RIP USA

[Atticus]

I'm not saying it wasn't a bone-headed mistake. But "flamboyant"? and calling the state of the union a "pure political event" (one that is mandated by the Constitution)?

[Leo]

Alito mouths "not true" responding to Obama's claim in the SOTU that this ruling opens the floodgates for special interests. Did anyone catch this live?

Yeah, ain't the 1st Amendment grand?!

Great, uncomfortable, historical drama.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'm not saying it wasn't a bone-headed mistake. But "flamboyant"? and calling the state of the union a "pure political event" (one that is mandated by the Constitution)?

 

When you're not supposed to be doing anything at all, and you're supposed to be completely non-partisan, anything you do to indicate any partisan affiliation is definitely more flamboyant than not.

 

The event is political insofar as the Constitution mandates the President to address Congress, not SCOTUS, and Congress is a political and partisan body. I know you know that, but how is that not "purely political"?

[calvino]

I disagree with the Court's ruling, but calling Alito out on his head shake and mouthing the words "not true" is ridiculous.

He doesn't agree with what the President said and that's pretty much it. By calling Alito out pretty much negates the whole premise of Obama's speech last night. It is a sideshow because some "pundit" created it.

[Atticus]

When you're not supposed to be doing anything at all, and you're supposed to be completely non-partisan, anything you do to indicate any partisan affiliation is definitely more flamboyant than not.

 

The event is political insofar as the Constitution mandates the President to address Congress, not SCOTUS, and Congress is a political and partisan body. I know you know that, but how is that not "purely political"?

 

I guess I just don't see the issues involved in the case as purely partisan (maybe my zoning in on "political" is misguided--that term can mean a lot of different things to different people). Corporations donate loads of money to both parties. I don't think of any single party as having a stranglehold on free speech as an issue either.

[Leo]

I disagree with the Court's ruling, but calling Alito out on his head shake and mouthing the words "not true" is ridiculous.

He doesn't agree with what the President said and that's pretty much it. By calling Alito out pretty much negates the whole premise of Obama's speech last night. It is a sideshow because some "pundit" created it.

Alito's reaction to being called out by Obama is objectionable for the mere fact that the Supreme Court has to be above politics. Supreme Court decisions should not be influenced by politics. Alito reacting to the address and criticism showed me (again - Bush/Gore) that this particular bench is not above politics and, in fact, the recent decision is completely politically based. Sad.

[calvino]

Alito's reaction to being called out by Obama is objectionable for the mere fact that the Supreme Court has to be above politics. Supreme Court decisions should not be influenced by politics. Alito reacting to the address and criticism showed me (again - Bush/Gore) that this particular bench is not above politics and, in fact, the recent decision is completely politically based. Sad.

 

That may be true, but instead of bickering what Alito did with his head and his lips during the speech we should urge Congress to do the below.

 

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

[MattZ]

The issue here is that you have a Court that garners very little respect in the public as being anything other than a tool for whichever party is in the majority. Too many cases break along idealogical grounds, and Bush v Gore was the pinnacle with, of course, 5 conservatives handing an election to a republican.

 

Notwithstanding the claims that conservatives adhere to an originalist ideology, whereas the liberals adhere to none, all the justices are merely extensions of their political backgrounds. The court's ability to be the final word on a topic degrades over time as the court appears to become more and more of a political. This isn't to say it hasn't always been. Just that it is becoming more apparent. Alito's behavior doesn't help in this regard, and while it's hard for me to get my panties in a bunch over this issue, it certainly doesn't help matters in the long run.

 

EDIT: Ummm, yeah, or what Leo said in 100 fewer words.

[bleedorange]

It isn't true. What's the big deal?

[Good Old Neon]

It isn't true. What's the big deal?

 

And you know this because?

 

I’m not particularly worried about how this decision will affect the immediate future, but ten, twenty years out, and the results could be disastrous.

[jc4prez]

I’m not particularly worried about how this decision will affect the immediate future, but ten, twenty years out, and the results could be disastrous.

 

 

Sorry I'm joining the conversation late, but what makes you think this won't have an effect next election?

[NightOfJoy]

This came over the wire earlier today........AP and Reuters reported that Honeywell just registered to vote as an Independant before picking up some steaks and a salad for dinner.

[Good Old Neon]

Sorry I'm joining the conversation late, but what makes you think this won't have an effect next election?

 

As someone has already pointed out, in the short term, this decision may result in extra scrutiny being paid to corporate donations and influence, etc – sort of like the atmosphere following 9/11 – it would have been extremely difficult to pull off another hijacking with all the vigilance out there on account of Bush telling us all to be all vigilant and shit.

 

However, a few years later and standards begin to relax, folks pay less attention, and people generally are not as concerned with security as they were on 9/12. That whole, throw a frog in a boiling pot of water and he’ll jump out (or maybe at least try), but place him in cold water, slowly raise the temperature, and he’ll be less likely to notice the scent of boiled frog. Corporate involvement could begin to slowly dissolve the foundations of democracy, with each election cycle increasingly succumbing to its influence.

[bleedorange]

How does corporate involvement erode this process any more than it already has with 527 groups, trade associations, etc.?

[bjorn_skurj]

the only way to resolve this is for Alito and Obama to duke it out here with links to blogs, quotes from dead writers and non sequitur essays on the new world order

On the fan BB for whatever the greatest band to come out of Washington, D.C., was/is.

[bjorn_skurj]

How does corporate involvement erode this process any more than it already has with 527 groups, trade associations, etc.?

Corporations have tons more money than any of those sectors, and more vested interest in eroding regulatory protections.

[jff]

On the fan BB for whatever the greatest band to come out of Washington, D.C., was/is.

 

Bad Brains.

[NightOfJoy]

Corporations have tons more money than any of those sectors, and more vested interest in eroding regulatory protections.

 

I cant fathom why some people dont get this point. Corporations have a vested interest in their bottom line and shareholders not the "health" of the USA (or any other country for that matter).

[bjorn_skurj]

Bad Brains.

That's the winner. Man - they were a good band back in the day.

 

I cant fathom why some people dont get this point. Corporations have a vested interest in their bottom line and shareholders not the "health" of the USA (or any other country for that matter).

I would put that up to successful propaganda efforts, and Ronald Reagan.

[jc4prez]

Corporate involvement could begin to slowly dissolve the foundations of democracy, with each election cycle increasingly succumbing to its influence.

 

I can see this but I still think that time won't be a factor. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, they already did control our elections.

 

ETA: What he didn't point out and what scares me is this is bringing the dirty deeds out into the light and we're now going to consider them legal.

[bleedorange]

I cant fathom why some people dont get this point. Corporations have a vested interest in their bottom line and shareholders not the "health" of the USA (or any other country for that matter).

 

So corporations are going to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to back a single candidate? Since corporations are only interested in their bottom line and their responsibility to shareholders, that seems like a foolish expenditure, especially if said candidate loses. As it stands now, corporations pretty much contribute equally to both parties. It doesn't make any sense for them not to.

[jc4prez]

So corporations are going to put up hundreds of millions of dollars to back a single candidate? Since corporations are only interested in their bottom line and their responsibility to shareholders, that seems like a foolish expenditure, especially if said candidate loses. As it stands now, corporations pretty much contribute equally to both parties. It doesn't make any sense for them not to.

 

 

To some extent this is true, but it simplifies the issue. I honestly think this will play the biggest part in smaller elections where contracts and permits can be stopped by local courts and governments.

[ikol]

So Obama publicly calls the Supreme Court out on their case and states something that (at least in Alito's mind) is factually incorrect, and Alito is in the wrong for mouthing "not true"? I don't think being nonpartisan means being neutral on your own decisions.

[Guest Speed Racer]

So Obama publicly calls the Supreme Court out on their case and states something that (at least in Alito's mind) is factually incorrect, and Alito is in the wrong for mouthing "not true"? I don't think being nonpartisan means being neutral on your own decisions.

 

To me, it was the unprofessional nature of the act; it was not the right setting for him to do something like that. Everyone here knows how to be tactful in professional situations, and everyone here knows that was not professional.

[ih8music]

So Obama publicly calls the Supreme Court out on their case and states something that (at least in Alito's mind) is factually incorrect, and Alito is in the wrong for mouthing "not true"? I don't think being nonpartisan means being neutral on your own decisions.

I tend to agree with this. I'm opposed to the ruling, but I thought the manner in which Obama threw the SC justices (well 5 of them) under the bus like that was pretty harsh. Alito was responding to being surrounded by people cheering to (again, what he believes to be) something incorrect. Not like he willfully disrupted the President's speech or anything. This smells of people trying to generate controversy.

 

Now I must go wash up... I defended Alito and agreed with ikol.