Foreigners should get free speech. Should congress be allowed to ban The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf or The Origin of the Species just because they were written by foreigners?
If Hanz Blix writes a book critical of Bush, I have the right to read that book regardless of the what the government might think. If congress could regulate what foreigners say on tv, publish in books or post on youtube then America would be as bad as China regarding censorship.
"Due difference to separation of powers" would not include an open political attack by the President on the Supreme Court. Obama is completely out of line. He politicizes the one branch of government that should be completely separate from public or political will. His actions are poisonous and dangerous.
The only saving grace is that his arrogant tongue lashing means nothing - the court has no responsibility to the will of the President, Congress, or even the people.
Obama is such a coward. He passive aggressively singles out the justices KNOWING that they can't appear on fox news or cnn to defend themselves. He also gets a dig at the military officers, talking mentioning gays in the military. If one of them mouthed any word of disent its instant expulsion. Disgusting narcisist. All eyes on me.
I'm not happy Obama attacked the Court's decision, but to say his attacks are "poisonous and dangerous" sounds a little alarmist considering the Republicans have been verbally attacking the judiciary much more consistently and harshly for the last few decades. Fortunately the Framers made sure that the judicial branch would be virtually immune to political pressures, so this kind of attack is only useful for a politician who wants to rally their base, not work substantive change in the law.
I do think there is a difference in criticizing the court on a Sunday talk show or in a newspaper or journal, and doing it in the state of the union while staring them down. I think the manner in which it was done does poisonous to impartial legal thought, and I think it politicizes the court in an unhealthy way, but dangerous may have been too strong.
Interestingly, Thomas no longer attends SOTUs because he finds them too political for the court.
He is indeed a liar, and he must think the nation's voters are as stupid as the ACORN crowd of dopes he's fooled on a regular basis back in Chicago. Your post is brilliant...thanks for exposing that he LIED when he said the high Court "reversed a century of law."
Foreigners should get free speech. Should congress be allowed to ban The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf or The Origin of the Species just because they were written by foreigners?
If Hanz Blix writes a book critical of Bush, I have the right to read that book regardless of the what the government might think. If congress could regulate what foreigners say on tv, publish in books or post on youtube then America would be as bad as China regarding censorship.
meadbert 2 years ago
Just one more STUPID thing his "one-ness" has blathered.
Nachum 2 years ago
"Due difference to separation of powers" would not include an open political attack by the President on the Supreme Court. Obama is completely out of line. He politicizes the one branch of government that should be completely separate from public or political will. His actions are poisonous and dangerous.
The only saving grace is that his arrogant tongue lashing means nothing - the court has no responsibility to the will of the President, Congress, or even the people.
FAHayek89 2 years ago 2
Obama is such a coward. He passive aggressively singles out the justices KNOWING that they can't appear on fox news or cnn to defend themselves. He also gets a dig at the military officers, talking mentioning gays in the military. If one of them mouthed any word of disent its instant expulsion. Disgusting narcisist. All eyes on me.
TheRadar77 2 years ago 2
I'm not happy Obama attacked the Court's decision, but to say his attacks are "poisonous and dangerous" sounds a little alarmist considering the Republicans have been verbally attacking the judiciary much more consistently and harshly for the last few decades. Fortunately the Framers made sure that the judicial branch would be virtually immune to political pressures, so this kind of attack is only useful for a politician who wants to rally their base, not work substantive change in the law.
number154 2 years ago
Point taken.
I do think there is a difference in criticizing the court on a Sunday talk show or in a newspaper or journal, and doing it in the state of the union while staring them down. I think the manner in which it was done does poisonous to impartial legal thought, and I think it politicizes the court in an unhealthy way, but dangerous may have been too strong.
Interestingly, Thomas no longer attends SOTUs because he finds them too political for the court.
FAHayek89 2 years ago
"...last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law..."
For anyone interested in the TRUTH you can read the text of the actual decision. The court reversed or altered ONLY TWO previous decisions:
(1) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
(2) McConnell v. FEC (2003)
This rolls us back to the previous precedent set in... 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo).
SINCE WHEN do decisions from 1990 and 2003 equal "a century of law"?
Is Obama stupid, or is he just a LIAR?
I opt for the latter.
UncleIrv 2 years ago 4
He is indeed a liar, and he must think the nation's voters are as stupid as the ACORN crowd of dopes he's fooled on a regular basis back in Chicago. Your post is brilliant...thanks for exposing that he LIED when he said the high Court "reversed a century of law."
colderbeer 2 years ago