Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Justice Alito Has a "You Lie" Moment

During tonight's State of the Union address, Justice Samuel Alito was caught on camera mouthing some interesting words to President Barack Hussein Obama.

The President had just made a statement about the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance.

"And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office," Obama said. "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."

Toward the end of that statement, Justice Alito was seen shaking his head, and rather clearly worded "Not true." Here's the video clip:




Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Schumer, an admitted Progressive and staunch supporter of Obama who has voice strong dissent against the Court's ruling in affirmation of the First Amendment, jumped up quickly and cheered rather aggressively.

This moment is one of the most destructive of all moments America has experienced since Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as Chief Executive last year.

Obama is exactly that; Chief Executive. Our government is comprised of three branches; the Executive (President), the Legislative (Congress) and the Judiciary (Supreme Court).

These three branches of government were created so that each would have it's own role, and that the separation of power between the three should not be absolute, but should make allowances for a built-in system of checks and balances.

This wonder of American government was on full display last week, as the Judiciary overturned law, including portions of the The McCain-Feingold Act, based on the fact that the law was in direct violation of The First Amendment right to free speech.

When Obama made the aforementioned statements, he essentially was playing political bully with the Supreme Court. His words were nothing short of an indictment of the American governmental process as designed by our Founders.

This lack of respect of our system is not unusual for Obama, who has previously made statements about the Constitution, stating that it is a "charter of negative liberties," and saying that it reflects the "fundamental flaw" of this country that continues to this day.

This man clearly does not understand that The Constitution is the law of the land, and that the very reason the Supreme Court acted as it did was due to the need for checks and balances within the system. Law had been written that violated The First Amendment, and it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to preserve all rights as defined by The Constitution. The Court acted exactly as it should, and Obama was reckless in his statement this evening.

By making the statement that he made tonight, Obama essentially stated that he wishes to disregard the Judiciary ruling, bypass or act on behalf of the Legislative, and therefore bring all American governmental power to the Executive branch.

This is a very dangerous statement, one which I believe Obama must be held accountable. I hope that anyone with any contacts to major press organizations escalates this issue to the point that the President must answer questions about the exact meaning of his words.

For more insight into this event, check out Left Coast Rebel, who has opined as well as compiled statements and links from other concerned Americans.

18 comments:

Teresa said...

I think Obama simply wants to ignore the Constitution and going beyond his powers as president. He is way out of bounds. Hmmm... Power hungry? He wants to limit free speech that won't benefit him and Dems. Should the groups called unions not be allowed political free speech during elections? I believe all bodies or organzations/corporations have a right to free speech, that which is a right provided by the Constitution.

Nickie Goomba said...

The Supreme Court justices sat uncomfortably as the Democrats rose and cheered around them. At that moment, the Republic died a little.

Pedaling said...

key word here "this lack of respect"

he's such a jerk!
honestly, i've never seen anything like him.
unbelievable!

yes, the republicans should have voiced something, at that time, in the courts defense....disappointing on all sides. ugghhhhh!

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

All will be well when Obugger writes his own constitution.

One Ticked Chick said...

Obama has the legislative branch in his back pocket. The judiciary is the only obstacle standing between Obama and implementation of his new world order.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

What Chick said.

Urban Pink said...

Obama has not had the legislative branch in his back pocket as last night evidenced. The House has passed bill after bill to stimulate our economy and add jobs and the Senate has passed two things: the stimulus and the surge. You protest too much. Obama paid respect to the Court, and to the separation of powers, and then stated his opinion and course of action. Congress has the right to change a Court ruling if they have enough votes for it. That is essential to our Constitution. They all get to check and balance. You have no concerns that a company's money can drown out the voices of individual Americans and groups of individuals? Do you really believe that a company's elite CEO represents democracy within his company? How much do you think oil companies will spend this year?

Soloman said...

Teresa -

I agree completely with your statements.

If the court overturned legislation that had been silencing unions or acting detrimental in any way to their influence, the left would have been ecstatic.

The court's ruling was based solely on the matter of free speech. It had nothing to do with the size or volume of the voice; only that all voices are allowed to be heard.

Any infringement upon our rights must be struck down. This is exactly why the court ruled as they did in this instance.

Soloman said...

Nickie -

I disagree. I believe that as Chuck Schumer and the other Progressive liberals acted as they did, their cause died a little.

That was embarrassing behavior for the representatives of our voice.

Soloman said...

Pedaling -

I will say that to act properly, Alito should not have acted as he did. That would be completely proper etiquette for a Supreme Court Justice. They are supposed to be non-partisan and unwavering in their appearance and behavior at all times, because their duty is to decide how situations are affected by the law as defined by The Constitution.

Having said that - what we are witnessing in the actions of this President is a pattern of complete disrespect for the foundation of America and the rule of law as defined by The Constitution.

Obama would have been better served leaving this issue off the table during such an event. As a "Constitutional professor," he should have a thorough understanding of the rational of the court in this instance.

This behavior proves him to be an ideologue before a non-partisan leader, to be sure.

Soloman said...

Odie -

As always, you brighten such a gloomy mood...

Soloman said...

Ticked (and Fuzzy since you cosigned) -

I'd say Obama had the Legislative in his pocket. No more.

The 41st Senate seat going away has caused an amazing amount of change in Washington.. how appropriate...

Now the Senate can't pass a health care bill, and even with her dominant numbers (those with a {D} by their name). Pelosi can't wrangle enough votes to pass the relatively moderate Senate bill.

The Democratic party is splintering again right before our eyes.

Blue Dogs are running for cover, because they have known all along that Obama's radical agenda was damaging their political capital. They will now attempt to tack towards the center and abandon his mission, since he's lost a ton of capital himself.

Progressives are demanding even more aggressive efforts to force massive government takeover in every way possible. They are going to embarrass Obama if he doesn't go their way, but he knows if he does go more to the left he's a one-term guy for sure.

Obama is lost in the middle, knowing that he needs to move toward the center to save his political life, but his heart is off in far left field, and this split was on full display last night. That speech was full-blown split personality, and was all over the place.

Soloman said...

Pink -

Last night didn't prove anything regarding Obama's position with Congress, other than the fact that he's an extreme partisan who has no desire to work with the right.

There was more vindictive rhetoric in this speech than any I've ever witnessed, which was on full display when he cracked his joke about how he "expected I'd get applause for that line."

Centrists are now coming out of the woodwork saying that Obama is exactly what we've known all along - a Chicago-style bully.

Olympia Snow is on Greta's "On the Record" right now saying that the right was never invited to be a part of the discussion, and that the only reason she voted as she did in the Senate was in the hope that if the process kept moving along, the left might become more cooperative.

You claim the house has passed bills to "stimulate our economy and add jobs" but what you need to realize is that government does not and can not create or legislate jobs, unless the legislature is only to cut taxes on corporations or cut payroll taxes,so that they (businesses) will have more money to invest in their facilities, goods for production of products, and hiring of personnel.

Obama did not pay respect to the court - he paid them lip service, then opened up a partisan rant against a prudent decision.

Congress wrote the legislation that the court overturned, so if they try to write legislation to enact the same type of restrictions on free speech, the court will simply overturn that law as well.

At this point, Congress will need to add an amendment to The Constitution if they are to put in place law that is opposed to the Court's ruling, because the Court ruled in favor of The First Amendment.

While I understand your fears about "a company's money can drown out the voices of individual Americans and groups of individuals," I believe that your fears are largely unsubstantiated.

The people vote, not the corporations or entities that wish to offer their political opinion.

If you look closely at the case that the Court's decision was about, it all came down to a group being able to show a movie in a theater or offer it through a paid cable or satellite service, with part of the concern being the proximity to election day.

That means people would still have to make a decision based in free will in order to receive the information you fear will influence them to change their vote.

Additionally, the fear of the left that corporations are dominated by right-wingers is simply not the same as it may have been 30 or more years ago.

Look at some of the largest companies in America - Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and many more are operated by left-wingers. Sure, oil companies have money, but their influence is largely in the form of lobbying, which is not a part of this case.

This ruling did not lift any ban on direct contributions, as described in a NYT article here.

With all due respect, I believe you are being played by the media you gather information from, given that your first concern is oil companies. There is much more to this ruling, ultimately that the Court found major infringements on our First Amendment right to free speech.

One Ticked Chick said...

Pink – Obama has had a majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate for the past year. If the House and Senate cannot agree on legislation, that doesn’t erase the fact that the Democrats have had the votes to pass whatever legislation they chose. Perhaps the Democrats in both houses of Congress should learn to play better together in the sandbox if they hope to achieve their agenda.

You’re absolutely correct that if Congress believes the Court has misinterpreted the constitutionality of a law, they can pass a new law to correct the Court’s interpretation. Should an individual or entity challenge the constitutionality of that law however, the Court again may review and overturn any language or portion of the law it judges to be in violation of the Constitution.

As Sol explained in his response to you, the portion of the campaign finance reform bill the Court struck down was related to the timing of “electioneering communications.” I would hope anyone who intends to vote in an election would thoroughly research candidates and issues, and not rely upon political advertising as their sole source of information.

As far as companies are concerned, they aren’t democracies. They are for profit enterprises that provide goods and services to the marketplace, jobs and benefits to employees, and ROI to investors. I’m not clear on your reference to the oil companies, but I don’t believe corporations are inherently evil. Nor do I believe that people who have had the initiative, intelligence and great good fortune to become successful in life should be characterized as elitists.

Sol – Scott Brown's election has sent Washington into a tizzy, but I think conservatives may be expecting too much from him. Brown is a New England Republican. He’s conservative on fiscal issues, more liberal on social issues. Don't forget, he voted for universal health care in Mass. He won't vote for the bill currently in Congress, but that doesn't mean he won't vote for a health care bill more to his liking.

I agree with your assessment of the Democrats. When the dust settles however, who do they really want to pick a fight with – each other or the GOP? Sorry for these long responses….

Soloman said...

Hey Ticked...

First.. why are you apologizing for long comments?? Have you read through some of the comment sections on my blog lately? We're writing novels here... lol..

I agree with you, and I do understand that Brown is not the right-winger some on the right may believe him to be. Like you said, he is a New England Republican, and there's nothing wrong with that - particularly given his campaign positions on fiscal responsibility and terrorists.

While he did vote for the Massachusetts health care program, he did also state that he would be the 41st vote that would stop a super majority in the Senate. That in itself is huge, because that means that either Dems come to the table open to cooperate and negotiate, or they risk appearing partisan by using Reconciliation for everything they wish to enact.

I think the most important element of any reform is tort reform, and because of the base of trial lawyers on the left, they want nothing to do with it.

Brown's election is without a doubt the most important change that has happened in Washington since the 2006 takeover by the left. Brown represents independent thinkers voicing their disdain for the Washington insiders more than he represents a major shift to the right.

However - the very fact that he was able to win such an important seat - as he put it, "The People's Seat" yet formerly held by Teddy K. for 46 years? Unimaginable even six months ago, and a sign that the political winds are shifting.

I believe the Independents - largely associated with the Tea Party movement - are going to be the new foundation of the Republican party, if the party can find a legitimate and viable leader. I also believe.. at least I hope... that we (since I consider myself one of said independents) are going to scrutinize any possible candidate beyond comprehension.

I hope the lesson being learned by the independent American voter from the Barack Obama experience is that scrutiny is important. Obama was scrutinized, but only by people considered by many to be extreme partisans - Rush, Hannity, Beck... and while those names are still divisive in the eyes of some, they have (and will continue to) proven themselves worthy of consideration by many who previously would not give them the time of day.

They were all completely correct in their assessment of Obama as an inexperienced partisan who would ultimately not be able to lead. They also used plenty of Obama's own words to prove true much of what I discussed earlier up-thread - that Obama had a general dislike for The Constitution and that he truly is a full-fledged intrusive government Progressive.

Regarding the left... I agree, it makes sense that they should prefer to fight us over fighting amongst themselves, but there is a huge power play going on right now on the left, because the Progressive radical fringe is trying to take over the Democratic party that you and I might have associated ourselves with in the past. No longer is a centrist / Blue Dog like Evan Bayh or Joe Lieberman welcome amongst the likes of Pelosi, Alan Grayson, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Maxine Waters, Obama, and many more...

And amazingly even a far-left guy like Dennis Kucinich may not be welcome there, because at least he has manners and seems to apply reason to his decision making process.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Chickadee and Soloman . . . here we are three reformed liberals. Ain't it grand? heh.

You're both right about Brown; he's not a social conservative, and I believe that he would indeed vote for some form of a public option (as he did in MA). He'll be interesting to watch, but I suspect that he'll be replaced in the 2012 election (when Teddy's term would have been up). We'll see how he votes, what the mood is then, but it's very likely that he'll be replaced by a dem because by then, the dems will not hold majorities in Congress, and Mass will revert to its blueness; they didn't like the unbalance, the lack of checks and balances, so if the nation does what it should do this fall--and I believe it will, it's buh-bye Brown.

One Ticked Chick said...

Sol, thanks for the response. What happened to Pink, BTW? No response from her? I agree with your assessments. The only thing I would add, is to keep in mind that the GOP is engaged in an internal struggle as well; conservative vs. the more liberal wing of the party. The GOP cannot win an election without the support of conservatives, who are no longer willing to quietly sit back and be dictated to by the libs. November should be very interesting.

Soloman said...

Ticked -

Haven't heard back from Pink for the past day or two. Don't know what's up..

The difference I see between the left's internal struggle and the one on the right is this:

On the right, we have a lot of people (like you and I) grounded in The Constitution in our beliefs. Amongst those we have some more moderate, some more Conservative. There are some Progressives in that mix too, but not to the same degree.

On the left, there are moderates who are much like moderate Conservatives, and there are radical Progressives who are so statist in nature they want nothing to do with The Constitution.

The left is under a hostile attack right now. I fear for its future.