Justice Alito: A Fancier “You Lie”

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Justice Alito: A Fancier “You Lie”

Written By : Lori Ziganto

Okay, maybe not a fancier “You Lie”, but more refined, shall we say. I wonder if Maureen Dowd will hear an “unspoken ‘boy’ in the air” at the end of this one, due to the “history of racism” in Alito’s home state of — New Jersey.

POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

“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’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

As Allahpundit said, “When you hear the president of the United States demagoging the First Amendment, you sit there and you take it, son.”

Huh. Looks like Obama really has brought about that change thing; now even Supreme Court Justices aren’t immune to the Left’s demagoguing – even during the State of the Union address.

(cross-posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal)

P.S. Joe Wilson: from South Carolina and I live there now. Justice Alito: from New Jersey, where I was born, raised and lived for 33 years. Thus, I get to claim credit for both of them. Sweet!

smallgovtfan

Not only does chairman O break with real tradition and etiquette by calling out the SCOTUS for something he doesnt like…….in front of the country……but he is 100% WRONG in his facts. You libs really picked a doosey of a retard with obama. You will all pay a real price for it too.
Mike_M

The entire Court could have stood up and sung “You Lie!” like the Hallelujah Chorus after that Obama whopper.

Not only was his premise wrong, saying the First Amendment needs to be “fixed” with a law is dunder-headed ignorance.

Obama looked foolish, petty, and completely unpresidential during the SOTU. He’s lucky all he got was a mouthed “not true” and the rolling of eyes after his descent into schoolyard namecalling and blame shifting.
libliever

Can somebody please explain to me how the First Amendment has been improved by the SC’s ruling?
Bildo

Posted by libliever
2010-01-30 18:51:57

“Can somebody please explain to me how the First Amendment has been improved by the SC’s ruling?”

You don’t get to pick and chose which forms of political speech you like. If you support freedom of speech for some, but not others, then you really don’t support free speech at all. I hate seeing the American flag burned in protest, but I’ll also be the first to admit that it should be protected as free speech.

McCain-Feingold was discriminatory. It banned certain political speech by most corporations, but exempted corporations that control newspapers, radio, tv, etc. While I personally think that labor union conglomerates are some of the most harmful entities in the nation, but as long as they are legally allowed to exist then they should have the freedom to participate in the system. By that same token, businesses contribute enormously to this country in taxes, jobs, and infrastructure, why should they be prohibited from advocating on their own behalf? If your real deep-down answer is because they tend to support Conservatives, then that just is precisely why the First Amendment is needed.

The film that was the subject of the ruling was political speech in every sense of the term. Honestly, that film was the very reason the First Amendment was included in the Constitution. If the government can regulate and ban speech that is critical of a Presidential candidate, then what exactly is it prohibited from regulating?

Political donations by foreign entities is still banned, thus the “not true” statement by Alito.

The Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are inalienable. They cannot be given away, even by choice, at least that is how it would be if certain judges hadn’t decided the Constitution was a “living” document. Now Justices can warp it into whatever they want it to be (see Kelo v New London).

I will always chose the side for more freedom and liberty over the one that advocates less.
libliever

“You don’t get to pick and chose which forms of political speech you like.”

So, it was ok for POTUS to exercise his freedom of speech at the SOTU address. That’s fine right?

Many American corporations are owned by foreignors or have a large stake in domestic companies so I’m not buying into what you say.

And finally this is NOT about free speech this is about money.

A business is owned by a peson and that person has every right to exercise his or her freedoms. Corporations aren’t people but are made up of people. Those people aren’t prohibited from exercising their First Amendment.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

So, it was ok for POTUS to exercise his freedom of speech at the SOTU address. That’s fine right?

So you are ok with Obama lying to the nation?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

So, it was ok for POTUS to exercise his freedom of speech at the SOTU address. That’s fine right?

Did someone hit you with the dumbass stick today, Libliever? Exactly when did anyone say it was illegal for Obama to get up there behind that podium and lie through his teeth?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

And finally this is NOT about free speech this is about money.

Ah, I guess the answer to my first question was “yes” then.

Money is speech, you moron. It’s an expression of political support that is fully protected by the United States Constitution and has been for longer than both of us have been alive.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Corporations aren’t people but are made up of people.

And groups of people have a Constitutional right to express their political beliefs through monetary contributions.

Your right to freedom of speech does not disappear just because you choose to exercise your right to freedom of association.
Pingback: About Justice Alito | Tech News
libliever

“Your right to freedom of speech does not disappear just because you choose to exercise your right to freedom of association.”

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of associaton and everything to do with corporate America crying like babies and wanting the old days back just ask Lily Ledbetter.
Judicial restraint was in order but the righties on the court have gone hunting for corporate America and bagged themselves a biggie.
If this ruling was something you guys didn’t like you would be calling it judicial activism and screaming and that’s just what it is judicial activism.
It isn’t Mr. Smith goes to Washington anymore it’s Mr Smith CEO of corporation A going to Washington and filling his pockets with politicians so he can shape the country the way he wants it subverting the will of the people.
They want to make the USA a commodity and tell us what we can eat, drink, or whatever and if we don’t like it too bad.
Sure, it may not be that blatant but the Will of The People has been eroded and lessened by this ruling no doubt about it.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

it’s Mr Smith CEO of corporation A going to Washington and filling his pockets with politicians so he can shape the country the way he wants it subverting the will of the people.
They want to make the USA a commodity and tell us what we can eat, drink, or whatever and if we don’t like it too bad.
Sure, it may not be that blatant but the Will of The People has been eroded and lessened by this ruling no doubt about it.

Posted by libliever
2010-01-31 09:01:04

So now you want to talk about George Soros, who owns the Obama Administration and the nutroots of the left.
Toastrider

Yeah, you might not want to run that ‘fat-cat moneyman’ schtick too hard, Lib, as most of us know about Soros et.al.

Honestly, I’m not hugely happy with the whole mess myself. But this says it best: why can the New York Times hammer a point in editorials day after day, but Microsoft can’t take out a full page ad espousing their company and shareholders’ position?

I have no problem with insisting on open disclosure, or shareholder votes on such ads. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, after all.

But there’s a reason a lot of bloggers vowed to ignore McCain-Feingold, and it didn’t have anything to do with being paid.
libliever

Posted by Toastrider
2010-01-31 11:26:16

Papers write editorials Toastrider, that’s what they do.
Sunshine, transparency, disclosure all fine with me I’m not disagreeing with your post.
And if Soros is doing that then he should be called on it and apparently he is being called on it all the time.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

Libliever,

What you’re saying is that people in Congress are incapable of exercising their own restraint.

If Congress respected the Constitution then there would be no need for “big business fatcats” to hand out money because they would get nothing in return.

If you’re perfectly happy with Congress obtaining more power then ALL Americans have the right, not just those you pick and choose.

And if Soros is doing that then he should be called on it and apparently he is being called on it all the time.

Oooh, whoop-de-frickin-doo, he’s being called on it. However, nothing has changed, has it?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of associaton and everything to do with corporate America crying like babies and wanting the old days back just ask Lily Ledbetter.

Awww, somebody call the waaaaahmbulance for poor Libliever.

Face the facts. Monetary contributions to a political candidate ARE a form of political expression, and are therefore protected by the Constitution. It absolutely does not matter where those contributions come from (with the sole exception that the contributors must be US citizens). Corporations are defined as individuals for the sake of legal convenience, but even if they weren’t they would STILL have the right to contribute money wherever and however they choose.
Pingback: Justice Alito: A Fancier “You Lie” | Right Wing News Terms
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

apparently he is being called on it all the time.

Posted by libliever
2010-01-31 11:43:55

When you own politicians and the media, just who is going to call him on it? The MSM is still claiming Obama is a successful POTUS for goodness sake.
Bildo

Posted by libliever
2010-01-31 11:43:55

“Papers write editorials Toastrider, that’s what they do.”

And Microsoft makes crappy software, but that shouldn’t prohibit them from telling their side of the story when the NYTs decides to write a hit piece about them, or to take out an ad supporting a candidate that they feel is pro-business.

“This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of associaton and everything to do with corporate America crying like babies and wanting the old days back just ask Lily Ledbetter.”

No, it has everything to do with freedom of speech. Of course, if you believe that all corporations are bad, as seems to be the liberal mentality, then any advocacy by them must be prohibited, right? I mean, if they are evil then why should they be allowed to state their case?

Strangely enough, environmentalist groups are doing massive economic harm to the world’s economy, and through the banning of DDT have caused the deaths of untold millions via malaria, but I don’t see you calling for an end to them taking out ads preaching the Great Global Warming Lie(tm).

As I said, you don’t get to pick and chose which speech you like and dislike. You either believe in those inalienable rights, or you believe that despotism is ok as long as the despot is on your side.

A couple of final points:

1. You could insert “unions” everywhere that you wrote “corporations” and it would be just as applicable. I noticed that you didn’t seem upset about organizations that are notoriously associated with organized crime now being able to place ads and advocate their political stance. As long as they support the Left, right?

2. Despite the common beliefs, nobody controls elections in the country. Yes, there are groups that influence them. Corporations have some influence, as they should. So does the media, environmentalist groups, consumer protection groups, labor unions, the NRA, evangelical churches, mainstream churches, Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, left-wing zealots posting on right-wing websites, and of course, the voters. In other words our system is influenced by millions of things, but isn’t controlled by any of them. As long as we can keep foreign contributions out, and especially sovereign funds, then I’m ok with it.

3. Fear that a greater freedom of speech will somehow endanger our freedom is just plain stupid.
Jack Schite

If money is a form of speech then the more money you have the more freedom you have to excercise, I guess.
http://Kingfisher Kingfisher

If money is a form of speech then the more money you have the more freedom you have to excercise, I guess.
Posted by Jack Schite
2010-01-31 15:47:10

Absolutely correct…which is the reason why very wealthy people like George Soros, John Kerry and Hollywood celebrities should never be allowed to speak. :-P
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

I guess.

Posted by Jack Schite
2010-01-31 15:47:10

We already know you cannot think, so thanks for being honest.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Can somebody please explain to me how the First Amendment has been improved by the SC’s ruling?

I am confused how it must be in order for anyone to not oppose the ruling. Is that the left’s standard now? You have to make the constitution better or its a bad court ruling? That might explain the attempt to find all this new stuff in penumbras.

It was essentially bad protocol to mouth something about the president’s speech, but at the same time, it was bad protocol for the president to be badmouthing the Supreme Court so I call that a push.

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN