Alito Mouths 'NOT TRUE' At State Of The Union (VIDEO)

With the Supreme Court Justices sitting right in front of him, President Barack Obama unloaded in his State of the Union address on this past week's ruling qualifying corporations as having the rights of citizens and opening the "floodgates" to their political donations.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill to correct some of these problems."

There was some strong applause from members of Congress -- with both sides of the chamber rising to their feet with applause. The Justices -- all there except Scalia and Thomas -- sat in silence (as is their custom), but at the beginning of the exchange, Justice Alito can be seen shaking his head and mouthing words that seem to resemble "not true."

Marc Ambinder, over at The Atlantic, suggests that "the White House is preparing for a Supreme Court vacancy (or two) this summer, so Obama's remarks here have particular salience."

Comments

[AJ Frost]

03:58 AM on 03/18/2010

Who the hell is that blonde sitting on the end? Its been bugging me since I first saw the SOTU back in jan.

[Chubbster]

03:31 PM on 03/02/2010

And it wasn't true so what's the real story? More dissembling from the Team?

[ImaVeteran]

09:43 AM on 02/24/2010

Vieux, you've got bawls. That is exactly what bush was.

[PhilipTaylor]

06:20 AM on 02/04/2010

REWRITE the Constitution's preamble to state, "We the corporate entities of the United States..."

SUPREMES RULE CORPORATIONS CAN BUY ELECTIONS!

An obscene use of judicial power to overrun the people's say in who gets elected to public office!

This ruling flies in the face of Increasing Public Outrage that campaigns are financed with spending hitting more than $1 billion in 2008!

Elected officials passed laws limiting campaign finance abuse, but the Supremes rolled all those laws back.

Arguing, "If the First Amendment has any force it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," the Supremes used free speech as its excuse. Ridiculous!

You don’t have to go to law school to know Corporations do not have the same rights as citizens! Jeffrey Toobin's fine book, The Nine, discusses the inner workings of the Court and explicates just how political -- and alarmingly unseemly -- the court has become.

In the 2000 presidential election, Toobin writes, "The justices did almost everything wrong. They embarrassed themselves and the Supreme Court."

Now the Court is embarrassing itself again overtly with the decision and the behavior of Alito!

The Supreme Court is supposed to be learned scholars who understand the construct of law plus its ramifications in the betterment of the people -- not companies!

Perhaps the Supremes should rewrite the Constitution's preamble to state, "We the corporate entities of the United States..." They already have with this Ruling! This must be UNDONE!

[Jak615]

08:36 PM on 02/04/2010

You do realize that companies can not simply "buy elections", sure they can finance ads, but it depends upon the individual to look at the candidates and decide for themselves which candidate most supports the best path for the nation. Perhaps if people are so simple minded to believe every advertisement they hear, we need a reform of schools, not of SCOTUS.

[antworks]

03:23 PM on 02/02/2010

Continued]
RE: E.J. Dionne Jr., OP-ED; Washington Post Newspaper, Feb. 1, 2010: entitled, "Thank You, Justice Alito".
This final case decided by the Supreme Court, above, is a great example of what CAN happen if Congress doesn't want to do its job. Is there historical evidence that supports my contention, here (i.e., regarding a presidential election)? Yes. It was called the "Hayes Compromise" of 1877! Rutherford B. Hayes ran against Samuel J. Tilden for President. Hayes had 165 electoral votes, Tilden 184! Three states were in dispute, no final determination could be made. Congress created the electoral commission and the situation was resolved. Hayes was declared the winner. The Supreme Court never got into the fray.

[antworks]

03:16 PM on 02/02/2010

[Continued]
RE: E.J. Dionne Jr., OP-ED; Washington Post Newspaper, Feb. 1, 2010: entitled, "Thank You, Justice Alito".
So, what is the solution for judicial activism by the nine Justices on the Supreme Court (or five, since that's the total needed to enact judicial law)? I think it's this. The solution is for Congress to do its job and craft legislation and pass laws to address the situation in question! [In the history of the Supreme Court, many Justices have said exactly this, I believe.]. Even if Congress doesn't pass laws to address a critical situation in our society before judicial activism takes place, Congress can "blunt" the effect of judicial activism (if Congress thinks this has taken place in a decision of case law by the Supreme Court); simply by getting to work and UNDOING what the "Supreme beings" have done. Historically though, Congress has refused to do this. Therefore, the Supreme Court makes law, sometimes, by DEFAULT! [Examples; Abortion -- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) / Public School financing - Separate but Equal *** Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) / Citizen Rights ** Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) / Affirmative Action -- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) / Election of the President ** Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)]. In the last case listed, above, the Supreme Court effectively chose the 43rd President of the United States!

[antworks]

02:42 PM on 02/02/2010

[Continued]
RE: E.J. Dionne Jr., OP-ED; Washington Post Newspaper, Feb. 1, 2010: entitled, "Thank You, Justice Alito".
There is one difference in how the Supreme "beings" on the court enact their legislative "laws", via Judicial Activism, though. Congress needs a majority vote and often times that majority can be hard to obtain. The importance of the "issue" being considered before Congress, plus the impact of the law (if enacted) has a huge impact upon whether it WILL be passed and signed by the President. Not every law has the same "sweeping impact" upon the fabric of U.S. society. Also, the President can veto the legislation passed by Congress. Only an override of the veto by 2/3's of Congress can make the legislation law, anyway. All the Supreme "beings" have to do is get a five vote majority to pass their "Supreme wisdom" laws!! At that point, you have (America) what's called Judicial Activism. [Didn't Alito say in his confirmation hearing that judicial activism is something HE didn't believe in? Yes!].

[antworks]

02:31 PM on 02/02/2010

[Continued]
RE: E.J. Dionne Jr., OP-ED; Washington Post Newspaper, Feb. 1, 2010: entitled, "Thank You, Justice Alito".
The final arbitrator of WHAT, you may ask? Well, let me tell you my "take" on this question. The Supreme Court has always thought of itself as a "Quad Equal" in fashioning legislation. According to the constitution, three sources of legislation exist. The President, Senate and the House of Representatives are the source of legislation proposals that can be considered for passage, thereby becoming laws in the U.S. [once passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President]. Anyone who doesn't think the nine Justices of the Supreme Court (in whole or part) don't think this way, I beg to differ with you! Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, there have been "certain" courts that believe EXACTLY this. Look at how these various courts have made decisions (and therefore, case law).

[Jak615]

08:54 PM on 02/04/2010

Yum

[antworks]

09:42 AM on 02/02/2010

[Continued]
Obviously, this OP-ED addresses Alito's reaction to President Obama's critique of this recent Supreme Court decision and Alito demostrative display in joint session. The real problem is this. We have a Supreme Court with a conservative majority that is trying to RE-ORDER life in Los Estados Unidos (i.e., the USA - if you folks don't speak spanish)! This majority considers ITSELF the "final arbitrator", in our country!
[Note: There will be about 5 to 7 additional posts, by me, on this single subject, forthcoming. If you are interested in the rest of what I have to say on this issue (i.e., continuing the line of thought expressed in this post about Mr. Dionne's OP-ED). I would suggest that you click on my log-in and see the entirely of my comments per this OP-ED. That way you will not have to search for the remainder of this entry in this blog / artlce site -- it could be difficult find the remainder of my entries. PLEASE give me a day and a half to complete this entry. Why? Because I have to use Public Access PC to get on the web, therefore Huffingtonpost.com. Thank you for your comments on my postings in the past. Hopefully, I can respond to some of you, if not all, soon.]

[antworks]

09:33 AM on 02/02/2010

I wish to comment upon an OP-ED in the Washington Post, dated Feb. 1, 2010, written by Mr. E.J. Dionne Jr. entitled, "Thank You, Justice Alito". This OP-ED speaks to this issue listed on this Huff Post blog entry. In the third paragraph, Mr. Dionne Jr. states this, "His [Alito's, i.e.] was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.". My comments are these Mr. Dionne [I encourage all readers to check out this OP-ED on Wash Post's website; www.washingpost.com -- click on opinions/ than locate the OP-ED writer's name/ .. than you'll find the OP-ED in question]; Justice Alito has no such power! His vote, regardless of his personal opinion(s) requires a minimum of four additional Justices agreeing with Alito's perspective(s), in whole or part, for Alito's personal "Judicial Activism" to become law of the land.

[Runruff]

09:45 AM on 01/31/2010

BIG PHARMA alone spends 129 million on congress every election cycle.

I donate about $1000. per year!

I am a spit in the ocean!

[Vieux Charles]

10:37 AM on 01/31/2010

I don't know about that. A thousand bucks? I'd say you're probably more like a big phlegmy loogie.

[Runruff]

06:02 PM on 02/01/2010

What's that, Oh, your mother calls!

[Jak615]

08:02 PM on 02/04/2010

Cite your sources, how do you know this?

[TimJones]

09:21 AM on 01/31/2010

Our President has no class at all, he is arrogant and condecending. I have no respect for him at all.

[Vieux Charles]

08:49 AM on 01/31/2010

A few points to ponder: the Supreme Court Justices attend the SOTU out of respect, not obligation; never before has a US President admonished the Supreme Court at the SOTU; Obama was just flat out wrong - a century of law "opening the floodgates...including foreign corpations to spend without limits in our elections" was not reversed by this recent SC ruling.

And "all due deference" to Mr. Sam Stein, but if you view the video at 1:00 it is obvious that your comment, "with both sides of the chamber rising to their feet with applause" is incorrect.

This comment was out of place, disrespectful and factually inaccurate. Obama is not the "uniter" he has promised to be. His comment was a cold calculation to diminish conservatives in the Republican party. Sadly, President Obama's comment only serves to diminish the Office of the Presidency.

[Runruff]

06:07 PM on 02/01/2010

"President Obama's comment only serves to diminish the Office of the Presidency."

Only in your eyes Skippy!

I marvel at vitriol and ignorance, it is a potent cocktail!

[PNOGUY]

10:36 PM on 01/30/2010

Alito's comment was correct, as was Joe Wilson's more vocal one a few months ago.

Someone needs to stand up to the president when he twists the truth for his own political ends. He was just preaching to the choir.

And while we're talking about embarrassing actions during the speech, did anyone else get tired of Pelosi jumping to her feet and clapping every time she thought the President had reached a "response line." Take a look at the video. She's an embarrassment and the poster child for partisanship.

[Libra28]

11:53 PM on 01/30/2010

I completely disagree with your opinion and with Alito's opinion which amounted to judicial activism..

Joe Wilson demonstrated his total lack of class. A gentleman would never be so disrespectful as to rudely interrupt the President. Wilson is a genuine embarrassment.

If you really want to know the facts, go to
http://factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/ factcheck.com
concerning the content of the President's State of the Union Address.

I thank God everyday that John, "the economy is strong", McCain and that self-confessed rogue, Palin lost the election.

[Runruff]

10:13 AM on 01/31/2010

PNOGUY is the no class praising the low class!

[PNOGUY]

10:44 PM on 01/31/2010

Judicial activism? Moving your lips during a speech, which wouldn't have been noticed by anyone if the place wasn't covered with TV cameras?

How about the activisim of the Court for the last 40 years, twisting the constitution and taking over the function of the legislative branch by pushing through a liberal agenda that never would have been approved by the voting public?

[MCTSilverlakeCA]

09:02 PM on 01/30/2010

The Supreme Court has forgotten who it works for... because WE LET IT.... and we can recall that Power just as easily... this is something they have forgotten. Like many politicians who feel that once in Office they can ignore the American People's wishes as long as their own are fulfilled... the Justices have forgotten who REALLY owns this Country.

Don't sell us out again Supreme Court -- all of you are replaceable at will... and if the President can't or is blocked from doing so by politicians who think more of Money than Ethics... well, then we'll replace them too. There are such things as IMPEACHMENT for politicians who won't play ball the way AMERICANS want them to - if your politician, your Congressman or Senator won't follow the dictates of the people of your State... IMPEACH THEM, and get someone in there who WILL. I've thought for a long time that such a shakeup would be good for America... dig out the "old wood" that has had it's hands in too many pockets, too many "follow the Party" politicians who think of it as a job for life rather than a job OF Life.

[GunneraGirl]

10:08 PM on 01/30/2010

um ... none of them are replaceable 'at will' in the legal sense that 'at will' is usually understood. they are the nine most powerful people over the longterm, in the united states and in the over two hundred year history of the court, no justice has ever been impeached and convicted, i.e. removed from office.

this recent decision has potentially disastrous and far-reaching implications for the nature of democracy in our country and unless the congress and the president is willing to act quickly to stem some of those effects, we are all up the creek without a paddle, quite frankly.

which is yet another reason to thank our lucky stars obama had the guts to take on the job of presidency because honestly, i think he is the only one of all the candidates who has the intelligence and foresight to understand what a catastrophe this is.

[Chubbster]

03:35 PM on 03/02/2010

>The Supreme Court has forgotten who it works for... because WE LET IT.... and we can recall that Power just as easily... this is something they have forgotten.

Did you graduate from high school or even take American history or study government?
So many half-baked mini-radical blowhards on site.