The President's very WEAK rebuke of SCOTUS during the SOTU.

[Krashkopf]

I disagree with the people, and the pundits who are saying that President Obama "hammered" the Supreme Court last night. What I saw, and heard, Obama say was . . . "and that's why I am urging Democrats and Republicans to" . . . then his voice actually faltered . . . "pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

{b]GASP! The five arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court literally killed small "d" democracy in America, and the President responded by figuratively "urged" the Congress to send the five of them to bed without their supper!

What the President should have said, firmly, was "This terrible decision CANNOT STAND, and that's why I am proposing that Democrats and Republicans immediately pass an Amendment to the Constitution that clearly, and unequivocally states that Rights guaranteed under the Constitution apply to NATURAL persons, only, NOT to Corporations, Unions, or any other non-human entities."

[Krashkopf]

1. UNREC'd in 14 views! Thats a new record for me!

Some people just don't like a truth-teller.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Ah yes. The old "People disagree with me because I speak truth to power" martyrdom spiel

[Krashkopf]

10. So tell me where I am WRONG in my OP

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Since it's opinion, you're neither right or wrong.

It's ironic because it's a very weak opinion.

Oh, and it's a grasp at straws. Probably for attention because you're not getting enough at home or something.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. I didn't say anything was wrong. I didn't unrecommend it.

But I'm tired of the claims of victimization. You wrote a couple of sentences and are shocked that some people don't think it belongs on the Greatest Page of DU-a page that supposedly has the best DU has to offer and often contains posts that people have spent a good hour on.

[Krashkopf]

39. My comment had NOTHING to do with making "the Greatest" page . . .

And everything to do with the Obama sycophants, who are out in force today.

"I, for one, never smoked the HOPE-IUM." (RIP Howard Zinn).

I like Obama. I thought that last night, by and large, was a very good State of the Union Address. I especially like the way he pushed back, with a smile, against the GOP.

But my allegiance has always been, and will always be, to the Constitution, NOT to the person sitting in the Oval Office.

When Obama is right, I will praise him for it. But, when he is wrong, as he is on this SCOTUS issue (and on public option-less Health Care Reform; and on weak business friendly financial reform; and on the quiet extension of Bush's domestic surveillance policy, etc. etc.), I will call him on it, loudly. And, frankly, if the DINOS and the DLCers don't like it . . . tuff shit . . . as a great progressive once said about another group of Corporatists "I relish their hatred."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. Recommend/Unrecommend affect ONE thing: The Greatest Page. That's it.

And calling people that disagree with you "sycophants" while painting yourself as a standard of virtue isn't really a great way to start a conversation that will lead anywhere productive.

[Teaser]

4. or you either

.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Is that #2 or #1?

http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. ...

[CTLawGuy]

5. yawn

NT

[monmouth]

6. Well I loved it, rec'd it still at 0....sigh...n/t

[onenote]

7. under your amendment, would the New York Times Co have first amendment rights?

Would the SCOTUS have been able to set aside the injunction against the NY Times Company's publication of the Penatagon Papers?

[Krashkopf]

25. The NYT Company would not, but the NYT's PUBLISHER and JOURNALISTS would

Freedom of the PRESS is specifically guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

[onenote]

27. but its the NY Times Company that published the papers and that was enjoined

Sorry. Can't wiggle out of it.

[Krashkopf]

33. OK, Here is my Amended Proposed Amendment

"AMENDMENT XXVII - Except as otherwise provided for in this Constitution, rights guaranteed under this Constitution apply to NATURAL persons, only."

Again, its pretty simple stuff, and now, "the Press," which is specifically protected by the First Amendment, is fully protected.

What do you think?

[onenote]

34. how do you define "the press"?

What about advocacy groups like the ACLU, Common Cause, MoveOn -- no first amendment rights?

[Krashkopf]

36. Not being an "originalist" . . .

I would not limit "the press" to printed publications. I would define "the press" as any publication or broadcast or computer medium for the dissemination of news and opinion."

YES, no first amendment rights for non-human entities such as the ACLU, Common Cause, or MoveOn.

Individual members of those groups (just like individual corporate officers) do have do have 1st Amendment rights, but the groups themselves, should fall under the same, commonsense campaign finance regulations as every other non-person.

I don't want any aggragate of economic power, right, left, or center "buying" our elections.

[onenote]

38. this is an interesting discussion. A few more thoughts

Some might argue that an advocacy group like Common Cause, ACLU, etc etc offer "publications" (blogs or other webpages) that disseminate news and opinion. Purchasing an advertisement also is a way of disseminating news and opinion.

I have no problem with campaign finance regulation. And in fact, there are campaign-finance related regulations that apply to natural persons notwithstanding the fact that natural persons have First Amendment rights. Such rights can extend to other entities and still be regulated, imo. That's where I (and the dissenters) think the SCOTUS went off the rails. I don't read the dissents as suggesting that the First Amendment's protections only apply to natural persons. Rather, I read it as finding that in the balancing of interests that is often involved in the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions, the law attacked by Citizens United should have been upheld.

[niyad]

8. tried--but still at zero. oh yeah, congress will "right this wrong" SUUUUURE they will

[jefferson_dem]

9. That would have been a really cute thing to say but totally stupid.

Leaving aside the obvious technical problems with wording such an amendment...

"Democrats and Republicans" do not pass constitutional amendments. Three-fourths of the states are required to ratify proposed amendments. You do realize that's a nearly impossible process to sucessfully carry out, right?

[Krashkopf]

15. First, CONGRESS has to pass an Amendent . . .THEN it goes to the States for RATIFICATION.

You need to go back and re-read Article V.

As for the language of the Amendment, what is complicated about "AMENDMENT XXVII -Rights guaranteed under this Constitution apply to NATURAL persons, only."

Regarding the difficulty of the amendment process, the last successful Amendment to the Constitution was the Amendment that gave 18 year-olds the right to vote, and that passed relatively easily.

[Jamastiene]

12. We need FDR style courage right now.

We're getting maybe 1/4 of what FDR had in him.

[NatBurner]

16. exactly! he shoulda hopped his happy ass off that podiium

and ran up on the court and straight stooge-slapped every last one of em!

from the left- slap-papapap-puh-papapap

and then bring it on back to the right- puh-pappity-papapap-puh-slizzap!

fuck'n wimpy kenyan teleprompter muslin nobama

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Then he should have impaled Alito with the American Flag and said a witty one-liner

Something like "Court is adjourned"

[NatBurner]

19. perfect!

[AndyA]

18. Obama didn't come across as weak at all to me.

It's rare that a President calls out the SCOTUS in the State of the Union speech. The fact that Alito reacted as he did shows Obama hit a nerve, which is exactly what was intended. The American people got the message as well.

I think Obama did an admirable job of calling out not only the SCOTUS, but the Republican Party and the conservative Democrats as well.

I was proud of Obama last night, and I haven't exactly been his biggest supporter in recent months. But last night I was happy with what I heard from him. Now, he just needs to act on his statements and I think things will improve.

[phleshdef]

20. I love your Rovian tactic of attacking strength by calling it weakness.

It doesn't do much for your credibility, but its interesting to see it being employed here.

[Krashkopf]

22. Go back and watch the address, again.

He did hesitate. His voice did crack. And his proposed remedy - to "urge to pass a bill" was VERY WEAK - especially in light of the magnitude of the Supreme Court's decision.

[onenote]

24. and your proposed amendment is nonsensical

I'll try again: Under your amendment, which would limit the protections of the Constitution to natural persons, it would have been unconstitutional for the SCOTUS to overturn the injunction against the New York Times COMPANY's publication of the Pentagon Papers on first amendment grounds.

[phleshdef]

26. No. I'd just prefer to dismiss your purposefully overanalytical, meritless bullshit.

I've all ready given it more of a response than it deserves.

[dionysus]

30. ROFL

:thumbsup:

[Lord Helmet]

21. this OP is weak

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Due respect, I don't think you understand the Supreme Court decision

To say that the five justices "killed democracy" is a huge over-exaggeration. Corporate money was already funneled into elections via "issue ads" where unlimited expenditures were allowed as long as you didn't say the magic words "vote for" or "vote against". The SCOTUS merely removed the magic words requirement and allowed these ads to be run closer to the election. Yes it set a bad precedent and yes it made things worse than they are.

The bottom line is that money = speech has been the law of the land since Buckley v Valeo and anything other than minor fixes can't really be enacted until that decision is overturned. So depending on how you look at it, either democracy has been dead since Buckley v Valeo or democracy is still alive. But the bottom line is that although this decision was despicable, it's relatively minor compared to other precedents that are already in place.

Obama gave a measured response given the magnitude of the decision.

[Krashkopf]

29. With all due respect . . .

I have read the decision (including the concurring and dissenting opinions), twice since they were handed down, and I think I understand them pretty well.

Personlly, I don't think it is POSSIBLE to overstate the devastating impact that this decision will have on the American body politic.

Whether I want to say: "this is "the death of small 'd' democracy;" or "this is just another example (like Buckley and Bellotti before it) of the Corporations whipping the dead corpse of democracy," is really not all that important, is it?

The fact of the matter is that this Supreme Court has invalidated that last low barrier between politicians and deep-pocketed corporations intent on subverting democracy.

And, in my opinion, "urging Congress to pass a bill" (again, "GASP") instead of forcefully advocating for a Constitutional Amendment, is pretty "weak tea" from the President.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. It's not the last "low barrier"

There are still laws prohibiting corporations from donating directly to candidates and disclosure is still required. A constitutional amendment to address this specific decision would be an overreaction. A constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley v Valeo is something I could get behind.

[CreekDog]

28. Yup

needed more cowbell.

:sarcasm:

[iceman66]

31. I would have liked him to have been more agressive,

but even calling them out in this limited fashion was enough to focus a lot of attention on the issue that it otherwise would not have received.

[tranche]

32. He should have given them all the people's elbo and finished it off with a rock bottom.

[Kahuna]

35. This post is weak.....and pathetic. nt

[Krashkopf]

37. Not nearly as WEAK . . .

as an NT response!

[Ikonoklast]

51. .

[Fire1]

40. Opinion piece. n/t

[Jennicut]

41. He got everyone talking about it...it was not on the radar screen before that

Just with us. An Amendment to the Constitution? What are you smoking? With what Congress? This one? Ha! Dems and Repubs are both corrupt and held hostage to corporate money ALREADY. Build up public anger and then maybe this Congress might act if they are worried that it will effect their re-elections.

[Krashkopf]

42. That "All-politicians-are-corrupt . . .

so-why-even-try-to-change-things" meme is EXACTLY the reponse that the GOPers and the DLC-Corporatists, are hoping for.

I don't need to build any anger . . . I'm pretty pissed off already . . . and I am going to ACT!

[Jennicut]

43. Yes, but we are but a small percentage of the voters out there.

I mean, most voters don't even know about this ruling. Because they don't follow things as closely as us. To change anything, you must have more then a small minority angry.

[dionysus]

46. what's it like to eat your cereal with lemon juice instead of milk?

:shrug:

[namahage]

47. I don't think that yellow liquid is lemon juice. N/T

[bigwillq]

48. I thought it was a stern scolding of their decision.

I liked that part. You're free to disagree. It's ok.

[apocalypsehow]

49. UnRecc'd, as it richly deserves to be. Enjoy your stay. n/t.

[treestar]

50. Highly unrecommended

Quoting what the President should have said always cracks me up. Get a job as a speechwriter, please, since you know how to handle this better than the people who worked for a job like that.

[euphoria12leo]

57. Everyone is always saying what the President

should have said/done because they are the smart ones not him. :sarcasm:


I wonder why? :think:

[cliffordu]

52. How does it feel to be less relevant than before you posted this?

Difficult to believe, but true.

[Krashkopf]

55. Sycophantic CONSERVADEMS like you . . .

told me I was wrong and "irrelevant" when I said "the President is NOT going to fight for a public option."

and, before that, you told me I was wrong and "irrelevant" when I said "the President is NOT going to fight to roll back Bush's domestic surveillance programs."

and, before THAT, you told me I was wrong and "irrelevant" when I said that "the President is NOT going to hold the Bush administration accountable for its illegal war, and its torture policies."

I HOPE that I am wrong about this, too (I can't tell you HOW MUCH I want this President to succeed!), but so far I am batting 3 for 3.

Sad to believe, but true.

[fishwax]

53. It was precisely the right tone for the venue

Your phrasing would have been a disaster, both from a "public relations" standpoint and an "understanding of the situation" standpoint.

As it was, Obama expressed disagreement with the decision and articulated some of its consequences. He didn't demagogue or attack the court itself or its justices (he didn't suggest they lacked integrity or failed to act in good faith), but he clearly criticized the decision itself. And it worked great (thanks in part to Alito's childish response)--the decision has gotten a lot of attention in the last 24 hours.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

54. He demanded exactly what Congress is capable of doing at this time...

I can't see in a million years Republicans turning down larger donations. One expert said this decision can be reversed way down the line and if corporations are smart they will support the party that will meet the least resistance to corporate power the Democratic party. Not that I want more money in the equation, but if they're smart they won't support Republicans. A constitutional amendment is a big ask with the huge amount of votes it would take.

[ncteechur]

56. you want to tell them they were wrong but you don't want to pick a fight with them

you cannot last as long as they do and you will lose