12 thoughts on “No Shows”

  1. It was a lecture, and he lied. It was unseemly. And the Supremes have no obligation or duty to attend the SOTU — they do so as a courtesy to the president, one that he abused last year to play politics.

  2. So we may assume, Chris, that you have no objection to the mild criticism of the Executive by the Judicial Branch implied by Alito skipping Obama’s SOTU speech? If Obama or his lackeys were to object, you’d tell them to “man up?”

  3. Chris, after reading your first and second posts, I am at a complete loss as to what your point is.

  4. So all you object to, Chris, is Rand’s characterization of last year’s SOTU as a “lying lecture?” And that doesn’t seem to be a bit…well, thin-skinned of you? Should you “man up?”

  5. Good for the 3 Justices. If they weren’t going to sing out should another lecture occur, then I they might as well not sit there and take it.

  6. I think that the “lying lecture” remark is a case of false victimization. It reminds me of some 5-year-old running to Mommy after their sibling taps them on the shoulder.

    I also think it’s rich that a guy who routinely calls people anti-American, idiots and stronger names objects when somebody else says “I disagree with your decision.”

    I mean, Obama didn’t call the Supreme Court a bunch of liars, did he?

  7. I also think it’s rich that a guy who routinely calls people anti-American, idiots and stronger names objects when somebody else says “I disagree with your decision.”

    He didn’t say “I disagree with your position.” Are not familiar with the proper usage of quote marks? He misstated their position, so he was either lying, or clueless about the decision. Your choice.

    I mean, Obama didn’t call the Supreme Court a bunch of liars, did he?

    No, he just implied that they were lackeys for the rich and corporations. Which is itself pretty rich, coming from the corporatist/fascist president who just hired Jeffrey Immelt.

    Have you ever heard the old aphorism about holes and digging?

  8. A case of false victimization. You can’t be serious.

    This was the first time in U.S. history that a sitting President used the SOTU speech to slam the U.S. Supreme Court. FDR certainly raged over the Court’s many decisions that declared his programs unconstitutional, but he did not dare take a swipe at the Justices during a SOTU speech.

    Unless you are applying the phrase “false victimization” to what Obama said about SCOTUS. The issue was restoring the First Amendment right to free speech and free expression, which Congress infringed by passing into law the stupid McCain-Feingold bill under the guise of ‘campaign finance reform.’ That law did not prevent dirty money from passing into the hands of candidates (Obama’s sleazy campaign of 2008 is a perfect case in point) but banned organizations representing millions of citizens from placing political ads on TV and radio in the days leading up to an election.

    Groups such as ACORN, Apollo, SEIU, George Soros’ front groups and others continued to pump millions of dollars into Leftwing campaigns, while groups such as the NRA were hamstrung from presenting issue-oriented ads on TV prior to the vote.

    The Court decided that the law was unconstitutional for that very reason–the suppression of free speech. There are to be no ‘anti-free speech zones’ in the United States with regard to elections. Free speech is a key to a clean, fair election based on an informed electorate.

    But this is what sticks in Obama’s craw. The Leftwing and ‘progressives’ don’t want free speech for the fear that the public just may become informed about real issues pertaining to the vote.

    He misstated their position, so he was either lying, or clueless about the decision. Your choice.

    Bingo.

Comments are closed.