January 27, 2010
— DrewM Nutroot Nirvana alert!
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Expect calls for Alito's impeachment to begin no later than tomorrow morning (if they haven't already).
It's a natural reaction to Obama's bullshit but it's a breech of etiquette and Alito will likely apologize either privately or in public.
I swiped the better video from The Corner so I'll give you this link there to see why Obama is either a liar or stupid.
[Update-PA] The NYT is saying Obama lied too.
Posted by: DrewM at
06:55 PM
| Comments (500)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Maureen Dowd at January 27, 2010 06:57 PM (CfmlF)
Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at January 27, 2010 06:57 PM (8hzOX)
Posted by: jjshaka at January 27, 2010 06:57 PM (3rSzP)
Posted by: kal at January 27, 2010 06:57 PM (Nj2lo)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 06:58 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Bill D. Cat at January 27, 2010 06:58 PM (a9UO0)
Posted by: Glengarry Glenross at January 27, 2010 06:58 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: grognard at January 27, 2010 06:59 PM (+Eq0n)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 06:59 PM (i/gRH)
Fuck you, Obama. Fuck you with a rusty gaffe hook.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 27, 2010 07:00 PM (n2wxa)
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 27, 2010 07:00 PM (9zzk+)
Libs can whine all they want but they don't have an inch of dirt to stand on.
Posted by: Lou at January 27, 2010 07:00 PM (PtIpn)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:01 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Mystery Meat at January 27, 2010 07:01 PM (9AJat)
Posted by: MrCaniac at January 27, 2010 07:01 PM (Vol3D)
Posted by: jaihawkk at January 27, 2010 07:01 PM (pE0Gr)
Live blog sucked ass...I went over to Mediaite...and it rocked...they had a bunch of media people...interesting to get their take..
..Breitbart was slinging a bit of shit too
Comments sucked here...there are some funny fucking commenters here.,,but the co-bloggers decided they were the belles of the ball...and from what I saw, very few others got through
Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2010 07:01 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: GarandFan at January 27, 2010 07:03 PM (ZQBnQ)
god, i hope you are joking...
Posted by: lifeisdeath at January 27, 2010 07:03 PM (PStxx)
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 07:03 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: red speck at January 27, 2010 07:04 PM (/vfpn)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:05 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 27, 2010 07:05 PM (mnCO0)
Posted by: Mystery Meat at January 27, 2010 11:01 PM (9AJat)
What are you? Retarded?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 07:05 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: torabora at January 27, 2010 07:05 PM (CH5ak)
Part of the reason it is so utterly classless for Obama to behave the way he is is that whomever he attacks has no recourse. What does Alito do to combat the President lying about him and running him down on national TV in the well of the House?
Posted by: AmishDude at January 27, 2010 07:05 PM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Uncle Jefe at January 27, 2010 07:06 PM (CMPXK)
Posted by: railwriter at January 27, 2010 07:06 PM (daRzV)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:06 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Ben at January 27, 2010 07:06 PM (bftbi)
Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at January 27, 2010 07:07 PM (OZJ/1)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:07 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: Locus Ceruleus at January 27, 2010 07:08 PM (tzcjs)
Posted by: Girl Thursday at January 27, 2010 07:08 PM (pYeXI)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:08 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:09 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: koopy at January 27, 2010 07:09 PM (XllG0)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:09 PM (+Hbe7)
Agreed! Alito has nothing to apologize for. He had to sit there and listen to some clueless douche insult him? Barry's lucky he didn't throw a shoe at him.
Posted by: Peaches at January 27, 2010 07:09 PM (9Wv2j)
Sounds too rational to ever happen.
Posted by: Doc at January 27, 2010 07:09 PM (rzJpR)
Posted by: Chapeau du Tinfoil at January 27, 2010 07:10 PM (4yTzf)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:10 PM (wgLRl)
If speaking the truth is impeachable, we are fucked.
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 07:10 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:10 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: qwerty1 at January 27, 2010 07:11 PM (9a/a3)
Posted by: Alex at January 27, 2010 07:11 PM (wFWt7)
Posted by: Dummy at January 27, 2010 07:11 PM (DMjs5)
RE : Alito is correct. Obama was lying. But SC justices should be impartial in public. Will Alito's lapse mean he will have to recuse himself from further cases that come before the court on this issue
That's BS..All justices give interviews with their opinions. Barry dissed them and got what he deserved
Posted by: David at January 27, 2010 07:12 PM (ihhMS)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:12 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:12 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:12 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: Peaches at January 27, 2010 07:12 PM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: torabora at January 27, 2010 07:12 PM (CH5ak)
Why do they need to be impartial regarding matters on which they have already ruled?
The breech of etiquette was committed by that fucking pussy president who can't accept defeat in anything without throwing a fucking temper tantrum. "First class temperament" my ass.
You know who is owed an apology? The fucking 47% of us who voted against this fucking trainee incompetent Marxist POS.
Posted by: Miss Fluffy McNutter at January 27, 2010 07:13 PM (xMSXs)
Posted by: ray at January 27, 2010 07:13 PM (orbdz)
I remembered he was a worthless piece of shit tonight.
Posted by: Dummy at January 27, 2010 07:13 PM (DMjs5)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:13 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: jmflynny at January 27, 2010 07:13 PM (h3A41)
Posted by: toby928 at January 27, 2010 07:13 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 07:14 PM (MXP2z)
Posted by: Lawrence at January 27, 2010 07:14 PM (/zO0A)
Posted by: Frankie Pierce at January 27, 2010 07:14 PM (+Hbe7)
Oh for the record, I'm Italian too, for all you moronettes curious to know. ;-D
Posted by: Lincoln Adams at January 27, 2010 07:14 PM (UqJ8A)
So your mom takes it in the ass then her snatch. What about ass to mouth? Or is the poon a rest stop?
Posted by: Dummy at January 27, 2010 07:15 PM (DMjs5)
Posted by: GarandFan at January 27, 2010 07:15 PM (ZQBnQ)
Posted by: w at January 27, 2010 07:15 PM (iwMRb)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at January 27, 2010 07:16 PM (z5ajL)
Posted by: retire05 at January 27, 2010 07:16 PM (Uv8YD)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:16 PM (+Hbe7)
Hey Sludge, stop embarrassing yourself! It's fucking pathetic.
Posted by: conscious and disgusted at January 27, 2010 07:16 PM (Vu6sl)
Posted by: The Q at January 27, 2010 07:17 PM (pfStM)
Posted by: Dummy at January 27, 2010 07:17 PM (DMjs5)
If President Obama can not understand what this says, I would have to say he is illiterate.
Posted by: qwerty1 at January 27, 2010 07:17 PM (9a/a3)
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 07:17 PM (MXP2z)
Posted by: Peaches at January 27, 2010 07:17 PM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 07:18 PM (muUqs)
Posted by: Tom in Korea at January 27, 2010 07:18 PM (nS7nk)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 07:19 PM (muUqs)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:19 PM (+Hbe7)
If the Dems can applaud when the jug eared lying sack of shit lies, Alito can mouth the words "not true."
Posted by: real joe at January 27, 2010 07:20 PM (WjerO)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 07:20 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2010 07:21 PM (QECjC)
From Bradley A. Smith:
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC,
"open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign
corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't
think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most
powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
The president's statement is false.
The
Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate
political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign
nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are
prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather
thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local
election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the
case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e,
from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any
political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure,
independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication... ."
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 07:21 PM (0fzsA)
BTW I don't think anything like that has ever happened at a SOTU speech. What amazing new lows we hit with the child king.
Posted by: Alex at January 27, 2010 07:21 PM (wFWt7)
Posted by: Agnostica at January 27, 2010 07:21 PM (gbCNS)
Posted by: lauren at January 27, 2010 07:22 PM (U/LZ2)
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2010 07:22 PM (QECjC)
the fucking delicate donkey dicks will demand his head.
How dare a man speak the truth to dear leader. Even tho dear leader is a lying asshole.
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 07:22 PM (0fzsA)
Forgive my ignorance...
But why were the justices there in the first place? To here the SOTU? Is this normal to have all three branches (or minus the House) sitting in the same room at an appointed hour? Seems like a hell of a juicy target for someone who doesn't like us and has the planning & grapes to try something.
Also, are there similar times in past SOTU speeches speeches when a president takes a big, stinky, muddy, one on someone in that very room with him? The standing ovation seemed a bit over the top too.
Posted by: Jasonius at January 27, 2010 07:22 PM (JrJmg)
With a pea-brained preening jackass like Obama, I expect it's both.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 07:22 PM (MXP2z)
Ginsburg slept through it.
Posted by: toby928 at January 27, 2010 07:23 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:23 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: flicks vapo-rub at January 27, 2010 07:23 PM (k6Tcc)
At the time of the scream, Dean had already lost the caucuses, but when the scream happened, it immediately took the aura from Dean and there was no longer any pretending that he had a chance.
The aura is gone. Thou art mortal, Barack. Thou art mortal.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 27, 2010 07:24 PM (T0NGe)
Glad Bush appointed him, too.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby, consort of Hades at January 27, 2010 07:24 PM (zmiSr)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 07:25 PM (muUqs)
Posted by: Peaches at January 27, 2010 07:25 PM (9Wv2j)
Think of all those landmark cases Obama was a part of. Like....
Posted by: Tom in Korea at January 27, 2010 07:25 PM (nS7nk)
Posted by: Judge Alito at January 27, 2010 07:25 PM (B5cM9)
Even Juan “Butt Kisser” Williams said that it was inappropriate of Obama to scold the Supreme Court, with congressional members cheering and clapping the scolding–that it could be seen as intimidating another branch of government.
And thatÂ’s the first time I agreed with Juan.
Posted by: enoxo at January 27, 2010 07:25 PM (vlzzF)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 07:26 PM (wgLRl)
Isn't falsely insulting people who came to make an appearance at your speech a breech of etiquette?
Oh, and rampant lying?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 27, 2010 07:26 PM (bgcml)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:27 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:27 PM (i/gRH)
Whaaaa....? Ofuckwit can stand up there and criticize the Supremes, the top of a co-equal branch of government, and the judges just have to sit there and take it?
As Juan Williams said, it looked like Teh WOn was trying to intimidate them.
From where I sit I wish the five who sided with Citizens United should have stood up, turned around, lifted their robes, and mooned the sumbitch.
As someone observed, "The problem with Barack isn't that he's half-black, it's that he's half man."
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 07:27 PM (lQRmV)
Yeah Mess with the SCOTUS. Bring it on
They have an Ace card that Obama is scared shitlless about
Lets just say it sounds like Constitution and "Birth Certificate", but mostly "Birth Certificate".
And they still have 5 good votes.
Posted by: Cromagnum at January 27, 2010 07:27 PM (rRlh2)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 07:27 PM (muUqs)
Posted by: GarandFan at January 27, 2010 11:03 PM (ZQBnQ)
Hey, I know every one of the 57 Amendments - do you big guy?
Posted by: Barack "The Scholar" Obama at January 27, 2010 07:28 PM (bgcml)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 11:18 PM (Rx5UA)
You wanna come say that to my fuckin face, sticchio?
Posted by: Paulie Fuckin Walnuts at January 27, 2010 07:28 PM (IoUF1)
Posted by: The God That Failed at January 27, 2010 07:28 PM (gbCNS)
Posted by: Headline You're Unlikely to See in the Times at January 27, 2010 07:28 PM (MXP2z)
Breach of etiquette? Seriously, wtf?? I wouldn't even fault C-3PO for getting up and walking out on him.
The only apology owed is from the guy who slung shit into the SCOTUS pit.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2010 07:29 PM (U37Ux)
Posted by: cheshirecat at January 27, 2010 07:29 PM (hmb/r)
Barry stepped in shit on this.
I don't even like SCOTUS and he got my back up with that third world dictator shit.
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 07:29 PM (dQdrY)
Regular Americans were horrified.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 07:29 PM (p302b)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 07:29 PM (kDVYc)
Payback will be a bitch. Next time one of Holder's lackeys is arguing some case with dubious merits, that poor SOB is going to get raked over the coals.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:30 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 27, 2010 07:30 PM (r1h5M)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 27, 2010 07:30 PM (i3PJU)
Posted by: Unhand that woman, ruffian knockers! at January 27, 2010 07:30 PM (eKgqT)
Posted by: merkin at January 27, 2010 07:31 PM (H64yz)
For a second there, I forgot that Sam Alito was black, until I went to RCP.
Then, I forgot Chris Matthews was black.
Posted by: Chris Matthews at January 27, 2010 07:31 PM (pfStM)
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 27, 2010 07:31 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:32 PM (i/gRH)
With an MSM with even a pretense to objectivity, it's just as much of a problem for Obama. Every time it comes up it SHOULD be pointed out that fucking lying pinhead Obama was fucking lying when he made the unprecedented choice to call out the SC in a SOTU.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 07:32 PM (MXP2z)
Posted by: Alex at January 27, 2010 07:32 PM (wFWt7)
Posted by: The Original at January 27, 2010 07:32 PM (clDFl)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:33 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 07:33 PM (muUqs)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 07:33 PM (CPefM)
Didn't Zelaya's problems in Honduras start with their equivalent of the Supremos?
"In a 5-3 decision today (Ginsburg abstaining from her coma), the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that Barack Obama is ineligible for the office of President. He requested asylum in Havana. Hillary Clinton declared that she was in command, here, in the White House. We're all cool with that."
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 27, 2010 07:34 PM (DPM1U)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 27, 2010 07:35 PM (DIYmd)
Posted by: moi at January 27, 2010 07:35 PM (ucsZh)
Good thing too. Sit on the bank of the river long enough, and the bodies of all your enemies will float by.
Posted by: toby928 at January 27, 2010 07:35 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: vivi at January 27, 2010 07:36 PM (knNJg)
Posted by: Inverse Agonist at January 27, 2010 07:36 PM (GpQZ/)
You say this as a concerned Christian, right?
First off, joker, it's CANON not cannon. Second, fuck you.
Posted by: Iskandar at January 27, 2010 07:36 PM (/o58C)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:36 PM (IoFoQ)
155, you're wrong. If what you say were true, then why would Breyer be on C-Span talking about his (in)famous invoking of foreign law to decide cases?
Or what about Harry Blackmun's orgies of self-justification over Roe v.Wade?
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 07:37 PM (lQRmV)
Posted by: Cack Finger at January 27, 2010 07:37 PM (TUBcJ)
Does it make you sad that your messiah is false, poon? Are you sad that he's a miserable fucking failure? Are you crying into your pillow over the fact that we eveil rethuglicans are going to have 65+ seats in the Senate and 400+ in the House by 2013? How do like the sound of "Madame President Sarah Palin", poon? All your dreams will be shattered and you will cry yourself to sleep every night after your shift at the glory hole. We will order you to get your fuckin shinebox and you will comply, poon.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b+/tard at January 27, 2010 07:37 PM (IoUF1)
It was an unusual speech, not what they are accustomed to and it has a lot of folks a little upset to say the least.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 07:38 PM (p302b)
Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at January 27, 2010 07:39 PM (OZJ/1)
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 07:39 PM (lQRmV)
Posted by: jmflynny at January 27, 2010 07:39 PM (h3A41)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 07:39 PM (CPefM)
Well you choking on cock hasn't stopped you from giving blow jobs, has it?
Posted by: Mystery's Dad at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (DMjs5)
Obama should resign.
Posted by: pam at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (h8R9p)
Good luck with that "cannon of ethics," but methinks you imagine an ethics problem where none exists.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (wgLRl)
I don't think this will really sit well even with the liberal members of a co-equal branch of government with lifetime appointments. It'll be interesting to see how their next few decisions go in relation to what the WH wants.
Is "smudge" a nice way of saying "shitstain".
Posted by: gebrauchshund at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (ZTGFz)
If the Wise Latina is Dora, that makes Obama Swiper (I'm exposed to Dora at least 2 hours a day).
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (DPM1U)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: toby928 at January 27, 2010 07:40 PM (PD1tk)
This guy is a first class pimp. The problem for him is that despite what he thinks, the majority of us Americans don't live in the ghetto of his mind.
Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine
Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine
Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine
Number nine, number nine, number...
Posted by: Leatherneck at January 27, 2010 07:41 PM (40yOy)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 11:38 PM (p302b)
That speech was all sorts of crazy, both in style and content. It was one for the history books. I've never heard such an insane speech, even including Yeltsin at his drunkest.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 07:41 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: The Q at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (pfStM)
If anyone needs to apologize, it's Obama to SCOTUS! Absolutely appalling behavior to vent his frustration over a ruling he didn't agree with in front of millions of Americans on national tv. Sorry...but unforgivable arrogance from O.
Posted by: smartsy at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (pq986)
Over here in the US, the majority of the population opposes the political class we mistakenly appointed back in 2008. Given a poll, Obama and the Congress would score far below the approval rating of Alito.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (DIYmd)
They're paid. For enough money, I lie my ass of to a pollster too.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (IoFoQ)
Obama has no respect for anyone but himself. It's sickening. The COURT RULED, Obama's side lost.
Obama spent 800 MILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLION to get elected.
Unions put in a hundred million more at least.
What the fuck is Obama talking about. His side is using any money it can get it's greasy hands on.
Howsbout we work a deal. We have the recent opinion overturned and Roe V Wade too.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (MaqIC)
"That is the reason judges are supposed to keep a poker face regardless of the issue they are dealing with."
Alioto is not "dealing with" the "Citizens United" case. The case is decided.
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 07:42 PM (lQRmV)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:43 PM (Rx5UA)
I think this should be on every news channel for weeks. Nothing beats having the opportunity to point out that Obama doesn't know his ass from his elbow in the legal realm.
Posted by: toby928 at January 27, 2010 07:43 PM (PD1tk)
Posted by: SlaveDog at January 27, 2010 07:43 PM (W+E+o)
The breach of etiquette was on Obama's part, he was wrong to call them out like that.
Thank you!
Posted by: Truman North at January 27, 2010 07:43 PM (FjC5u)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 07:44 PM (wgLRl)
It's a totally different branch of government. This isn't a fascist state yet, and it's OK to politely shake your head or note that something isn't true. This didn't even look voluntary.
Yeah, standing up and yelling 'you lie' is a breach of etiquette. But this was not that kind of display.
I do not want to live in a country where Alito would have to apologize for this.
The real breach was how Obama lied about the ruling to scare up a bunch of anger and intimidation at future rulings. Obama is the jerk here.
Posted by: Mr Hat at January 27, 2010 07:45 PM (dUOK+)
Posted by: SlaveDog at January 27, 2010 07:45 PM (W+E+o)
Posted by: stuiec at January 27, 2010 07:45 PM (GU29T)
Posted by: Codec717 at January 27, 2010 07:46 PM (DyuqI)
You know, you are pretty much just fucking the chicken?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 07:46 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: Peaches at January 27, 2010 07:46 PM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: Unhand that woman; mtcmtauth=Smudge; mtcmtmail= at January 27, 2010 07:46 PM (eKgqT)
Posted by: real joe at January 27, 2010 07:46 PM (WjerO)
173 Didn't Zelaya's problems in Honduras start with their equivalent of the Supremos?
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie
OMG, you're right. This guy can't decide which "latin" commie dictator he wants more to be like. He is turning us into a banana republic.
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 27, 2010 07:47 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:47 PM (IoFoQ)
What purpose is served by the President criticizing a sitting courts current ruling?
Obama is a fucking child. He is finsihed, people don't believe him anymore.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 07:47 PM (MaqIC)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:48 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: toby928 at January 27, 2010 07:48 PM (PD1tk)
These outbursts in congress are starting to form a haiku.
You lie, that's not true.
A job Saved or created.
Fall will bring much change.
Posted by: Knaws at January 27, 2010 07:48 PM (ej0Vm)
The entire surpreme court should refuse to show up for any more Obama speeches.
And really, Obama should have most of his folks and lots of congress watch from home.
I would love it if they agreed to simply not take part in this crap.
Posted by: Mr Hat at January 27, 2010 07:48 PM (dUOK+)
Posted by: Judge Alito at January 27, 2010 07:48 PM (B5cM9)
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 27, 2010 07:49 PM (x9lGm)
221 What etiquette is it a breach of?
More to the point: since WHEN is a "breach of etiquette" an impeachable offense?
Why isn't Holder, the AG, committing a similar breach of etiquette for standing up and applauding?
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 07:49 PM (lQRmV)
Depends on your opinion of the government.
Posted by: Judge Alito at January 27, 2010 07:49 PM (B5cM9)
Posted by: Cack Finger at January 27, 2010 07:49 PM (TUBcJ)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 07:49 PM (p302b)
Talking about the decision after the fact is not a problem. That is not what I am saying. What you had here was obama saying that the decision was wrong and that he was going to enact legislation to address the decision. That could come before the court again. Showing a predisposed attitude towards that is problematic if it ever happens. Either way, you will see this clip on msnbc etc and it will not look good. I deal with these issues more than I would like and, as a judge and more importantly a Supreme Court Justice, you have to be very careful.
What do you think Thomas, Roberts and Scalia were thining when that bs was dropped? Did you see them react?
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: A Conservative Teacher at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (IZIUp)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (muUqs)
Obama screwed the pooch. What will happen, now, if one of the more conservative justices has a misfortune?
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: rockhead at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (RykTt)
Posted by: Agnostica at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (gbCNS)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (DIYmd)
Come on, Drudge; you are not Perez Hilton, and your service is not all about Teh Starz.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:50 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 11:43 PM (Rx5UA)
LOL. Pompous? Elitist? That's fuckin rich coming from a leftard.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b+/tard at January 27, 2010 07:51 PM (IoUF1)
Indeed -- it lowers the collective IQ of the potted palms in the lobby.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 07:51 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: Peaches at January 27, 2010 07:52 PM (9Wv2j)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 07:52 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 07:52 PM (Rx5UA)
It's not true because "foreign corporations", the phrase Opinhead used, are not allowed to contribute.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 07:52 PM (MXP2z)
The SOTU / and the STFU
Posted by: Iskandar at January 27, 2010 07:52 PM (/o58C)
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 07:53 PM (dQdrY)
Chris Matthews: I forgot Obama was black tonight for an hour. Those well-spoken, articulate Negroes certainly do impress the white boys, at least, if they've no trace of the dialect, I suppose.
Posted by: andycanuck at January 27, 2010 07:53 PM (2qU2d)
Obama screwed the pooch. What will happen, now, if one of the more conservative justices has a misfortune?
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 11:50 PM (dQdrY)
Hopefully, if it happens it won't be until after November...
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 27, 2010 07:53 PM (mnCO0)
I used to tell my junior NCOs that whenever someone prefaced a comment to them by saying "with all due respect..." that they should prepare to be disrespected.
Prefacing his bullshit remark by saying "with all due deference to the separation of powers" is the same disingenuous crap.
As the President of the United States and a former professor of constitutional law, Obammer should be setting The Example of etiquette, not ignoring it.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 27, 2010 07:54 PM (U37Ux)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 07:54 PM (AZGON)
except if you accidentally disable something with your online contributions so that anyone in the world can contribute.
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 07:54 PM (p302b)
As an independent, I can tell you this will only to drive more Independents away from the raving Chavez-wannabe.
People think Independents are lefties, they are in fact pretty conservative when it comes to all issues, however they are are moderate/centerists when it comes to social issues, they don't want someone elses social view imposed on them via policy.
As for this smack-down of another equal branch of govt. More independents will flee, I say this as an Independent voter myself, they are not lefties, and they loathe Bullies. And Obama is a bully.
I know for me November cannot come fast enough, I am scared to expand my business, I have no idea what lunancy is next in line to come out of DC.
As a former democrat, I am campaigning against every democrat, these people are lunatics.
Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 27, 2010 07:55 PM (ACkhT)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 07:55 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Concerned Conservative Legal Scholar at January 27, 2010 07:56 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: Unhand that woman, ruffian knockers! at January 27, 2010 07:56 PM (eKgqT)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 07:56 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: smudge
whats your addy? stuffing you in a dumpster full of hospital waste would make my night cocksucker.
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 27, 2010 07:57 PM (x9lGm)
President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC,
"open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign
corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't
think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most
powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
The president's statement is false.
Posted by: pam at January 27, 2010 07:57 PM (h8R9p)
Posted by: SlaveDog at January 27, 2010 11:45 PM (W+E+o)
Evidently, the lefties have discovered the super secret rules of etiquette for "speaking to your neighbor while others are clapping" circumstance. It's called, the "speechified Macaca" rule. It comes from the traditions of a parliament on a little island nation, deep in the Pacific ...
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 07:58 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: Salem at January 27, 2010 07:59 PM (86rbG)
Look, the Dems are going to exploit this and blow it up and make a huge deal out of it, because they don't have anything else to stand on. They are frauds.
so - here it comes. The media outcry!
Posted by: Pre Paid Sex Monster at January 27, 2010 07:59 PM (0fzsA)
Why so cranky?
What's the matter?
Lost your butt plug, AGAIN!
Posted by: YIKES! at January 27, 2010 07:59 PM (jrlj0)
Posted by: texette at January 27, 2010 07:59 PM (0Xq+M)
Pam, Obama is not a capable man. His biggest flaw amongst dozens, is that he thinks he is BRIGHT. He is not, But more to the point, the JUGEARED DIMWIT DOESN'T KNOW, WHAT HE DOESN'T KNOW.
And he doesn't care.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 08:00 PM (MaqIC)
The Global Test told us that Kerry was going to rule America as a province of the UN. Here, the attack on the Supreme Court is telling us that Obama thinks he's Caesar.
(Complete with Their Imperial Majesties Pelosi and Michelle O in purple...)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:00 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 27, 2010 08:00 PM (DIYmd)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 08:00 PM (p302b)
I agree; anybody that uses snide phrases like that tends to be mealy-mouthed human garbage, which I believe was borne out tonight.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 27, 2010 08:01 PM (mnCO0)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 11:56 PM (kDVYc)
I'm sorry. Should we join you and wring our hands over this nontroversy?
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 08:01 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: TheJane at January 27, 2010 08:02 PM (FFDEd)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 08:02 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:03 PM (+Hbe7)
187- Fuck you 'old shitty bastard'.Your Conservative liberal prick Alito Barry is just a pompous,elitist asshole.Like the rest of you.
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 11:43 PM (Rx5UA)
Those are exactly the words I saw Alito mouth.
Posted by: Agnostica at January 27, 2010 08:03 PM (gbCNS)
He spoke without the conch!
Posted by: Waterhouse
LMAO! Thanks, I needed that!
285 Ginsburg is a MILF.
Posted by: RickS
You too, lol!
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 27, 2010 08:04 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 08:04 PM (i/gRH)
Holy crap, are you saying Michelle is the more sane of the two? Sadly, you're probably right.
Posted by: GregInSeattle at January 27, 2010 08:04 PM (B5cM9)
MO did not seem so happy with BO tonight. Maybe she fought against this kind of speech and didn't win. Maybe she was right to fight.
Posted by: curious at January 28, 2010 12:00 AM (p302b)
What she means by fighting is using her Klingon bat'leth.
Posted by: YIKES! at January 27, 2010 08:05 PM (jrlj0)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 11:52 PM (Rx5UA)
Actually, he was going to have them pick you up and bring you here to HQ to give us all blumpkins. And bring yer fuckin shinebox cuz the moronettes want their stompy boots polished.
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b+/tard at January 27, 2010 08:06 PM (IoUF1)
As I said originally, I agree with the thought. The problem is the verbalization of that thought - especially in the legal context as a Justice of the SC. It is too bad although it may never become an issue that has any impact.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 08:06 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: mystry at January 27, 2010 08:06 PM (kmgIE)
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 08:08 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: dayers' cannon of ethics at January 27, 2010 08:08 PM (+Hbe7)
Why so cranky?
What's the matter?
Lost your butt plug, AGAIN!
I wish he used a butt plug. Believe me.
Posted by: smudge's gerbil at January 27, 2010 08:08 PM (2qU2d)
Posted by: ac at January 27, 2010 08:08 PM (A51gv)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at January 27, 2010 08:08 PM (z5ajL)
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 27, 2010 08:09 PM (x9lGm)
Please.
Feeling unfulfilled, smudge? Barry can't get it up? Electorally impotent?
Fails at getting his poll number up?
Can't raise the support for his agenda?
And now, pathetic little fluffers like yourself are out and about trying to inflate him?
Sad little man.
Posted by: Warthog at January 27, 2010 08:09 PM (9ZI+G)
>Howard Zinn dead.
Lets hope he stays that way.
If someone could come back alive just to change history it would be Zinn....
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:09 PM (AAJaO)
Posted by: Barry O at January 27, 2010 08:09 PM (xVKXy)
"with all due deference to the Separation of Powers"
Is translated as his typical BULLSHIT.
He is not in anyway deferential. He isn't capable and he is so in over his head that he has no RESPECT for the Separation of Powers.
It's always ALL about him.
The Total Fuck-up. Opie should be a REALITY SHOW on "the Cables"
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 08:09 PM (MaqIC)
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:10 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 08:11 PM (CPefM)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 08:12 PM (i/gRH)
I imagine they're rebooting their system and power cycling their cable interface box so they can get a new IP lease. I'm just saying...
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 08:12 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: ac at January 27, 2010 08:12 PM (A51gv)
It's becoming more and more obvious to me that Obama's not power mad. He wants one thing, and one thing only.
Attention
From the "lipstick on a pig" to giving Hillary the finger, to calling out the SCotUS, his juvenile antics are solely to draw attention to himself.
Posted by: Looking Glass at January 27, 2010 08:13 PM (pS1b2)
I was playing out with my band tonight. I heard the first 2 minutes while driving and then I HAD TO turn it off. He makes me puke.
I'm watching it on TIVO now. The guy is a CHEAP CON MAN.
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 08:13 PM (MaqIC)
>It's a totally different branch of government
Exactly! One that is suppose to be equal to the President's & Congress stature as they check the President's & Congress' power from time to time. Here you had a President scolding another branch while Congress actively cheered. It is the height of disrespect. Alito is not subservient to Obama. As a Supreme Court Justice, he deserves equal respect as the president, especially in matters where he has had to check the power of the other branches.
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:14 PM (AAJaO)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 08:15 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 08:15 PM (CPefM)
Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2010 08:15 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Ellie Light's twin sister from Sunnydale at January 27, 2010 08:15 PM (Xsi7M)
Huh? He wasn't responding to a comment on a pending case. Oshithead said the ruling (i.e. the case is DONE) would allow "foreign corporations" to donate to US political campaigns. That is wrong. It's false. It's a lie. And that LIE should be pointed out as such, not applauded vigorously like the entire dumbass crapweasel Dem Congress did.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 08:15 PM (MXP2z)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 27, 2010 08:16 PM (554T5)
Posted by: Uncle Jed at January 27, 2010 08:17 PM (eKgqT)
Posted by: Ed Morrissey at January 27, 2010 08:18 PM (dcKUM)
Posted by: Andrew *BOING* Sullivan at January 27, 2010 08:18 PM (jQnbr)
Posted by: darii at January 28, 2010 12:16 AM (RdrW
Pinky finger wasn't in the air.
Posted by: YIKES! at January 27, 2010 08:19 PM (jrlj0)
268, you are correct.
243, you are clueless.
Alito's reaction betrays nothing new about his opinion in the Citizen's case, as he is only responding to an untrue assertion by Ofuckwit. There's no prejudice in doing that. You've already been schooled that there's no prejudice betrayed in Justice's discussing decided cases.
If anyone thinks it a trivial task to get Congress to write legislation to "get around" a Supreme Court decision made on constitutional grounds , especially one regarding the First Amendment, you're kidding yourselves.
It would be entertaining to see Ofuckwit push legislation that would allow unions to benefit from the Citizens decision, while freezing corporations out.
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 08:19 PM (lQRmV)
288 - not wringing my hands but look at your cable - this is all over and being commented upon - that, ultimately, is not good.
307 - fuck you - cocksucker.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 08:19 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 08:19 PM (CPefM)
And I'm not sure how much the opinions of Stevens and Ginsberg will matter in the long term... they can't be long for the place. Sorry, but it's true.
I'm wondering mostly about Breyer. He's generally considered a nonpartisan liberal. Will he hold a grudge?
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:19 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 08:20 PM (i/gRH)
If the Wise Latina is Dora, that makes Obama Swiper (I'm exposed to Dora at least 2 hours a day).
Swiper, no swiping!
Posted by: Scott Brown at January 27, 2010 08:20 PM (9ZI+G)
Got to dip "My Balls In It"
Uploading to the tube now...
Stay tuned
Posted by: Mjim at January 27, 2010 08:20 PM (mMdWG)
Temple of Mut has The I-ME-MY count of SOTUÂ…...
152 personal references by Barack Hussein Obama tonight. It really is all about him, isn't it?
http://templeofmut.wordpress.com/ 2010/01/28/the-i-me-my-count-of-sotu/
Posted by: Looking Glass at January 27, 2010 08:21 PM (pS1b2)
Posted by: sunny black at January 27, 2010 08:21 PM (lFhqf)
> Ginsberg
I was listening to an interview with Scalia. He said that Ginsberg was his best friend on th court. I wonder what in hell those two actually find common ground on?
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:21 PM (AAJaO)
In the end, Joe Wilson was vindicated because the legislation got changed to exclude illegals.
I think we get Sam's back by showing, as mentioned above, that O took all the controls off of his dontation buttons and was proud of his foreign supporters. Classic projection.
That decision pisses them off because they know that it dilutes the power of their special interests.
Posted by: California Red at January 27, 2010 08:21 PM (YuB/f)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 11:40 PM (kDVYc)
Thanks, Clarence Darrow for that analysis of a Judge sitting as a guest of Congress and being lied to his face.
He's not in court, dumbass. He could scratch his nuts if he wanted to.
Posted by: Ed Morrissey at January 27, 2010 08:22 PM (dcKUM)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 08:22 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: Agnostica at January 27, 2010 08:23 PM (gbCNS)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 08:23 PM (A46hP)
Any time resistance to the Obama madness is documented and seen, more will understand their patriotic duty to reject him and all that he stands for. So it's not good for you, but great for America.
Posted by: Methos at January 27, 2010 08:23 PM (Xsi7M)
It is good, if it's pointed out that Odumbass LIED.
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 08:23 PM (MXP2z)
That, and they're both ideologues.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:23 PM (+Hbe7)
The trolls here are just trying to change the subject from the Kenyan's bold-faced lie, to Alito's (completely made up) "breach".
This is what trolls for Obama do.....excuse him as being an Affirmative Action President who cannot be held accountable for his lies.
Posted by: pam at January 27, 2010 08:24 PM (h8R9p)
"Geez, we get a concern troll (dayers) and a generic dipshit troll (smudge) almost on cue."
Don't forget the Moby (Guest)
Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at January 27, 2010 08:24 PM (ucq49)
Is Biden the MOST STUPID MAN ALIVE??
He could do commercials for some Mexican beer.
STAY STUPID MY FRIENDS!!
Posted by: gus at January 27, 2010 08:24 PM (MaqIC)
Ben Smith of Politico posts the reason why: the President got the "vintage" reference wrong, plus the exact law, and Alito was correcting him.
"Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”
The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election."
Fortunately, it was Alito correcting Obama. Can you imagine if it had been Scalia? I envision a hearty hand pump to the bicep, and VA FANCUL!
Posted by: Victoria at January 27, 2010 08:24 PM (3sdjL)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 11:50 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: fozzy at January 27, 2010 08:26 PM (ccEuN)
Posted by: Jean at January 27, 2010 08:26 PM (CPefM)
(c.f. beer summit)
Posted by: Waterhouse at January 27, 2010 08:27 PM (MXP2z)
lying bastard, heal thyself.
Posted by: redc1c4 at January 27, 2010 08:27 PM (d1FhN)
Just because you assert it repeatedly doesn't make it true. And, could it be possible that the commentary that you are referencing is simply partisan hackery?
Just for fun, what are the big bad things that are going to befall Alito now? Be specific and show your work.
Posted by: Iskandar at January 27, 2010 08:29 PM (/o58C)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 08:30 PM (i/gRH)
"The cannon of ethics for a judge prohibits even the appearance of predisposition or lack of impartiality. That is now of record. "
To say NO to a incorrect factual assertion is a "predisposition or lack of impartiality"?
You got a citation for that, dayers, you ass-clown "of record"? An ass-clown who does not know the difference between a canon and a cannon?
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 08:30 PM (lQRmV)
It is good. I hope everyone talks about this.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 08:31 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 08:33 PM (wgLRl)
Question -- These judges weren't sitting there still-faced and stone cold throughout the entire speech.
How would one make the case that Alito shaking his head and saying "not true" is more a demonstration of impartiality than all the times every judge smiled, stood up, or clapped during this speech?
Posted by: AD at January 27, 2010 08:33 PM (yNSM/)
Oh dear sorry for OT again.
Andrew Breibart must have some inside information on James OÂ’Keefe affair but is playing it close to the vest.
Sounds like some people are going to be made into fools.
Posted by: YIKES! at January 27, 2010 08:34 PM (jrlj0)
everybody see Chrissy Tingles say he didn't even notice that Barry was black tonight? And the nutroots are going to push a little facial gesture of refute.
Posted by: California Red at January 27, 2010 08:35 PM (YuB/f)
Under no circumstances apologize. Apologies mean transgressors (Obama) will never stop.
Posted by: Horatius at January 27, 2010 08:35 PM (Wcygp)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 27, 2010 08:35 PM (554T5)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at January 27, 2010 08:36 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at January 27, 2010 08:36 PM (z5ajL)
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 08:37 PM (lQRmV)
>That, and they're both ideologues.
So are Ann Coulter & Franken, but I don't see them doing lunch. They are ideologues on either side of the spectrum. I didn't realize Gins was against the legalization of drugs. I would have thought the opposite for her.
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:37 PM (AAJaO)
Posted by: qwerty1 at January 27, 2010 08:37 PM (9a/a3)
If Alito says "It's raining" during a thunderstorm, is that a breach of ethics? I do believe the Judges are allowed to side with truth, even if Obama doesn't, and if it isn't audible it doesn't count.
How long until Obama suggests packing the court ala FDR?
Posted by: Randy at January 27, 2010 08:37 PM (GtTYq)
I really do hope he's right.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:37 PM (+Hbe7)
Stolen from instapundit who stole from Randy Barrett a proffessor a Georgetown Law Center.
In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.
Posted by: robtr at January 27, 2010 08:38 PM (fwSHf)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at January 27, 2010 08:38 PM (mMdWG)
>Ginsberg is also a close friend of Condoleeza Rice.
That alone mixed with the fact that she stated that she though Roe v. Wade was based on bad Constitutional law made me change my opinion somewhat of her. I still don't agree with 99% of here decisions, but I will atleast read them.
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:39 PM (AAJaO)
That is all. Go have another beer or whatever it is you all are drinking.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 08:39 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: qwerty1 at January 28, 2010 12:37 AM (9a/a3)
Thanks for the laugh- I needed it.
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:41 PM (AAJaO)
How long until Obama suggests packing the court ala FDR?
the aspiring intellectuals over at huffington and du have already been pushing just that.
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 27, 2010 08:42 PM (x9lGm)
"not wringing my hands but look at your cable - this is all over and being commented upon - that, ultimately, is not good. "
I take it, sirrah, that your anatomy does not include certain appendages to be dipped in cool puddings when triumphing over your enemies, driving them before you and causing the lamentations of their women?
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 08:43 PM (lQRmV)
Posted by: Charlie Gibson at January 27, 2010 08:44 PM (pfStM)
Posted by: pst314 at January 27, 2010 08:45 PM (XP0Bd)
Posted by: TonyRezko at January 27, 2010 08:45 PM (ktYKi)
That said, it does not look good for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to react in the manner he did on camera - especially because of the way it is being portrayed in the media
he could have been sitting there watching porn on his iphone. don't try to hard to pretend you're not a commie douchebag...like we give a fuck what the "msm" media portrays as civil or respectful. now i don't want you to take this the wrong way but take a step back and punch yourself in the dick.
Posted by: evil libertarian at January 27, 2010 08:48 PM (x9lGm)
Wow, "grease ball wop" (sorry, late to the party here)...I'm soooo hurt, I think I want to cry. It's so hurtful when the non-racist lefties haul off and talk smack about my dad's people. My mindheart (or whatever) is so broken now -- really, it put me in my place.
Come back later when you've grown a pair amateur. I'm sure that many paesans, including Alito, have been called worse by better. Might want to rethink that pc holy bullcrap you on the left like to spew -- seems it only counts when you're wanting to be preaching deacons -- what a freaking joke.
Posted by: unknown jane at January 27, 2010 08:48 PM (5/yRG)
Dayer: Go have another beer chicken or whatever it is you are drinking fucking.
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 08:48 PM (lQRmV)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 27, 2010 08:49 PM (554T5)
Posted by: eman
I cannot wait for tomorrow's press pool firing squad of Tapper and Garrett on the gonzo.
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 27, 2010 08:49 PM (GkYyh)
Even normal folks whose brains haven't been warped from studying law, know this was all kinds of bullshit.
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 08:49 PM (dQdrY)
Posted by: eman
I cannot wait for tomorrow's press pool firing squad of Tapper and Garrett on the gonzo.
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 28, 2010 12:49 AM (GkYyh)
I didn't think anyone could be worse than Scott McClellan, but Gibbs takes the cake..
Posted by: Angie1228 at January 27, 2010 08:51 PM (AAJaO)
As for Obama, he was just the Combine's bitch.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:51 PM (+Hbe7)
With the NYT now saying Obama lied this could become ugly ball dippingly awsome.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 08:52 PM (IoFoQ)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 27, 2010 08:53 PM (wgLRl)
The man has some mad vodoun skillz.
Posted by: Zimriel at January 27, 2010 08:55 PM (+Hbe7)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 08:55 PM (i/gRH)
I'd go with the parallel universes and alien-tech defense.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2010 08:57 PM (IoFoQ)
Harvard Law should hang its head in shame. They turn out some real retards.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 08:57 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 27, 2010 08:59 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: Guest at January 27, 2010 09:00 PM (ITzbJ)
Oh come on. Harvard Law just thought they were pushing out another govt. functionary.
Who could have guessed America would elect a cardboard cutout.
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 09:00 PM (dQdrY)
And, seriously, check out the "ohhhhhh, shit" look on the blond gal's face, at the end of the aisle.
Posted by: Angie at January 27, 2010 09:01 PM (5pHVo)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 27, 2010 09:01 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: FB at January 27, 2010 09:04 PM (TWPRg)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 09:04 PM (p302b)
Wow. I am most definitely not a concern troll. I stand corrected. I agree with Greenhouse on the snippet you posted.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 09:04 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 28, 2010 01:01 AM (5/yRG)
What?
Posted by: Joe Biden, in the on deck circle at January 27, 2010 09:05 PM (wgLRl)
Posted by: unknown jane at January 27, 2010 09:07 PM (5/yRG)
Posted by: Daisy at January 27, 2010 09:07 PM (T0ga9)
Posted by: mystry at January 27, 2010 09:07 PM (kmgIE)
Posted by: eman at January 27, 2010 09:09 PM (i/gRH)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at January 27, 2010 09:12 PM (xIqkW)
So it does not look good for a Supreme Ct Justice to tell the truth to the American public?
What about how it looks for the President of the United States to lie before millions?
Wow, you libtards are certainly proving you are not worthy citizens of this country.
Posted by: pam at January 27, 2010 09:13 PM (h8R9p)
Posted by: California Red at January 27, 2010 09:13 PM (YuB/f)
Obama didn't just complain that he didn't agree with Kennedy, he insulted the man's professionalism and love of democracy. About enforcing our most basic civil right.
When Obama fucks up foriegn affairs, we can't laugh. It's going to kill good folks. When he fucks up the economy, we can't laugh, it's going to keep food off the table somewhere.
When he fucks up his relationship with the judiciary, we can laugh. The only effect of this is good.
Posted by: Mr Hat at January 27, 2010 09:15 PM (dUOK+)
It's interesting that this is forming a trend. What will he get called out on next year?
Posted by: Mr Hat at January 27, 2010 09:17 PM (dUOK+)
As "full on crazy is not good" goes, these people are some of the fukkin craziest!
My gods! Are they really deaf to their own voices? I can't wait to hear Limbaugh tear into all this shit tomorrow.
Posted by: Drillanwr at January 27, 2010 09:17 PM (GkYyh)
Posted by: Mr Hat at January 28, 2010 01:17 AM (dUOK+)
He just thought he was hot shit and called a special joint session of Congress to mumble lies and idiotic musings about health care. He'll probably call another joint session this year ... just brcause he can, and he thinks it's neat.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at January 27, 2010 09:19 PM (A46hP)
Posted by: mystry at January 27, 2010 09:22 PM (kmgIE)
"With the NYT now saying Obama lied this could become ugly ball dippingly awsome."
Did they say he lied, or just that he was wrong?
There's a huge difference, and intellectually honest people know what it is.
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 09:24 PM (lQRmV)
Posted by: Guest at January 27, 2010 09:24 PM (ITzbJ)
In my mind it is a breach of etiquette for obama. But, the rules of judicial conduct do not apply to those other than judges which obama is not. Unprecedented - no.
Pam - the politicians lie all the time. I don't think there is any doubt about that. For a judge though, the oath is different. I am cynical for sure but hope that judges uphold their oaths.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 09:26 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: curious at January 27, 2010 09:34 PM (p302b)
Posted by: smudge at January 27, 2010 11:02 PM (Rx5UA)
I know smudge. Smudge is a conservative friend of mine, and that was not smudge.
Posted by: Loyd Bentsen at January 27, 2010 09:41 PM (ITzbJ)
Posted by: LexisTexas at January 27, 2010 09:41 PM (Vt8uv)
Oshithead said the ruling (i.e. the case is DONE) would allow "foreign corporations" to donate to US political campaigns. That is wrong. It's false. It's a lie.
Correct. It is false, and Zero knew it was false, which makes it a lie. From National Review Online -
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from making “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.
Posted by: joejm65 at January 27, 2010 09:47 PM (O3dMD)
And we know who breached their oath tonight.
Posted by: pam at January 27, 2010 09:47 PM (h8R9p)
Posted by: joejm65 at January 27, 2010 09:49 PM (O3dMD)
The president is a politician and there is no oath for him to tell the truth - if there is, I have missed it. With a judge, there is an absolute requirement to remain impartial and to be candid which is as it should be. I believe that a judge should honor that oath - faithfully and to a fault.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 09:57 PM (kDVYc)
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 09:59 PM (dQdrY)
"Howard Zinn sucked."
I should know, but I don't. I think I took his history class as a sophmore at BU, but I never went. Which is worse: to really suck or to be ignored?
Posted by: joejm65 at January 27, 2010 09:59 PM (O3dMD)
Eman also nails it. Which is it Bury? 'I misunderstood (my supposed area of expertise) or I just lied to the American people because it's what I do.' Yes, msm, please, I'm beggin ya, let's discuss this breach f etiquette ad nauseam in order to distract from this disjointed steamer of a SOTU address.
Posted by: doc at January 27, 2010 10:03 PM (eTPhl)
Posted by: LexisTexas at January 27, 2010 10:03 PM (Vt8uv)
"It is false, and Zero knew it was false, which makes it a lie. "
Can we just cut the shit here?
You don't get to assert as a fact that someone else knew something to be false, just because YOU knew it to be false.
That idiot Holder may well have incorrectly briefed Obama on the case.
Obama, himself an idiot ideologue, may have believed him.
But that's not a "lie".
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you got nuthin'.
Drew's flaky posting has set up a lot of other flaky assertions. It's not a great night for AceofSpadesHQ.
Posted by: effinayright at January 27, 2010 10:04 PM (lQRmV)
Politics - nothing more - despite what judges are supposed to be, all too often they aren't. At the SC level it is based on who is in power at the time the nominee is presented - at least in large part. That is not necessarily so at the state level.
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 10:05 PM (kDVYc)
So true dayers!; it is like I have told the puta Ginsberg, "who is power now, eh! So, you can get the fresh pillow cases yourself now, ha!"
Gracias, liberal Gilipollas!
Posted by: Sotomayor at January 27, 2010 10:12 PM (Vt8uv)
The faux narrative being spun tonight is useless in the face of the facts we just witnessed.
Posted by: pam at January 27, 2010 10:20 PM (h8R9p)
So Sotomayor's lack of impartiality just gets a hand wave?
If a lib does the fake concern with me about Alito, I'll just tell them to stuff Sotomayor up their ass.
Posted by: Rodent Freikorps at January 27, 2010 10:26 PM (dQdrY)
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
BO was baiting the entire court (even the libs, since the justices tend to stick together when any one of them is called out)
I kinda felt bad for Ginsberg, there. She looked so old and decrepit. I wish she would retire, not to get her off the bench (she's liberal, but hellofa lot smarter than consuela), but just so she can rest a bit.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 27, 2010 10:27 PM (i8s5X)
Posted by: dayers at January 27, 2010 10:36 PM (kDVYc)
Can we just cut the shit here?You don't get to assert as a fact that someone else knew something to be false, just because YOU knew it to be false.
FU. The guy is a constitutional lawyer, and he managed to raise hundreds of million dollars during his campaign without getting taken to the shed for breaking campaign finance laws. He understood the rules, just as he understands the 'new rules'. He trashed the SCOTUS because the KOS/Huffpo nutjobs were all standing on a ledge because of this ruling, so he threw them a bone. Phoney populism. As Bradley A. Smith at NRO wrote about this issue - "This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind." I'm going with #2, demogoguery of the worst kind. If he could speak so forcefully about 100 years of campaign law precedent, then surely he understood - like the rest of the freaking country (minus Kos/Huffpo types) - that foreign corporations were covered under a different law. He lied. Again.
Posted by: joejm65 at January 27, 2010 10:48 PM (O3dMD)
Morning all. I really, really want to see Obamas marks from Harvard law School. I`ll bet that that the brilliant intellect is nothing of the sort. Hmm, maybe those russian hackers (if they were russian) can help out
In any event Dr. Utopia shouldn`t talk about foreign financed political campaigns as most of the money he raised through the net (visa, mc, prepaids) came in when they took they security checks off the merchant software and the verification centre(s). Up to then the name and address had to match the card information on file and way too many were rejected. After they removed the security the money flooded in.
Well, with any kind of luck next year Reid and Pelosi will be replaced with Americans.
Posted by: scr_north at January 27, 2010 11:18 PM (JrBBw)
Posted by: googo at January 27, 2010 11:39 PM (yf9T4)
10 Fuck. Etiquette. This sort of blatant lying should not be respected by etiquette. PERIOD. If that fucker behind the podium doesn't have enough respect to deal honestly with people, he doesn't warrant respect in kind. We need more people calling this bastard out.
I'm with you. Didn't Obama break etiquette first? Is Alito not allowed to move is lips for the entire hour or something?
Screw it. If they're not going to play by the rules (and they never DO), why should anyone else? If Alito apologizes, I am gointo be very disappointed.
Posted by: designczar at January 27, 2010 11:46 PM (9rKtX)
466 Obama is correct in this case.
FWIW, ABC News and oter fact checkers have determined that Obama lied. Alito is right.
Posted by: designczar at January 27, 2010 11:47 PM (9rKtX)
I guess almost dead threads are as good a place as any to practice trolling.
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 28, 2010 01:18 AM (wgLRl)
Posted by: Barack Obama at January 28, 2010 02:24 AM (nS7nk)
Posted by: any two bit lawyer knows at January 28, 2010 03:01 AM (Vc/xe)
SCOTUS doesn't legislate, skippy. They read the Constitution and apply. That's it.
Posted by: any two bit lawyer knows at January 28, 2010 03:04 AM (Vc/xe)
So much for posing as a "Constitutional Scholar", B+rry dhimmwit.
Posted by: maverick muse at January 28, 2010 03:09 AM (+CLh/)
Didn't you notice he sounded high pitched and insecure like a boy who doesn't know if the other kids will accept what he's saying?
Posted by: Christoph at January 28, 2010 03:36 AM (0fq7b)
Watching this snippet, it astonished me yet again that Obama is praised as a spellbinding orator. His staccato delivery continually undercuts any build to a climax; he sounds like he's trying to sound thoughtful, when in fact it sounds like he's groping for words. At the same time, he constantly emphasizes the wrong word, and his sentences, rather than climaxing, trail off into a semi-mumble. He sounds like he doesn't believe what he's saying.
If Ronald Reagan, a truly gifted orator, were to have delivered that portion of Obama's speech, he would have made it many times more effective. It would still be bullshit, of course, but it would be effective bullshit. Obama sounds he doesn't believe what he's saying
Posted by: Brown Line at January 28, 2010 04:12 AM (mKkXl)
What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not get?
I suppose it depends on what the definition of "no" is, right?
Posted by: GMan at January 28, 2010 04:19 AM (sxq57)
Posted by: curious at January 28, 2010 04:21 AM (p302b)
Posted by: curious at January 28, 2010 04:26 AM (p302b)
Posted by: curious at January 28, 2010 04:29 AM (p302b)
it's a breech of etiquette and Alito will likely apologize either privately or in public.
Absolutely not! How is it a breech of etiquette? Why is it okay to stand and applaud and cheer but not the opposite? Since when does etiquette over-ride the truth? And it's not a breech of etiquette for the Prsident to berate the SCOTUS during a SOTU? Alito didn't shout it or even really say it loudly, no one would know about it except for the fact someone spotted it on the tape. Alito owes no apology and I sincerely hope he doesn't. You're definitely wrong on this one.
Posted by: Deanna at January 28, 2010 04:33 AM (qxH/X)
Posted by: Mindy at January 28, 2010 04:33 AM (UnVsw)
Posted by: RM at January 28, 2010 04:35 AM (1kwr2)
Posted by: WTF at January 28, 2010 04:36 AM (x5t4/)
Under no set of circumstances did the supreme court change any law that would allow foreign governments access to our elections. We of course know that Obama took plenty of foreign money, that Sorors is his puppeteer, and that he has reformed his entire foreign policy to make the "world" like him.
What a huge enormous lie. It would have been fine with me for Scalia to jump up and say "you lie".
In fact there should be a new law passed today that says that the President cannot give a prime time speech to the sheeple where he tells blantant lies.
This is at least the second time. Does he believe this shit or does he just think we will believe it?
Posted by: dagny at January 28, 2010 04:39 AM (fTbVd)
Posted by: Joy to the whirled at January 28, 2010 04:52 AM (WVBjj)
The Supremes overturned McCain-Feingold. That was in this last decade. It was unprecedented. So where does Oblather get the other 90 years of "precedent"?
McCain-Feingold muzzled most of business while "freedom of speech" left an exception for the Liberal News Networks aka: the DNC mouthpiece.Oblather doesn't like losing his advantage and will tell any lie to get it back. After all, that strategy worked for the entire campaign.....
Posted by: Just a Cynic.... at January 28, 2010 05:17 AM (v4UYp)
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
I'll pick blithering ignorance of the law as a result of an affirmative action law degree for $500.
Posted by: kansas at January 28, 2010 05:22 AM (Wwi5M)
I think the SCOTUS is out of touch with the average Joe who does not want corporations and foreign entities to sponsor their candidates of choice.
Our representatives should be publicly financed, so they can be accountable to the people, not their benefactors. Posted by: googo
You mean like Obama not taking public financing so he is accountable to his benefactors? And who might those be? Unbelievable.
Posted by: kansas at January 28, 2010 05:26 AM (Wwi5M)
Posted by: Ken at January 28, 2010 05:26 AM (H0wvU)
Posted by: William Teach at January 28, 2010 05:28 AM (7yTel)
Barry better hope the rest of us don't act like him. With his unfavorable rating, aren't we entitled to a do over, despite what the laws say and the courts have ruled?
Posted by: MarkD at January 28, 2010 05:31 AM (nur8S)
It's a natural reaction to Obama's bullshit but it's a breech of etiquette and Alito will likely apologize either privately or in public.
I have to throw the bullshit flag here. He mutters "not true" under his breath to an outrageous lie. I may have said a "breach of etiquitte" if he stood and called out "you are a lying cocksucker" but I would still have supported him because it would have been true. As it is, no foul was done.
This is nothing more than an effort by the press to create a controversy on the supremes and deflect attention to the shitstorm that they know they should be raising over all of the lies that were vomited forth.
Posted by: Vic at January 28, 2010 05:32 AM (QrA9E)
How is this guy's approval rating north of 5%? What does he have to do people... eat a puppy on live television?
Posted by: Voluble at January 28, 2010 05:36 AM (nZNTl)
Posted by: Your Mother/A 12 year-old Boy 2012 at January 28, 2010 06:12 AM (yO8ge)
...a breech of etiquette and Alito will likely apologize either privately or in public.
Breach of etiquette my big fat patootie...and , because I just can't bring myself to write it....what 497 said. Well stated, Vic.
Posted by: marybel at January 28, 2010 06:23 AM (Rb2gx)
I think the SCOTUS is out of touch with the average Joe who does not want corporations and foreign entities to sponsor their candidates of choice.
So what? Their job isn't to bow to the mob, but to rule on the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US, and it says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". Furthermore, they DID NOT rule on the law banning foreign donations, that's a lie cooked up by Obama.
Who received millions from foreign donors during the 2008 campaign.
Our representatives should be publicly financed, so they can be accountable to the people, not their benefactors.
Every penny our representatives take in should be visible to and traceable by the public, so we can see who their "benefactors" are. Public financing is not just a bad idea, it's stupid, offensive, and evil -- you're saying that MY TAX DOLLARS, CONFISCATED FROM ME UNDER THE FORCE OF LAW, should be spent to support candidates who advocate ideas I find disgusting.
May as well just admit you don't care for this whole "freedom" thing and go live somewhere else.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at January 28, 2010 06:25 AM (ZJ/un)
Posted by: Hutch at January 28, 2010 06:37 AM (/TRhV)
While "channeling" Maureen Dowd ... I thought I saw Alito actually "mouth" the words ...
"Not True, Boy!"
Posted by: HondaV65 at January 28, 2010 06:44 AM (8X9tr)
Posted by: Paul L. at January 28, 2010 06:47 AM (zwYBJ)
Our representatives should be publicly financed, so they can be accountable to the people, not their benefactors.
That comment, from the same Boy King who rejected federal financing for his own presidential campaign!!!! Who accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from unions and corporations, foreign and domestic.
Snork!
Posted by: effinayright at January 28, 2010 07:23 AM (lQRmV)
Posted by: effinayright at January 28, 2010 07:25 AM (lQRmV)
After He has already had several of them so far such as his lame Olympics Bib Speech in Copenhagen. That was still more awful that yesterdays SOTU.
Posted by: Gary B at January 28, 2010 09:35 AM (1gWfF)
Posted by: Puncheur at January 28, 2010 10:45 AM (SaUIi)
Posted by: Jake Was Here at January 28, 2010 11:22 AM (HyeCe)
Posted by: Jane-Gucci outlet online at June 13, 2010 10:26 PM (423eZ)
Posted by: manolo blahnik at September 11, 2010 07:11 AM (Ab40F)
Posted by: Crystal at December 11, 2010 09:59 PM (3j/XU)
<a href=http://www.guccioutletstorecheap.net/>gucci outlet </a>
<a href=http://www.guccioutletstorecheap.net/>gucci outlet online </a>
<a href=http://www.guccioutletstorecheap.net/>gucci store online </a>
Posted by: gucci store online at May 18, 2011 12:07 AM (4mm3L)
Posted by: prada sneakers at May 18, 2011 12:10 AM (4mm3L)
Posted by: ray ban sale at June 24, 2011 07:23 PM (IPzcc)
Posted by: Nike air max Shoes at July 03, 2011 07:54 PM (q1dbV)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3409 seconds, 628 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Fucking RICH!
I love it!!!
Posted by: Mortis at January 27, 2010 06:55 PM (hA5JK)