Obama's Stern Rebuke To The Supreme Court

[babylonsister]

:applause:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/obamas_stern_rebuke_to_the_supreme_court.php

Obama's Stern Rebuke To The Supreme Court

The big news from the White House excerpts is that President Obama will directly rebuke the Supreme Court -- to their faces -- by saying that their ruling in Citizens United overturned a "century of precedent" and opened the "floodgates" for money from corporations and unions to pour into politics. He'll also urge Congress to pass a law prohibiting companies with foreign shareholders from contributing to politics. (Drawing the lines here is going to be tough.) Note that the White House is preparing for a Supreme Court vacancy (or two) this summer, so Obama's remarks here have particular salience.

The White House is pointing reporters to Obama's call for Congress to require lobbyists to disclose all their contacts with White House officials and members of Congress.

[Cha]

1. This is going to make

a lot of people happy and others not so much.

Thank you, President Obama!

[scheming daemons]

2. I want to see the look on these 5 traitors' faces when he calls them out

That's worth the whole damn speech.

[babylonsister]

3. I wonder if anyone has the grace to be embarrassed to even have

to be there; I'd think they have to know what to expect, or maybe not?

[glitch]

14. Grace from Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy? Never ever EVER happen.

That model doesn't even carry that feature.

[michreject]

8. Do you really think they care.

They're untouchable and know it.

[cascadiance]

4. I still want actions and not just talk!

Hoping he has some good things he's reporting of bills he's already introduced to congressional leadership on this.

[scheming daemons]

5. Stop it! It's been less than a week since the SCOTUS ruling....

...and SCOTUS rulings are INCREDIBLY hard to overturn.



The expectations that people on DU have are incredibly getting more and more ridiculous!


"It's been 6 days since the SCOTUS ruling! Why hasn't Obama DONE anything yet!!!!111!!!!!"



Pathetic.

[druidity33]

9. we knew this ruling was coming

at some point last year. Alan Grayson knew long enough to write up and submit 4 bills the day after the ruling was announced.

I'm not criticizing Obama here. I'm just saying, people have been expecting this for some time, so calling it "just 6 days!" is a little disingenuous.

:shrug:

[starroute]

15. True -- this was reported as early as last March

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102268208

'Hillary: The Movie' Opens At The Supreme Court
by Nina Totenberg

March 24, 2009

Hillary: The Movie, a slashing critique of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, is taking center stage Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the film's producers are using it to challenge the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. . . .

The Supreme Court has, for decades, upheld this overall scheme, and just six years ago it upheld new and broader restrictions in the McCain-Feingold law. Since then, though, the membership of the court has changed, and with the support of the two new Bush appointees, the court has begun to erode the law's restrictions.

Now this case, involving the Hillary movie, has morphed into a broad attack on McCain-Feingold again. It is also an attack on the notion, first put forth by the Supreme Court more than 100 years ago, that corporate contributions from general treasury funds can be banned.

[babylonsister]

6. You've been paying attention. Why do you expect anything to be

accomplished on this yet? You know the speed that things progress in this gov't. Snail's pace? Come on, you're asking the impossible.

[John1956PA]

7. Our President is to be applauded for criticizing the five to their faces.

The ruling of a week ago is poorly conceived and reasoned. Enterprises, be they corporations, unions, associations, etc., are not individuals, and thus are not guaranteed the same rights which inure to individuals. For instance, corporations do not have the right to receive bankruptcy discharges, whereas individuals (if all the requirements are met) have the right to such discharges. I hope that this turns out to be a defining moment for President Obama.

[timeforpeace]

10. Bull. The country at large doesn't care, and calling out the Supremes won't go down well for a guy

with a 47% approval rating.

[babylonsister]

12. What a "HUgH" surprise you don't like this!

:rofl:

[liquid diamond]

21. All you do is whine. It must suck being miserable all the time.

[ibegurpard]

32. I think the country cares very much that the Supreme Court

just opened the floodgates to even more brazen corporate control of our political process.

[phleshdef]

41. All network polling so far is overwhelmingly contradicting your absurdity.

[donheld]

44. Bullshit

[themaguffin]

47. your comment makes NO sense

[me b zola]

60. You have to wear beer goggles to understand it's posts.

[SunsetDreams]

62. Did anyone ever tell you

you have a great imagination?

:applause:

[wordpix]

64. I thought it was a high point of his speech and it made Alito mouth off & shake head "NOOO!"

That f-ing BushCo Supreme a-hole

[skepticscott]

11. The rebuke doesn't carry much weight

among thinking people unless he can show how it was blatently in violation of the constitution. After all, Brown v Board of Education overturned a long history of precedent too. And why doesn't Obama go further with lobbyists, if he's really serious? Why not report to the American people exactly what was said, done and promised by his staff and by lobbyists every time there is such a meeting? Inquiring minds want to know.

[babylonsister]

13. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia apparently skipping tonight's State of the Union.

Chicken shits. :grr:

http://twitter.com/jonathanhsinger/statuses/8304524574

[saltpoint]

29. Your assessment of their characters is highly applicable on just about

any day of the calendar year and on this evening particularly.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :hi:

[madamesilverspurs]

53. And do we know where

they were cowering?

---

[SnakeEyes]

56. Are SCOTUS justices..

part of the continuation of government plan in the event of catastrophe during a SOTU?

[AngryAmish]

16. John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Another Democratic president standing up to the Supreme Court.

[dancingme]

23. John Roberts?

Justice John Marshall started it all long ago.

[Dinger]

17. That Is Very, Very Cool!

I like it, yes, me, Dinger!:)

[Dinger]

18. K & R # 20!

:)

[Dinger]

19. Oh Christ, He Shamed The felonious 5 In Front OF The World!

BEAUTIFUL!

[malletgirl02]

20. State of the Union

He talked about it on the State of the Union.

[jillan]

22. That got me out of my chair applauding!

[TomCADem]

24. BTW Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Criticized The Court...

...for overturning her opinion upholding campaign finance limits. It is just amazing how far right the Court has gone when a Reagan appointee is rebuking the Court.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. He made some real "ballsy" statements that I've ever heard a POTUS make in awhile

Members of SCOTUS sure didn't look happy when he called them about their recent ruling. The military brass didn't look very happy when he mentioned repealing DADT either but, frankly, I don't think he gave a damn (and neither do I!) :nopity:


GOBAMA!!!!:fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :woohoo:

[rasputin1952]

26. Near as I can figure...that's the first time I've heard of a SOTU...

speech calling out the USSC. Normally, they are excluded from the political aspect. This is different though, the recent ruling was close to be as disastrous as the Dredd Scott Decision.

I found the moment astounding and poignant, as that decision affects all of us.

[harun]

27. That was awesome.

[rasputin1952]

28. It was...and Roberts, et al, had to sit there and take it!

It was a fine moment...:D

[akbacchus_BC]

30. Was Roberts there? Someone said he was not!

[damonm]

31. Oh, he was, all right...n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

33. Thanks, hope his ass burned!

[rasputin1952]

37. I saw him first row, all the way on the left...didn't notice Thomas

though...:shrug:

[akbacchus_BC]

45. Roberts was there, sorry. Unka dick Thomas was absent! Thanks for the response. n/t

[onenote]

35. in 1938 FDR criticized the SCOTUS but a bit more gently and indirectly

[rasputin1952]

39. Well, to me PO sounded like he took a lot from FDR...

he was dynamic, had the right words, right posture, knew when to smile and knew when to be stern. He handed the R's their asses...it was a pleasure to behold...:D

[Robbins]

40. FDR

After I posted that I rememered reading that he did critize them and tried to change the
law so he could appoint more members to the court.Still for the modern age this Is a
first.

[rasputin1952]

48. "Packing" the USSC, I recall reading about that, caused a lot

of consternation. There is nothing in the Constitution that says how many members comprise the Court, so FDR used it as a wedge. He backed off quietly, but the point was certainly made.

The Court at the time was busy calling his reforms Unconstitutional and he fouhgt back the only way he could...:hi:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. Not really *that* indirectly since he tried to appoint more justices to overturn their rulings

[onenote]

49. he didn't call for that in a SOTU Speech as far as I can tell

If you have information showing he did raise it in a SOTU I'd be interested in it. Thanks

BTW: Link to 1936 SOTU:http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/fr32/speeches/su36fdr.htm

Link to 1937 SOTU:http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/fdr-4.html

The '37 speech criticizes the court. Upon re-reading it, I would modify my earlier statement. He was pretty direct in his critique of the court's rulings. (But he didn't propose adding justices to the court for a couple of months).

[SemiCharmedQuark]

54. Ah, you're right of course.

I missed the main point of the thread for the specific post. My apologies.

[onenote]

55. no worries. in fact I've revised my judgment about his 1937 SOTU

I edited my previous post to add a link. FDR actually was more direct in his criticism of the court in 1937 than I remembered.

[saltpoint]

36. Agree. Seconded. Cheered.

:thumbsup:

[Cha]

38. There's a thread around here that says

alito mouthed "not true" when President Obama addressed them with "foreign corporations in our elections".. Big Problem.

"POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision."

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x156865#157156

[rasputin1952]

43. As if Alito has any notion of the truth...

I don't see it as trouble, I see it as a cheap defense of the indefensible...;)

[Cha]

51. Alito pulls a joe wilson..maybe

Congress will reprimand him?:P

[rasputin1952]

52. ...

Neuter would be better...:D

[druidity33]

57. nah...

only if he's threatening to breed.

But take away his money and luxuries, that i'd like to see.


:)

[rasputin1952]

59. I can certainly agree w/that...

:)

[wordpix]

65. he also shook his head when he mouthed off - the truth hurts Bushie's Supreme A-hole, I guess

[Robbins]

34. Remember

This Is the real first time a President has critized the Supreme Court on a ruling.And
he did right In their faces to those who showed up.

[akbacchus_BC]

42. Am so delighted the President called them out. Did you notice how

quickly they left? Sorry ass people who do not have the interests of the American Public at heart!

[BlueIdaho]

50. Kick ass + take names = beautiful thing.

[Jennicut]

58. Alito shook his head and mouthed "this is wrong", screw him.

[DisgustedInMN]

61. A "stern rebuke" is fine..

...but it won't nullify the effects of this slap in the face of democracy.

Make no mistake about it, this is war and it might get bloody before it's over. We have a government that except for a few members, is bought and paid for, on BOTH sides of the aisle. We have the highest court in the land, granting rights that should be reserved for flesh and blood, human citizens. And last but certainly not least, we have a President surrounding by "advisors" from the very corporations he "rails" about.

This "rebuke" might resonate even better, if President Obama hadn't placed a former CEO of Goldman Sachs in control of our Treasury. And don't even get me started on Rahm...

.. makes me want to :puke:

editted because I should proofread BEFORE I post.

[babylonsister]

66. Whaaa. Yea, he should have walked into the audience and

cold-cocked the ones who showed. That darn Obama. :eyes:

[DisgustedInMN]

67. WTF?

:wtf:

I guess I'll need one of those "decoder rings" to sort that out.

[SunsetDreams]

63. That was one of the things of beauty in this speech!

I'm proud of you Mr. President!