!



harrumph! *nothing* is beneath me
 
Harshaw said:
Sotomayor didn't even notice. Yeah, break out the tazers, that guy was off the hizzle.
Click to expand...
Dont-Taze-Me-Bro.png


WI Crippler said:
When Obama speaks, you are only allowed to cheer or listen intently. I'm going to go ahead and be the first to say that Alito's "disruption" was probably because he has inherent racist tendencies. Do you think he would have been so rude and obnoxious with a white president?
Click to expand...
You know you are right, I'm already seeing those kind of comments pop up, thankfully not here at DP. Not yet at least.;)
 
Frankly, such a blatant lie by our President, I'm surpised most of the SCOUTS didn't rush the podium and pummel Obama into ground meat. It's one thing to stretch the truth or spin, but such an outright lie at a State of the Union address with the SCOTUS sitting right in front of Obama - and Obama supposedly being a Constitutional Professor at Hahvahd... not only was the action by Obama one of the biggest lies ever... but done in front of millions is unfortunately par for the course with this President.

You see his MO is... spend trillions then afterwards, hold a speech about fiscal responsibility. Sign a bill for 800 billion with 9,000 pork laden ear marks and then call on Congress for less pork and the posting of ear marks on the web. The American Indians used to call that a "forked tongue".
 
aps said:
No. He didn't disrupt anything.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that what you posted was partially in essence what I've been saying, that its ridiculous to just criticize Alito when it could be equally said that Obama did wrong too, your article is a bit off

It could be argued that a president should not publicly challenge the legitimacy of a Supreme Court decision, especially with the justices sitting in the audience. A president is a politician with opinions about political matters, but he generally should foster respect for court decisions.

But it can equally be argued that Justice Alito needs to acquire some adult impulse control. Is Justice Alito so personally insecure that he couldn't just let the court's written opinion stand for itself? The court has its own forum for presenting opinions, and it's not at the State of the Union address.
Click to expand...

Alito didn't use it as a forum for presenting opinions. He didn't get up on a mic. He didn't stand up and state it out loud. He did not wave his arms going "look at me, look at me". He had a quick instant reaction while in the crowd of a speech. That's not trying to use it as a "forum" to present his opinion, that's reacting to something.

Should he have reacted that way? Not really. But it was no more classless, no more uncalled for, no more unacceptable than Obama's OWN breach of decorum and class that spurred it
 
If the president could make an attack in his speech, Alito could disagree with that comment in his speech.

I'm not saying I agree with Alito, but freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
 
aps said:
Yikes. If Alito mouthed that, he has a complete lack of decorum. Shame on HIM--not Obama.
Click to expand...
Obama shouldn't have made the comment in the first place.
 
Vader said:
Alito is a servant of the right. Naturally, he's going to support the decisions of his fellow right wing activists.
Click to expand...
There you go turning the thread partisan as a shill for the left. I don't suppose you have any real opinion about what Obama said?
 
Zyphlin said:
You're kidding right. You continue to slam him for being "classless" while continuing to ignore that Obama broke decorum and ettiquite as well, doing something that hasn't been done since Ford so you're talking, what, at least 32 SOTU's? And on top of that the swipe he took that broke decorum was arguably a lie.

But you have NO negative words for Obama, NO words speaking of his behavior, his "classlessness".

But you have an issue with a person sitting in the audiance talking to someone during a speech privately that happened to be caught on camera speaking his displeasure?

You've never attended an event that you've commented on the speech quietly, privately, to a person you're attending it with before?

If this was like the recent one and he jumped up and said "You Lie!" I'd agree with you, just as I agreed then. But he didn't, he didn't make a big spectacle, he made a small private comment that got caught on camera.

Yet he's classless and worthy of all codemnation while you completely ignore Obama.

With all that said, Alito has to be aware of the world we live in now a days. If you want to comment lean over to the person and cover your mouth because we live in the digital age and every movement of the eyes, lips, or hands is going to be disected in a thing like this.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything but this. Justices are never videotaped as a matter of there jobs. Only occasionally outside the court which is rare, so he is not use to being watched. BTW, you know damn well a camera crew was specifically looking for a reaction, just like they did with the JCS.
 
Harshaw said:
Ginsburg fell asleep during the speech. How's THAT not disrespectful?
Click to expand...
Well so did Reid and Napolitano, they've heard all that bull**** before a million times. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom