SOTU: Alito Shakes Head & Mouths "Not True" When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision

[Turborama]

Run time: 00:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMKD1Mi8o0   Posted on YouTube: January 28, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 28, 2010 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 4480

 
Watching them reminded me of the Sith.

Slightly longer slip that shows RepuliCONS sitting on their hands just after: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QITJMtqrIiA

[tekisui]

1. I saw that, it was priceless,

[AwakeAtLast]

2. And he mouthed, "That's not true."

Ass. Hole.

[aquart]

5. And LIAR.

How could he not know it's true?

[AwakeAtLast]

7. Because he said so.

;)

[Quixote1818]

3. K and R

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. IMPEACH THE USSC Justices that voted for this! NOW!

[Mithreal]

44. I know it won't happen, but I am with you.

Calling this court Supreme is an injustice and a disgrace.

[breadandwine]

54. DON'T impeach the Supreme Court justices who voted for unlimited corporate campaign cash.

It might hurt their WITTLE feelings. How are they supposed to be ABOVE THE LAW with all o' youz gettin' on their case? Besides. If the Supreme Court said the Moon was made out of Worcestershire sauce, who are you gonna believe, the Supreme Court or your lying eyes?

What's a little judicial coup d'etat now and then? Keeps the subhuman dermacrits in line and helps throw them critters under the bus where they belong.... As Herbert Hoover's Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon said, "Liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness!" That'll fix 'em. Corporations are people and people are scum.....

So if there are millions of people out of work, FIRE them! Wait. Not sure how that would work exactly.....

Trust the Supreme Court. They have now proclaimed that the new religion is MONEY! Get down on your hands and knees, fumble with your rosaries, bow your head with great respect and GENUFLECT! GENUFLECT! GENUFLECT before the corporations --- the new personhoods!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[PSzymeczek]

55. Wish I could recommend your post

for the Tom Lehrer reference!

[breadandwine]

58. Hey PSzymeczek ---

I'm doin' the corporate, doin' the corporate, doin' the corporate rag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ProgressOnTheMove]

6. It had to be called out at the same time honor and respec to the justices tha tried to ...

hold back the tide.

[Quixote1818]

8. What's funny is the Corporate News firms were trying to keep this Hush Hush and Obama just

let half the country know about it just like that ON ALL THE CORPORATE NEWS FIRMS DIME! HA!

[glitch]

11. My bet: he just made Mrs. Alito cry. nt

[usregimechange]

9. Never seen a Justice do that before, ever

[johnfunk]

10. Quit yer bitchin' Sam "Selling Out Elections to the ChiComs" Alito, and just goddamn RESIGN already!

... and believe me, there's NOTHING that can get our more unhinged opposition to support impeachment than having them step back and reeeeally think about what kind of treasonous judges would sell out the political process to "the ChiComs."

I did just that to my reactionary uncle, then steered him to an article on conservative sites.

He's now VERY supportive of impeaching the "treason five."

[AuTri]

17. scotus decission

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional.

On the other hand 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.
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 are prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

So the truth is that foreign corporations or as you put it 'chicoms' are not allowed to make contributions to federal, state or local elections. Unfortunately this is why independents are running away from the democrats. We spout off without doing a little research and the ones that do, know that President Obama was less than clear on the issue.
Myself, i don't believe that corporations or unions or 527s or 501c should be able to lobby or insert themselves into campaigns through donations or in any other manner.

[johnfunk]

26. You completely missed my point -- and constitutional scholars disagree with your facile assessment

My point: the issue of foreign money in elections can motivate nativists, nationalists and tea party followers to support the removal of the "Screw Stare Decisis Five."

And there are loopholes both in court rulings and federal statutes suffivcient for foreign companies and entities to finance campaign and issues advertising.

[liberation]

31. Apparently their new red herring talking point is...

... that as long as the corporations doing all the buying of political influence are "red blooded" American, then it is A-OK. You have to wonder what sort of twisted mind comes up with these excuses, and the fact that they think they are "sounding perfectly reasonable" is what scares the sh*t out of me....


Now, the previous poster should riddle us, that for an international corporation to do certain level of business on America, they are more likely than not to have an American branch. Said American branch can buy all the influence they want, since capital can be legally laundered that way. But of course, the previous poster will have moved on to better and bigger red herring arguments to try to deflect the conversation.... no wonder our oceans are running out of fish!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breadandwine]

57. Oh don't be so silly, Johnfunk, Chinese Communists should definitely take over the United States.

It will teach them how to be corporatists. Let them buy our elections. Once they see what money can buy, they'll suddenly turn over a new leaf and become capitalists. Magically.

And what about Muammar Kaddafi? Why shouldn't HE get to buy our country?

And how 'bout Saudi Arabia? And North Korea?

Osama's got a lot of money. Why shouldn't HE get to buy America?

Germany, Japan, Moldova, Indonesia, Pakistan....

Buying elections can buy our country for pennies on the dollar.

Shouldn't we be teaching the world how to be bargain hunters?????????????????

Haven't you ever enjoyed using a supermarket coupon?

Welp, the Supreme Court decision was a supermarket coupon for BUYING AMERICA!!!!!!!

Once foreign nations have bought the House and Senate and White House they can buy the Supreme Court.....

Soon everyone will be happy and free because they will ALL BE WORSHIPPING MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greed is good! Michael Douglas SAID so in the film "Wall Street"! Get down on your hands and knees and worship the GREED BUDDHA right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And don't impeach the Supreme Court! Judicial fascists and coup plotters have rights TOO ya know!!!!

[grasswire]

27. welcome to du

I think.

[aquart]

33. Welcome to DU. May your brief stay be a happy one.

[HisTomness]

35. Foreign nationals can comprise domestic corporations

The issue is not the legality of political donations by foreign corporations, but rather the legality (and appropriateness) of donations from domestic corporations comprised wholly or in part by foreign nationals.

A primary justification for endowing corporations with constitutional protections is that they are ultimately collections of people and as such should enjoy the same protections. This justification fails to take into account the citizenship of the shareholders and therefore betrays its logical flaw insofar as the whole cannot be equivocated to any of its parts.

To dumb it down: Japanese investors buy up a controlling share in Long John Silvers, an American corporation. Long John Silvers donates a lot of money to legislators who are willing to relax coastal fishing laws and draft friendly fishing treaties with Japan. American domestic and foreign policy is thus affected by influence in the form of speech (money) from a constitutionally protected entity (a collection of Japanese investors).

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SnakeEyes]

62. FEC regs have detailed and specific wording to prohibit this.

Sec. 110.20

There are many other good angles to oppose this ruling. It's hard to fight against this particular one.

[olegramps]

41. I see you are new to DU.

believe me that your post that you copied from some Repuk blog will be discounted before you can slink back to whence you have slithered.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[big lu]

12. K&R

[MrMickeysMom]

13. They should have stopped him and Roberts just like Bork

This is wrong.

That asshole couldn't even keep his tongue in his Federalist Society pie hole after Obama's calling out.

Fuck him in his robe sideways, that motherfucker.

[SemperEadem]

14. Ha! Obama basically said to the SCOTUS 5

"With all due respect, you 5 aint' shit".

Not to mention how funny it was watching them trying to get out of Obama's way when he left the podium and was on his way in their direction shaking hands. Punk-ass bitches.

[lib_wit_it]

22. Oooooooooooooh The freepers on YouTube are NOT amused!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc#watch-main-area

[SemperEadem]

38. LOL! Like progressives give a good gotdamb

suck it, bitches!

[pansypoo53219]

15. the right thinks the bigger megaphone is a right.

see nothing wrong, cause it helps their side. so fuck off poor.

[Jamastiene]

16. Cocky bastard, ain't he?

I can't stand 5 of them.

[OhioChick]

18. K&R n/t

[democracy1st]

19. K & R

[Turborama]

20. Remix

Put together by CSJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcWuG2LO3E

[Quixote1818]

21. Great Vid! nt

[troubledamerican]

23. You can thank Schumer & Feinstein for ALITO

[Rhiannon12866]

24. K&R! Thanks, I missed this...

I must have been listening, but reading DU... ;) :hi:

[Ticonderoga]

25. Hopefully Justice Kennedy

will throw in the towel this year. Can anyone get behind a push for the nomination of Jonathan Turley for USSCJ?

[grasswire]

28. no (eom)

[thereismore]

37. Turley agrees with the SCOTUS decision. Heard him on Countdown. Be careful what you wish for. nt

[MrsCorleone]

60. Jon Turley is a Libertarian. He would not be opposed to unfettered corporatism.

[KansDem]

29. Welcome to America...

...where Dred Scott wasn't a person, but Exxon-Mobil is.

[skygazer]

36. Exactly

Wish I could nominate a single post for Greatest. :thumbsup:

[davidwparker]

48. +1

[liberation]

30. Typical passive aggressive entitled behavior of a true asshole...

... always wanting to have the last word, even when it is not his turn or he is not involved.

[omega minimo]

32. It was clear during his confirmation hearings that he was an arrogant, uncouth slimeball

Thanks again, Senator Feingold, for speaking up to these thugs

[Fire1]

34. Alito apparently thinks the public stupid. Fuck him. n/t

[Quasimodem]

39. When the GOP leaders warned . . .

. . . their congress critters to be “respectful” and avoid embarrassing themselves like Joe Wilson did at last year's SOTU, I guess they though all the Supreme’s were sufficiently evolved to not need cautioning.

That really was an example of poor judgment.

[laylah]

40. I felt SO bad for

Sotamayar (sp?) and Ginsberg...what shame they must feel. What a travesty, but then 2000 was also and how have we dealt with THAT?

[ProgressOnTheMove]

42. At least the President set it in stone transcript, the supreme court voted to make government a..

corporation. Excluding the 4 justices that tried to hold it back.

[cyclezealot]

43. Impeach.. This is treason..

Anyone notice.. It appears the biggest ass holes on the court... Scalia and C.Thomas.. Don't think I See them in the audience.. ?.. Did they boycott the SOTU address.?

[SnakeEyes]

45. I don't think this is a big deal at all.

The only reason this is a story is because he was seen on camera and you could read his lips. Do you think the comments between members of congress throughout these speeches are all rosy or aren't critical? If so, I think that's being naive. Especially if someone is being criticized in the speech.

And I don't think any of them are wrong, regardless of party. If that were me, and I felt that things were being misrepresented, I might have shook my head and mouthed something too. I would not have vocally said something and interrupted his speech like Joe Wilson did. That's not proper. That's where things change.

[peacetalksforall]

59. Study up about DECORUM. It exists with the Supreme Court. It was DECORUM for the WIlson.

guy last time. Both broke decorum. Two Republicans. Grand disrespect in the case of Wilson. Disrespect for Alito. The only difference was the volume and the amount of attention they were trying to get. Remember, you are not Alito - there is no comparison. This decorum thing is based on tradition, precedence, (possibly) unwritten rules. Especially with the Supreme Court. They are supposed to keep a distance. Cheney didn't give a crap about that - went hunting with Scalia all the time. Best of friends.

Joe Wilson #1
Alito #2.

[SnakeEyes]

61. What a condescending post...

I know what decorum is, thanks. And, yes, I realize there is a decorum for events such as this.

A non-verbal visceral reaction to being directly criticized with an apparent mischaracterization of things I don't think breaks any decorum. Smirks, obvious negative reactions, head shakes, comments to those seated nearby and others occur at these all the time. The only difference here is you could read his lips this time. Interrupting the speech, as Joe did, clearly does. I don't see why not being Alito matters at all.

It's news this time because it's a justice and not a member of Congress. Yes, when justices have chosen to show up, they typically just sit there stoically to not appear to be taking sides in the politics of the event, for obvious reasons. Also true is that they are rarely ever mentioned in a speech let alone directly criticized. With them sitting there, knowing they can't respond, as guests of the Congress and out of respect for the other two branches, I think the direct criticism was unnecessary last night; especially as a standing ovation applause line surrounding the justices. In addition to that, his specific criticism was wrong (even though fixing the incorrect court decision is right). Because this was a rare direct and incorrect criticism, a non-verbal in response is understandable and it did not disrupt the event and therefore does not break decorum. Now, if he had responded to something other than that direct criticism then I would certainly agree with you. Again, if he had interrupted like Joe then it would certainly have broken decorum.

After last night, I think it's possible that we return to the days where we don't see many of the justices at SOTUs. And I think it may not be only the conservative justices that choose not to attend.

[peacetalksforall]

63. You started out by saying that it wasn't such a big deal.... then said:

"The only reason this is a story is because he was seen on camera and you could read his lips. Do you think the comments between members of congress throughout these speeches are all rosy or aren't critical? If so, I think that's being naive. Especially if someone is being criticized in the speech.

And I don't think any of them are wrong, regardless of party. If that were me, and I felt that things were being misrepresented, I might have shook my head and mouthed something too. I would not have vocally said something and interrupted his speech like Joe Wilson did. That's not proper. That's where things change."

I thought it was just an opinion that I didn't agree with at all. Then you said "If that were me...". You aren't him and that is what set me off. You aren't subject to decorum.

Condescending, I don't know. I didn't intend to be the dictionary or teacher, but in my book, shaking the head No is not upholding decorum, especially because it was about their court decision. It was child like, not adult and not legal judge like. And definitely disrespectful.

On the degree of disrespect - we differ. A silent shaking of the head by someone of his stature is as bad as a shout out from a jerk like Wilson.

Imagine if Obama had stood there and looked them in the eye and shook his head no. Words are his job, not displays.

[SnakeEyes]

64. Ok, so we disagree. It's alright.

Nothing more to say than that I guess.

Although I do have to say that just because I am not subject to decorum doesn't mean I can't understand decorum and explain how I might respond if I were him and in his shoes.

And on another note, frankly, I wish people would have responded to Bush in this way. The thought being expressed here and has historically been argued when situations like this pop up, sit there and take it from a president, is a bit too monarch-ish for my tastes.

[RedCloud]

46. That's it! Off with his head!

[onpatrol98]

47. Bunch of Nothing

This entire topic (not the DU thread), but the drama over this decision seems to be a bunch of nothing. Special interests and corporations are already controlling congress and influencing presidents. To me, this just means there will be "more" money. Other countries, already influence decisions made by our congress and our presidents. Although, this decision is new and may increase the flow of dollars, the media has been talking as if this is really new. I like President Obama, I think history will treat him kinder than America is currently, BUT, I felt it was disingenuous of him to respond to this decision AS IF we hadn't just watched special interests permeate every inch of this health care bill. In fact, I have to wonder if all this talk is simply to take our minds off the fact, that we've been watching corporations rule all along.

This is just another enemy to attack. Admittedly, not a very bad one...but, whatever.

Whether you like the current version of the health care bill or don't, it's hard not to acknowledge the many constituencies (APART FROM US), that have contributed to its current form. Deals made with Big Pharma, Insurance Companies, and the like. Apart from the "fresh" pools of money that will be floating around, now these corporations will consider whether or not they want to LOBBY the American people more, also...with more commercials, more lies, etc. But, this decision wasn't the beginning of it. To me, it's just more of the same.

I could definitely understand the uproar, if Washington was clean before this ruling. But, the stench of polluted politicians had the air smelly long ago.

I had plenty of reasons not to be impressed with the Supreme Court before this decision. And, I think the decision sucks. But, the corruption in Washington with corporate dollars happened long before Alito's decision.

Thanks for the article.

[underpants]

52. Alito is wrong

CNN Fact Check found that the court's majority appeared to sidestep the issue. Obama's declaration puts him on the side of the minority in last week's ruling and lays down a clear marker in a debate that is likely to go on for some time.

Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman who supports rolling back campaign finance law, has argued that laws already on the books that prevent non-U.S. citizens from giving to U.S. campaigns already cover overseas corporations.

But Nathaniel Persily, a professor of law and political science at Columbia University said the decision doesn't make any distinction between U.S.-chartered and overseas corporations, effectively opening the door to money from overseas.

"The court decision itself liberated all corporations that were prevented from running ads in elections," Persily said. "So foreign corporations were prohibited beforehand, and just like all other corporations, they were liberated by this decision."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/cnn-fact-check-overseas-corporations-okd-for-campaign-cash/

[BeatleBoot]

53. Impeach Alito

Obviously Justice isn't blind, but has an opinion.

[Turborama]

56. Thanks mods!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=254192