Rat bastard who sold out America....

[techs]

won't show his face at the next State of the Union.

http://www.kspr.com/sns-ap-alito-stateoftheunion,0,3537958.story
Alito to sit out next State of the Union address

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito plans to boycott the next State of the Union address.

I guess the Rat Bastard who sold out America doesn't dare show his face after he's responsible for:
http://www.alternet.org/news/148427...ompanies_chipping_in_to_destroy_our_democracy

October 7, 2010 |

This week, an investigation by the ThinkProgress revealed that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- once just a conservative-leaning business group that’s been transformed into a heavy political cudgel for the corporate Right under the leadership of president Thomas Donohue -- has been raising money from overseas companies to defeat American candidates.

That’s a violation of the law, but according to the report, “while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls,” money “is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts … the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.”

In recent years, the Chamber has become very aggressive with its fundraising, opening offices abroad and helping to found foreign chapters (known as Business Councils or “AmChams&#8221. While many of these foreign operations include American businesses with interests overseas, the Chamber has also spearheaded an effort to raise money from foreign corporations, including ones controlled by foreign governments. These foreign members of the Chamber send money either directly to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the foreign members fund their local Chamber, which in turn, transfers dues payments back to the Chamber’s H Street office in Washington DC.

 

[Lemon law]

I certainly agree that Alito has been dishonest and a sad and sorry excuse for a SCOTUS member. But like Scalia and Thomas, we are stuck with him unless grounds for impeachment can be found.

But nothing wrong with documenting his mis-deeds meanwhile.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually if you read into it you will see that there isn't a requirement that every justice be there, so his boycott isn't illegal.

I'd also suggest that no matter what Obama thought of the SCOTUS he was a complete dick to use the State of the Union speech to attack them. When did he get voted king?

I suggest this. If he gets re-elected then at the swearing in ceremony the SCOTUS has the local justice of the peace do it. Pick a real loser too. If Obama doesn't like it, then up to one third of him can boycott it.

 

[techs]

wireless mouse battery died.

 

[Jaskalas]

But nothing wrong with documenting his mis-deeds meanwhile.

It's already well documented that Liberals hate Conservatives. Your petty excuses mean nothing but a good old circle of patting each other on the back.

The President verbally attacked the SCOTUS last year and now you go ape over the proper response to the insult.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think this decision will turn out to be every bit as important as the Dred Scott decision.

Corporate lawyers are already lined upt to assert the new definition of a corporation as a person.

Interestingly, in Alito's rush to provide funding to the Republican Party, he opened a HUGE can of worms.

I guarantee you there are progressive district attorneys out there right now getting ready to indict corporations for, say, manslaughter.

Here's an example. Say you make cars. Info starts coming in that the brakes are failing. If you wait even a day before announcing it and contacting the car owners, you could be indicted for reckless endangerment. The problem however, turns out to be rare, and most people can easily work around it. So you don't recall every car. And one person dies. That's manslaughter.

Most criminal laws apply to "persons" which why corporations up to now don't go to jail. However, now that the Supreme Court is saying corporations are persons, they should be covered under the law.

I wonder who would go to jail? The CEO? Board of Directors? Every person?

Of course it won't come to this. It would mean the end of corporations. No, corporations would have be legally protected against criminal laws.

And that's the probable end result. Imagine corporations immune from criminal prosecution. It boggles the mind.

Don't you even know what thread you are posting in? This is the "Alito isn't going to listen to Obama's diatribe" one.

 

[ProfJohn]

1. Liberal justice John Paul Stevens stopped going to the State of the Union address a few years ago too.

2. The ThinkProgress story turned out to be nothing but Hot Air and Obama had to backtrack from his BS allegations.

 

[techs]

Actually if you read into it you will see that there isn't a requirement that every justice be there, so his boycott isn't illegal.

I'd also suggest that no matter what Obama thought of the SCOTUS he was a complete dick to use the State of the Union speech to attack them. When did he get voted king?

I suggest this. If he gets re-elected then at the swearing in ceremony the SCOTUS has the local justice of the peace do it. Pick a real loser too. If Obama doesn't like it, then up to one third of him can boycott it.

Begin sarcasm/

Yeah, imagine the President of the United States talking about a fundamental change to the state of the union at the State of the Union speech? How dare he! Isn't he supposed to point out people in the gallery who did cool things like knit sweaters for the troops?
My God. It would be as rude as the President mentioning the Dred Scott decision in 1856. After all, what could that possibly have to do with the State of the Union?

/End sarcasm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's already well documented that Liberals hate Conservatives. Your petty excuses mean nothing but a good old circle of patting each other on the back.

The President verbally attacked the SCOTUS last year and now you go ape over the proper response to the insult.

I don't look at it that way. I see it is the "government is the ultimate authority and should be respected on its own no matter what, that is unless if they disagree with me" philosophy.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think this decision will turn out to be every bit as important as the Dred Scott decision.

You going to ban private funding of campaigns or simply restore things to what they were?

 

[techs]

Don't you even know what thread you are posting in? This is the "Alito isn't going to listen to Obama's diatribe" one.

Wireless mouse battery died. Wacky hilarity ensued during posting.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think this decision will turn out to be every bit as important as the Dred Scott decision.

Corporate lawyers are already lined upt to assert the new definition of a corporation as a person.

New as in 1819????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward
or
1886?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Begin sarcasm/

Yeah, imagine the President of the United States talking about a fundamental change to the state of the union at the State of the Union speech? How dare he! Isn't he supposed to point out people in the gallery who did cool things like knit sweaters for the troops?
My God. It would be as rude as the President mentioning the Dred Scott decision in 1856. After all, what could that possibly have to do with the State of the Union?

/End sarcasm

He went right for them while they were sitting there. Would you like the Chief Justice raking Obama over the coals during the swearing in? You'd be livid, and you would be right.

The President of the United States isn't the frigging king. If he doesn't have respect for his peers then he should STFU until the mandated speech is over. That was not the time or place.

I take it you would be ok with a drunk JOP swearing in Obama?

 

[techs]

Begin sarcasm/

Yeah, imagine the President of the United States talking about a fundamental change to the state of the union at the State of the Union speech? How dare he! Isn't he supposed to point out people in the gallery who did cool things like knit sweaters for the troops?
My God. It would be as rude as the President mentioning the Dred Scott decision in 1856. After all, what could that possibly have to do with the State of the Union?

/End sarcasm

He went right for them while they were sitting there. Would you like the Chief Justice raking Obama over the coals during the swearing in? You'd be livid, and you would be right.

The President of the United States isn't the frigging king. If he doesn't have respect for his peers then he should STFU until the mandated speech is over. That was not the time or place.

I take it you would be ok with a drunk JOP swearing in Obama?

And I guess FDR shouldn't have talked about the threats to America because that might have upset those America Firsters who were stopping America from arming to meet the threats.

The whole thing was an issue because of Alito. If he had just sat there while the President of the United States carried out his Constitutional duty to report he State of the Union as he saw it, there wouldn't be a problem.
It was Alito, who shook his head in disagreement that was the story.
And perhaps the real story is Alito who is a judge sticking his nose into the business of the Executive and the Legislative, where it didn't belong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And I guess FDR shouldn't have talked about the threats to America because that might have upset those America Firsters who were stopping America from arming to meet the threats.

The whole thing was an issue because of Alito. If he had just sat there while the President of the United States carried out his Constitutional duty to report he State of the Union as he saw it, there wouldn't be a problem.
It was Alito, who shook his head in disagreement that was the story.
And perhaps the real story is Alito who is a judge sticking his nose into the business of the Executive and the Legislative, where it didn't belong.

What the hell? The President calls out the SCOTUS and it's Alito who who shook his head which is the problem? Was it that he didn't swear fealty to Obama which is the problem? Do you not realize that he is co-equal and a peer of Obama?

Sticking his nose in the business of the Executive and Legislative? What the hell do you think the purpose of the SCOTUS is? To rubber stamp everything? It is most certainly not. While there have been many decisions I have disliked I realize that under the Constitution it isn't merely their right but their mandate to "stick their nose" in.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent Hayabus, in post #6 of this thread, address important questions.

Because many of the recent SCOTUS decisions, are, IMHO, extremely bad precedents that can only lead to long time disaster cans of worms. And not just the corporate questions but also money being free speech. So either we facew the end of democracy or the decision must be over turned.

But then again, someone has to be the reviled in history judge of the Salem witch trials and other evil court decisions. Its Alito's big chance to be featured in various law text books as an example of a prime idiot. But will his fame be diluted by fellow judges like Scalia, who, IMHO is even worse?

But its is very possible, if any one four Justices in Scalia, Thomas, Alitio, or Roberts are replaced by Obama appointees, many recent SCOTUS rulings will be over turned.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One of the things which I really disliked about the Republicans during the Bush administration was this pervasive sentiment that dissent was unpatriotic. If you disagreed with Iraq, you were supporting terrorism. Not everyone of course, but enough people broadcast this message that it was one of things which defined their mindset.

Now I have something which defines many Dems.

The whole thing was an issue because of Alito. If he had just sat there while the President of the United States carried out his Constitutional duty to report he State of the Union as he saw it, there wouldn't be a problem.

If Alito had just sat there during the STOU and rolled over while the Democrat in Chief went after the SCOTUS things would have been fine. But no, Alito had the AUDACITY to shake his head! He should be worshiping this man, but no, he disrespected the All Wise.


That defines the Democrats today. We who disapproved of the Reps were unpatriotic. Whose who question the Dems simply don't know their place. Their superior intellect and morality give them the Divine Right of Kings.

It is in fact their hubris and conviction of their correctness that allows them any indiscretion or insult and HOW DARE ANYONE who says otherwise.

We've replaced false patriots with those suffering from delusions of godhood.

 

[Lemon law]

It seems to me that Republicans and Democrats are equally partisan and ideological.

The difference is in the use of the filibuster which the GOP now uses at world record rates to demand a tyranny of the minority.

 

[Patranus]

 

[Craig234]

It seems to me that Republicans and Democrats are equally partisan and ideological.

On what planet?

 

[Craig234]

One of the things which I really disliked about the Republicans during the Bush administration was this pervasive sentiment that dissent was unpatriotic. If you disagreed with Iraq, you were supporting terrorism. Not everyone of course, but enough people broadcast this message that it was one of things which defined their mindset.

Now I have something which defines many Dems.



If Alito had just sat there during the STOU and rolled over while the Democrat in Chief went after the SCOTUS things would have been fine. But no, Alito had the AUDACITY to shake his head! He should be worshiping this man, but no, he disrespected the All Wise.


That defines the Democrats today. We who disapproved of the Reps were unpatriotic. Whose who question the Dems simply don't know their place. Their superior intellect and morality give them the Divine Right of Kings.

It is in fact their hubris and conviction of their correctness that allows them any indiscretion or insult and HOW DARE ANYONE who says otherwise.

We've replaced false patriots with those suffering from delusions of godhood.

If you had any idea of the history of how the Supreme Court behaves at the SOTU, you would have a better idea what you're talking about and not post these errors.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you had any idea of the history of how the Supreme Court behaves at the SOTU, you would have a better idea what you're talking about and not post these errors.

I know that there is a two swords lengths wide aisle in the House of Commons. I don't expect them to have the need for that today. Likewise I expect those who serve in government today to behave themselves now.