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.