Corporate MONEY donations to Congress? Why do you think they give the money(now given FULL REIN by the Supreme Court.)
Corporate Influence, of course!
Why do you think the HEALTH CARE REFORM had a struggle? CORPORATE MONEY by the Health Care Industries in the form of TV ADS, and CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYISTS and payments to Senator's campaigns.
Money for Tea Parties and to influence opinion and INTERRUPT the debate and SPIN(lie) about what the bill was about.
We are nation of "Tokyo Rose Style" conservative funded, Talk Radio brainwashing.
Whoever has the money - gets the power.
Whoever gets the power - keeps the money.
Drug companies get government money every day. Drug Lobbyists got Bush to pass a Medicare Part D - THAT BENEFITS the insurance companies and the Drug companies. Medicare Part D is an entitlement NOT to seniors - but to corporate America.
Roberts is right and liberals are contradictory morons who claim to value free speech even as they silence dissent by attacking and insulting all those who do not agree with them. Sean Penn is a perfect example; he recently said that anyone who calls Hugo Chavez a dictator ought to be thrown in jail. Got it? If you disagree with him, he would have you imprisoned. He is just another of many hypocritical liberal idiots in this country.
@mbbfl - I am sure Sean Penn represents himself, who else could he represent?
Roberts is intensely partisan and emotional guy. He can't take criticism. People who have to call their opponents names are very short on debating points. Is the Supreme court above criticism?
Sad when the Supreme Court has been used to elect presidents( George W Bush). ...And now, this ruling OPENS the door and invites Corporations to buy future presidents. (INCLUDING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS)
John Robert's is illegitimate. He has no opinion. Anything the fraudulent five decree in their national fatwa's is to be ignored and spat upon. They have no authority in a democratic republic because they're trying to destroy it.
Greetings in the name of Jesus Im a Gospel Rapper & Preacher, one day I called on the name of Jesus & my life has changed, so I have a new song out called :Lead em to Christ: come to my channel & check me out exp. those who dont believe God is real...I believe it will bless u
The Supreme Court abides by our Constitution. This administration I feel would love to scarp our Constitution. It is sad that any American feel this way but I do.
"By definition"? Your response is nonsense. The two words are at opposite ends of a political power spectrum. Do you even own a dictionary? Try reading one sometime.
@FreedomInAmerica - I am certainly not a scholar of the Supreme Court, but, I see no sense in the argument that because the Supreme court can interpret any law - any way they want to - that the Supreme Court is infallible.
A law exists. The Supreme Court Acts. The law means something else.
However, I never suggested the Supreme Court was acting illegally. I suggest the Supreme Court is a partisan body and has way too much power - esp. with decisions that affect who controls America.
Uh... either you're 12 years old and this was the first state of the union you watched, or you just never pay attention AND don't know much history. The state of the union HAS BEEN a political pep rally for either party and any president since Woodrow Wilson. Read the text of some of the SOU addresses from the last 100 years.
It's unprecedented for the President to attack a ruling the Supreme Court made in a forum where the protocol of the Supreme court is to remain sitting expressionless.
Furthermore, Obama had his facts completely WRONG, and the Supreme Court couldn't really do anything. Justice Samuel Alito was unaware the camera was on him when he silently mouthed, "Not True".
I don't blame any of them for not showing up to the State of the Union Address until the Obama is out of office.
Please cite your sources, so I can verify this. I find when arguing with people on YouTube, they have their facts wrong. I don't have a problem conceding an argument, but only if I'm wrong.
I won't ever concede the fact that the SOU address is the wrong forum to "bash", "attack", "criticize", or slander the Supreme Court. Especially when it's protocol for them to remain expressionless and seated.
I thought I was quite clear and specific about my sources:
1. Harding, William G., State of the Union Address, 1922 [cf. child labor law].
2. Reagan, Ronald, State of the Union Address, 1984 [cf. abortion].
3. Reagan, Ronald, State of the Union Address, 1988 [cf. school prayer].
Hopefully you are resourceful and motivated enough to look up the transcripts of the above cited SOU addresses. I'll make it even easier: all such transcripts are available on thisnation[dot]com.
Considering Obama's speech was over 1 hour long, I don't have the time to peruse through all the transcripts to find the exact location where it was done. Do you have any references or the location within the transcripts I can locate it?
If what you claim happened, the difference between what Obama did and Reagan and Harding was that President Obama had his facts wrong about the decision. The decision is unpopular with the mainstream media, but that doesn't mean "foreign entities" will be able to influence our elections with buying adds for candidates. I don't blame the Supreme Court for not showing up until Obama is out of office.
Tell me: in this era of globalization where political boundaries have become increasingly irrelevant, what exactly is going to prevent a powerful (or even not so powerful) foreign corporation from buying TV spots backing a particular candidate and thereby influencing our elections? The networks would be only too happy to accommodate them. What and/or who is going to stop them?
When you can answer this then you can talk about Obama not having his facts right.
Just as I expected, you have no answer. Sovereignty is absolutely irrelevant to my question. That's like saying the US has sovereignty, therefore it is immune to infiltration of drugs, counterfeit money and terrorists. Right.
You cannot be that big of a simpleton. But then again, judging by your grammar, one never knows.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a libertarian. So much for your attempt at labeling. You , on the other hand, are obviously a Faux News robot. What orders have you received for today?
"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech.' [quoting Scalia] If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections apart from the ..."
"... merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1, paragraph 12)
@substanti8 I AGREE. It is an uncomfortable truth that most Americans do not have the time to be political experts on every issue.
Typical hard-working American who perhaps listens to radio on the way home from work and relaxes in front a TV with commercials - is exposed to only what PAID commercials brainwash him or her into thinking. It works! And the party with the MOST MONEY wins. That is why we used to want Campaign reform.
But the lasting solution is NOT financial restriction.
Q: What do the following social problems have in common?
drug abuse
illegal immigration
influence peddling in government
A: Demand-side solutions are far superior to supply-side solutions. With regard to political campaigns, that means reducing the demand for money -- rather than trying to dance around the First Amendment by restricting contributions.
I've seen no evidence that Roberts is interested in a demand-side solution.
The solution that I (and others) have long advocated is to reclaim the public airwaves (the electromagnetic frequency spectrum) for the public interest, at least with regards to political campaigns.
The U.S. Congress has all the power it needs to direct the FCC to do the job.
@substanti8 Yes, the only way to prevent this Supreme Court Decision to allow unlimited contributions by corporations is for the U.S. Congress to pass legislation around it. I am sure Pelosi and others have some ideas. I am also sure republicans will fight and filibuster against it, as the banking, drug, insurance lobbyists have tons of money to get Reps back into office.
Your idea of reclaiming the public airwaves for public interest has lots of merit, but, in reality how can it happen?
Good ol' Pelosi. You trust her? I mean she is Speaker of the House, the House of Representatives in Congress. Their job is to draft legislation. And she just said about the 2,700+ page Health Care Reform Bill, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
That's completely incompetent. I, and a lot of other people want her out.
House Democrats, led by House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter want to "Deem the Health Care Reform Bill passed without taking a vote." This violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution which states:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
4/4 If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
uhm, yeah, b/c no other president has done what obama did during the state of the union. he broke rank with past presidents by using the occassion to criticize the justices within an arena which they are prohibited from rebuttal.
I wish the Supreme Court would by more involved. Especially since American's are slowly losing their Civil Liberties with each passing day. They really need to take a look at the Patriot Act.
I agree! The Patriot is a very loosely worded violation of the 1st amendment rights and should never have been put into circulation. Also, the department of homeland security has no reason to exist as they are a waste of money and have yet, to this day, to provide any extra measure of security then we have already had.
What is REALLY troubling and very dangerous to the US, is men like Roberts. Appointed to this serious position by a sub-par President, it is time the public demanded a Complete Review of the Supreme Court and the quality of many on those sitting on its bench.
Roberts is a hero for standing up to Obama!!! SOTUA was no place to for Obama to criticize them. The ruling was sound. And saying the SOTUA degenerated into a political pep rally was dead on!
you are insane and if you believe that, freedom is the LAST thing on your mind. you are a creep. go crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.
Roberts and the other neocon corporate whores have diminished the court by their presence. Bought and paid for. All about preserving privilege, not about the Constitution. I'm proud of my Black, White, American-born (as if I care) President for calling them out. Anyway, the "tradition" of justices attending the State Of The Union address began only with Clinton's administration. Tempest in a teabag. Move on.
Whether Roberts or the other judges attend any state of the union speech is utterly trivial. What the court did in unleashing corporate sponsorship of our elections is profound. 5 judges threw their weight behind the right wing goal of concentrating the greatest possible wealth in the fewest possible hands.
Wanna play games and contests to win points and get anything free from amazon, Then go watch my video (earn anything at amazon!) to see how or go here and sign up and start winning anything you want. Here is the link to sign up at. tinyurl(dot)com/ygwu9mb
OK, what have we here? A damned right -winged SC justice criticizing Pres. Obama for something that other presidents have done down through history. Oh, but I forget...."he's a nigra, and he ain't go no raught to crit'cize the Soopreme Curt.' "Nigra need to know his place." You right wingfreaks get more ridiculous by the day, As for the comment that he is the most divisive president in history...he's also the LEAST WHITE so I guess that goes hand in hand, huh? Jackass!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why oh why can't the KKK, black panthers, and racist assholes like this "fourat11" guy just all get together and jump off a cliff? why!? the world would be SUCH a better place
now let me destroy this uneducated inbreed
OK, first of all obama's name is not even MENTIONED, so that pretty much renders your pathetic argument void. if you actually bothered to listen before you commented like the racist primate that you are you would've seen that Roberts was criticizing protocol in general.
What's 'troubling' is the Republican party has become the party of fear. Beware, trouble, danger, etc. All key Republican terms to lead their sheep down the path. Far different than when I was a Republican in the 80's. Then it was more business like, about keeping America moving. Now it's about keeping the 'over medicated on anti-depressant drugs' followers in line like a Reverend Sun Young Moon cult. Sad.
@onjoFilms: well, not really. You are looking at it from a distorted angle.
Remember it's always liberals who claim that there's always a crisis out there and we need a bigger, wiser, Ivy-trained gov't to regulate / prevent problems. They need artificial crises like the subprime, genocide, mass hunger, or, most conveniently, wars (after all, war is the health of the state) that they helped to create in the first place. Likewise, it's no surprise that neocons are welfare/warfare liberals.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you were never a republican.
not that there is anything wrong with that, I've never been a republican either, but don't lie to support your pathetic arguments. just make better arguments.
I was never a Republican? I was only a Republican, then an Independent. If you don't believe that is your choice. But your pathetic life if probably full of things you don't believe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I was never a Republican?"
um..... its what i said isn't it?
"But your pathetic life if probably full of things you don't believe"
oh noes!!!! you called me pathetic behind a keyboard!!!! I'm utterly devastated!!! and what the fuck does the other part of that failure of an insult even mean? if i don't believe in "things" then what difference does it make really?
The certification of live birth posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same short-form document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true long-form birth certificate which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician - is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Take off your partisan hats please. If any of the justices are "assholes" what does that make our president for criticising them at the SOTUS address? There is a time and place for it. Notice the honorable justice didn't jab at Obama when he had the opportunity to do so! I have disagreed with some court decisions,but on what basis do I (a carpenter) have, to say something they ruled on is wrong?
I'm not sure why your there either, Mr. chief justice. But taking into account the decision in question, maybe you really shouldn't be there. Looks almost like a rogue's gallery.
The supreme court is acting like the filthy corrupt corporate Aristocracies obediant little lap dog that can turn into a vicious pack of rotwilers on comand.
Much like the catholic church enabled the absolute monarchies Aristocracies of the past.
This is a response to a private message sent to me by a birther in the below comments:
The Supreme Court has held in Dred Scott, Elk v. Wilkins and most prominently in Minor v. Happersett, that there is no legal difference between natural born citizens and citizens, and that the term "Natural Born" as used in the Constitution is an obiter dictum, a term without legal effect.
There is simply NO merit whatsoever to any contrary argument.
It reminded me of the video where Saddam Hussein started reading off a list of "traitors" during a party assembly. The so-called traitors were later summarily executed.
As long as there are mother fuckers in government like Roberts and Alito working for corporations, American public are doomed. This is not a democracy, it is: everything for the very rich, fuck the rest.
Justice Roberts, we the people appoligize for the continued white house amature hour we mistakingly made possibe. We assure you we will rectify this situation at the earliest possible convience, 2012 is our best guess estimate at this time. You can rest asssured he will formally reach lame duck status in 7 months. (he's actually there now...)
No sh!t! I've been called a racist against Obama by winning an argument that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax. I didn't mention Obama once, but yeah I was a racist against Obama for believing in the sound science that atmospheric physicist John R. Christy found using satellite and weather balloon data.
you just need to embrace the fact that if your a white male, you're a racist, bigotted, homophobe..don't try to deny, or explain to the politically correct accusers..just smile and know you're labeled
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Not bad.
The State Of The Union Address has gone from being an informative address from the Executive to the Legistature to being instead a propoganda speech delivered by the sitting President to the people of the USA. I don't know when this change occured (I suppose I could research it) but I know from reading President Abraham Lincoln's SOTU addresses that it didn't used to be this way.
It seems that if the president is BLACK then its ok to openly express disdain toward him, or be discourteous and down-right disrespectful...In otherwords, behave like you're at the White version of the Apollo theater, and not on the floor of congress....GW made plenty of outlandish and stupid remarks during his state-of-the-union, but everyone SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and listened politely and showed respect. With a Black president, there is no such restraint
@Quisquellano26 why the hell does being half black make you a black person? he is just as much white as he is black, but everyone calls him black. stupid idiots.
It is as simple as that the vast majority of white people in this country would not see him as white.
Were Barack Obama to walk down the street, just another guy walking to the store or his job, etc, your initial response would be based on your own prejudices black people.
I think white people should stop trying to claim the president as one of their own. The fact of the matter is he is not wholly white, does not appear white and just 30 years ago couldnt even play golf wherever he liked.
if he's 50% white than he is just as much mine and any black. besides, we're supposed to be a free country a melting pot of differences. you call him black, i call him white.
Roberts indicates the 3 Branches should remain quite separate and thus the Executive shouldn't be publicly criticizing the Judges on the Court as he, as the Supreme Court Judge, criticizes the President.
Can you be any more wrong. He states that it is more than fine for the court to be criticized re its decisions by other branches of govt. His point was that it is inappropriate to do it in a forum where the justices cannot respond. Wrong place, wrong time. That is no hypocrisy, that is decorum.
You don't know what you're talking about. Did you even listen to what he said? The president can publicly criticize SCOTUS just as much as anyone can. Just not in a setting like the SOTU address. The justices CAN'T react to anything said in the speech (except, of course, Alito)
That's like saying voting has nothing to do with a democratic or representational constitutional government. Corporate speech isn't the problem; it's the absurdity of the enviroment in which it is to be promoted and advanced. Furthermore, it's a done deal anyway for now. What exactly is the proper "forum" for a person's last words who is about to be executed? He might as well said the sky is made out of cotton freaking candy anyway.
Obama lied or misspoke at the state of the union and that is why he mouthed to himself what he said that it wasn't true. Even MSNBC this morning said that he misspoke.
"You know what was REALLY inappropriate? The SCOTUS decision. "
Definitely.
I think chief Justice John Roberts is mostly wrong but may be right when he suggests he and other supreme court justices should be omitted from State of the Union addresses.
Lovely softball question. Roberts has shown himself 2b dishonest. He was the one who said how much he respected precedent, and has spent most of his time ignoring precedent. This ruling was a BAD ruling and it was a ruling to aid corporations -- which is what the five on the court live for. The notion that a corporation is a person is moronic. Individuals in a corporation are persons, but the body is an entity not a person. But that doesn't help who he's bought and paid by. Corporate USA.
Obama turned the state of union into a political rally and abused his position to make an idiotic criticism of the Court. Obama SHOULD know better since by all liberal accounts he is the greatest Constitutional scholar of all time. In reality he was an affirmative action beneficiary who never had the qualifications to get into Harvard in the first place. His lack of decorum or understanding of the case he was criticizing only serves to make this point self evident.
@bohs1984 Obama was voicing the feelings of many, many of us who don't a public voice to be heard. You should have put your ending comments at the beginning, so as to make your anti-President Obama views obvious.
@bohs1984. I agree that the President's slap at the Supreme Court justices was inappropriate, just as it was inappropriate for Joe Wilson to call the President a liar in a session of Congress. It's a matter of civility and fairness.
Obama and his Administration is trying to control or intimidate Wall street, Banking Industry, Auto Industry, News Industry, Insurance, HealthCare, Business, House, Senate, and Supreme Court. Remind ya of anyone with half a moustache?
check out my profile on how to get thousands of dollars monthly for FREE, I mean free. You dont have to pay for anything and its not complicated. All it requires is alittle effort and you can be making $5000 and more monthly.
The bottom line is that our President mis spoke the truth in the State of The Union Address. Our own President didn't understand our own Constitution and thought that foreign countries could contribute to us during campaigns. We have strict laws against this and they can't donate. Roberts was correct. It is strange however that during our President's campaign he accepted a ton of foreign money through internet donations from other countries. Weird how nobody in the media is looking into that.
Did Obama mis speak out of ignorance or did he lie intentionally? Either way is disgusting and bad news for America. And it is strange how Obama and Clinton (the china connection) both took foreign money and nothing is said about the hypocrisy.
How dare Obummer publicly chide the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address - AND he LIED about the very decision he chided them for - because HE DIDN'T DO HIS HOMEWORK - once again the Teleprompter-In-Chief degrades the office of the President of the United States. What an ARROGANT, SELF-IMPORTANT ELITIST EGOTIST! He really does see himself as DICTATOR of the USA. Is it 2012 YET??!!! This albatross has GOT TO GO!
I posted a video response except to indicate how the state of the union no doubt played to a vast majority of America.Washington DC has jurisdiction over 12 square miles and is like the janitors closet for the states.Where they keep the puke mop and sawdust bucket. People take Washington too seriously. Unfortunately the television watchers of this nation believe it is the head of all power in the US. Read Saul Alinsky and see it's not the power they have but the power you believe they have.
Oh boo hoo. Cry to mommy John. Let's talk about the decision that gives the same right of freedom of speech to corporations. Next you'll decide that dogs indeed have souls.
If you don't see the inherent danger you're either fishing for a donation or shortsighted. Remember America, Supreme Court justices have egos too and it looks as if one has had his bruised.
Obama thinks he is a dictator. This man is right now trying to outlaw fishing! Saying you no longer can fish in the Oceans, lakes and rivers! Can you imagine the economic impact if we are no longer allowed to fish! The American citizen has few friends in our own gov't. that is trying to take away our freedom. Thank god for people like John Roberts that will stand up to him.
What freedom? The freedom to conform to the mythology of the "American Dream"? The mythology of endless consumption? The freedom to forever act like a teenager? The freedom to catch and eat polluted fish?
The American dream is still there. With all of the politicians screwing up so many things one can still make it in America. The Obama administration is trying to make it very hard or near impossible. So what kind of soy milk and tofu do you consume ?
When you take extreme action and overturn a crucial law that's been on the books for over a hundred years - and for good reason - the LEAST you should expect to get is a few irate remarks. Some more public than others. Some more audible than others. And some from the other branches of government.
When you choose to give more power the bully that is already too powerful and controlling much of the government as it is, don't cry foul when someone calls you on it, even if it is the president.
364 days a year the supreme court gets to make unilateral ruling that affects all of us. Let me repeat: UNILATERAL RULING. That means no one gets to question them, and what they say is the final word. Occasionally, they even get to select a president despite the outcome of an election.
So, 30 seconds a year of public bashing of a branch of government that is otherwise beyond all reproach is hardly unfair in a supposedly democratic society. The other 364 days, 23 hrs, 59.5 min it's the reverse.
Obama looks at the court as an obsticle in his way. He will drag this counrty as far left as fast as he can. In his mind the end justifys the means. Oppose Obama he is dangerous!
Oh please, I so hope you are right!!!!!!! He could drag us as far left as he possible and we'll still only be in the center after the stupidity of George Bush's decisions.
I don't hate Obama. I don't hate any one. Obama is damamged goods. He believes our constitution and our bill of rights are flaud because they limit government power over us. The man is two faced. Obama says one thing and does another. He thinks government does not have enough power over you or control of your money. Dangerous!
"Obama thinks government does not have enough power over you ..."
Maybe so. But your rhetoric obscures the plain fact that the Bill of Rights has been eroded the FASTEST under Republican leadership in this empire. Government has become a fascist tool for greater corporate hegemony.
Right wing -- by definition -- is the politics of maintaining that status quo. Left wing is the politics of opposing the existing system. You cannot understand complexities until you at least grok the fundamentals.
@kattt200011.. Obama is a loose canon and it's very scary that he is "running" our country! How long is he going to continue to blame Bush for Obama's screw ups?
@john51880...I could not agree more! Obama is a loose canon and it's very scary that he is "running" our country! How long is he going to continue to blame Bush for his screw ups?
I agree with roberts. It was the wrong forum. And lets not kid ourselves to think corporations and unions have not have their hand in the political process. Its been there behind the scenes the whole time. Take it from my brother inlaw, an apprentice in the IBEW who against his wishes was forced to campaign for Obama. Where the freedom in that?
So i missed an s. thats your whole point on the topic? Do you have a brain or do you just like to make stupid random comments showing your 1st grade mentality? Get a life!
wow...the courts decision was troubling, not the remarks made during the state of the union. the majority acted unwisely...again. and there is no venue where it should be taboo to call that out...
Obamabots are everywhere!
Obamabotting 1 year ago
Comment removed
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
all in favor say.. what?
stainskoolkidz 1 year ago
Corporate MONEY donations to Congress? Why do you think they give the money(now given FULL REIN by the Supreme Court.)
Corporate Influence, of course!
Why do you think the HEALTH CARE REFORM had a struggle? CORPORATE MONEY by the Health Care Industries in the form of TV ADS, and CONGRESSIONAL LOBBYISTS and payments to Senator's campaigns.
Money for Tea Parties and to influence opinion and INTERRUPT the debate and SPIN(lie) about what the bill was about.
Supreme Court made this easier.
Clarissa2424 1 year ago
We are nation of "Tokyo Rose Style" conservative funded, Talk Radio brainwashing.
Whoever has the money - gets the power.
Whoever gets the power - keeps the money.
Drug companies get government money every day. Drug Lobbyists got Bush to pass a Medicare Part D - THAT BENEFITS the insurance companies and the Drug companies. Medicare Part D is an entitlement NOT to seniors - but to corporate America.
Clarissa2424 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Roberts is 100% correct. Obama uses every venue to campaign. He's a non-stop propaganda machine.
rubbercheck72 1 year ago
Roberts is right and liberals are contradictory morons who claim to value free speech even as they silence dissent by attacking and insulting all those who do not agree with them. Sean Penn is a perfect example; he recently said that anyone who calls Hugo Chavez a dictator ought to be thrown in jail. Got it? If you disagree with him, he would have you imprisoned. He is just another of many hypocritical liberal idiots in this country.
mbbfl 1 year ago
Do you have a source for that supposed quote? Or are you just making things up?
substanti8 1 year ago
@mbbfl - I am sure Sean Penn represents himself, who else could he represent?
Roberts is intensely partisan and emotional guy. He can't take criticism. People who have to call their opponents names are very short on debating points. Is the Supreme court above criticism?
Sad when the Supreme Court has been used to elect presidents( George W Bush). ...And now, this ruling OPENS the door and invites Corporations to buy future presidents. (INCLUDING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS)
Clarissa2424 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Shoes:Nike Air Jordan, Nike Rift, Max 90, Bape, Adidas, Puma, Gucci, Timberland, Prada, Lv, Ice cream, UGG Boots,AF1,Visvim,CA shoes,Burberry,Hogans shoes, converse shoes; Jeans of Diesel, Rock&Republic,Seven,red monkey, Evisu, D&G, ED hardy, A&F, BBC, GGG, Armani, Short, Coogi
T-shirt :Polo, lacoste, burburry, boss, A&F,Armani, Artful dodger, Bape, Bbc,Coogi,D&G ,Ed hardy, Evisu,GGG,LRG, True Religion, Smet etc, welcome to visit website:
w w w jordan-af1 c o m
maojiecai 1 year ago
John Robert's is illegitimate. He has no opinion. Anything the fraudulent five decree in their national fatwa's is to be ignored and spat upon. They have no authority in a democratic republic because they're trying to destroy it.
ThisWeekInFascism 1 year ago
I find John Roberts very troubling.
SuperKixxx 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Greetings in the name of Jesus Im a Gospel Rapper & Preacher, one day I called on the name of Jesus & my life has changed, so I have a new song out called :Lead em to Christ: come to my channel & check me out exp. those who dont believe God is real...I believe it will bless u
ilovejesus84 1 year ago
The Supreme Court abides by our Constitution. This administration I feel would love to scarp our Constitution. It is sad that any American feel this way but I do.
quizerry 1 year ago
@quizerry
Abides? That's wrong. The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the Constitution with its rulings.
substanti8 1 year ago
@substanit8
Well, by definition when the Supreme Court INTERPRETS the Constitution, it is ABIDING by it.
Roberts is correct at how Obama used the State of the Union Address as a pep rally instead of giving Americans "The State Of the Union"
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
@FIA
"By definition"? Your response is nonsense. The two words are at opposite ends of a political power spectrum. Do you even own a dictionary? Try reading one sometime.
substanti8 1 year ago
@substantia8
Interpret - to give or provide the meaning of;
Abide by - To conform to; comply with:
Since the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws, then if the
Supreme Court is interpreting the law, then it is abiding by the Constitution.
capice?
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
@FreedomInAmerica - I am certainly not a scholar of the Supreme Court, but, I see no sense in the argument that because the Supreme court can interpret any law - any way they want to - that the Supreme Court is infallible.
A law exists. The Supreme Court Acts. The law means something else.
However, I never suggested the Supreme Court was acting illegally. I suggest the Supreme Court is a partisan body and has way too much power - esp. with decisions that affect who controls America.
Clarissa2424 1 year ago
Uh... either you're 12 years old and this was the first state of the union you watched, or you just never pay attention AND don't know much history. The state of the union HAS BEEN a political pep rally for either party and any president since Woodrow Wilson. Read the text of some of the SOU addresses from the last 100 years.
kossmikham 1 year ago
@kossmikham,
It's unprecedented for the President to attack a ruling the Supreme Court made in a forum where the protocol of the Supreme court is to remain sitting expressionless.
Furthermore, Obama had his facts completely WRONG, and the Supreme Court couldn't really do anything. Justice Samuel Alito was unaware the camera was on him when he silently mouthed, "Not True".
I don't blame any of them for not showing up to the State of the Union Address until the Obama is out of office.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
@FreedomInAmerica
Your simple lack of historical knowledge doesn't make an occurrence "unprecedented". Here are just a few such precedents:
1922: President Harding in his SOU address bashed the SC for its overturning of the 1919 Child Labor Law.
1984: President Reagan in his SOU address attacked the SC for the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
1988: President Reagan in his SOU address criticized the SC for its recent ruling on school prayer.
So, no, this is hardly unprecedented. Read some history.
kossmikham 1 year ago
@kossmikham,
Please cite your sources, so I can verify this. I find when arguing with people on YouTube, they have their facts wrong. I don't have a problem conceding an argument, but only if I'm wrong.
I won't ever concede the fact that the SOU address is the wrong forum to "bash", "attack", "criticize", or slander the Supreme Court. Especially when it's protocol for them to remain expressionless and seated.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
@FreedomInAmerica
I thought I was quite clear and specific about my sources:
1. Harding, William G., State of the Union Address, 1922 [cf. child labor law].
2. Reagan, Ronald, State of the Union Address, 1984 [cf. abortion].
3. Reagan, Ronald, State of the Union Address, 1988 [cf. school prayer].
Hopefully you are resourceful and motivated enough to look up the transcripts of the above cited SOU addresses. I'll make it even easier: all such transcripts are available on thisnation[dot]com.
kossmikham 1 year ago
1/2 [3/9 3am]
Considering Obama's speech was over 1 hour long, I don't have the time to peruse through all the transcripts to find the exact location where it was done. Do you have any references or the location within the transcripts I can locate it?
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
2/2 [3/18 3am]
If what you claim happened, the difference between what Obama did and Reagan and Harding was that President Obama had his facts wrong about the decision. The decision is unpopular with the mainstream media, but that doesn't mean "foreign entities" will be able to influence our elections with buying adds for candidates. I don't blame the Supreme Court for not showing up until Obama is out of office.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
Tell me: in this era of globalization where political boundaries have become increasingly irrelevant, what exactly is going to prevent a powerful (or even not so powerful) foreign corporation from buying TV spots backing a particular candidate and thereby influencing our elections? The networks would be only too happy to accommodate them. What and/or who is going to stop them?
When you can answer this then you can talk about Obama not having his facts right.
kossmikham 1 year ago
@kossmikham
"Tell me: in this era of globalization where political boundaries have become increasingly irrelevant"
Last I checked the United States had it's sovereignty. Good day OBAMABOT!
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
Just as I expected, you have no answer. Sovereignty is absolutely irrelevant to my question. That's like saying the US has sovereignty, therefore it is immune to infiltration of drugs, counterfeit money and terrorists. Right.
You cannot be that big of a simpleton. But then again, judging by your grammar, one never knows.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a libertarian. So much for your attempt at labeling. You , on the other hand, are obviously a Faux News robot. What orders have you received for today?
kossmikham 1 year ago
law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
"All of the majority's theoretical arguments turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but little grounding in evidence or experience, 'that there is no such thing as too much speech.' [quoting Scalia] If individuals in our society had infinite free time to listen to and contemplate every last bit of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast advertisements had no special ability to influence elections apart from the ..."
substanti8 1 year ago 3
"... merits of their arguments (to the extent they make any); and if legislators always operated with nothing less than perfect virtue; then I suppose the majority's premise would be sound. In the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener's exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens' willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process." -- Justice Stevens (Sec. IV, Part 1, paragraph 12)
substanti8 1 year ago 3
@substanti8 I AGREE. It is an uncomfortable truth that most Americans do not have the time to be political experts on every issue.
Typical hard-working American who perhaps listens to radio on the way home from work and relaxes in front a TV with commercials - is exposed to only what PAID commercials brainwash him or her into thinking. It works! And the party with the MOST MONEY wins. That is why we used to want Campaign reform.
Clarissa2424 1 year ago 2
"campaign reform"
But the lasting solution is NOT financial restriction.
Q: What do the following social problems have in common?
drug abuse
illegal immigration
influence peddling in government
A: Demand-side solutions are far superior to supply-side solutions. With regard to political campaigns, that means reducing the demand for money -- rather than trying to dance around the First Amendment by restricting contributions.
See my four-part post for details:
watch?v=sEzK2ekVFHk
substanti8 1 year ago 3
@substanti8 You say the solution to campaign reform is 'reducing the DEMAND for money' - rather than restricting contributions.
Perhaps that is what ROBERTS was thinking? If, so, where is his statement recommending such recourse?
How do you suggest the DEMAND for campaign contributions are reduced?
Kick out the Lobbyists and provide free air-time for political campaigns?
WHO has the POWER to kick out the BANKING LOBBY?
Clarissa2424 1 year ago
I've seen no evidence that Roberts is interested in a demand-side solution.
The solution that I (and others) have long advocated is to reclaim the public airwaves (the electromagnetic frequency spectrum) for the public interest, at least with regards to political campaigns.
The U.S. Congress has all the power it needs to direct the FCC to do the job.
substanti8 1 year ago
@substanti8 Yes, the only way to prevent this Supreme Court Decision to allow unlimited contributions by corporations is for the U.S. Congress to pass legislation around it. I am sure Pelosi and others have some ideas. I am also sure republicans will fight and filibuster against it, as the banking, drug, insurance lobbyists have tons of money to get Reps back into office.
Your idea of reclaiming the public airwaves for public interest has lots of merit, but, in reality how can it happen?
Clarissa2424 1 year ago
Good ol' Pelosi. You trust her? I mean she is Speaker of the House, the House of Representatives in Congress. Their job is to draft legislation. And she just said about the 2,700+ page Health Care Reform Bill, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
That's completely incompetent. I, and a lot of other people want her out.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
First off
1/4
House Democrats, led by House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter want to "Deem the Health Care Reform Bill passed without taking a vote." This violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution which states:
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
2/4
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
3/4
If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
4/4 If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
I'm actually really impressed with this answer. He's right... the State of the Union HAS degenerated into a political pep rally.
zeecee1 1 year ago 3
ya
like it hasnt been for 30 years?
funny how he only speaks up now
fuck him...he is a traitor to america and should be drawn, quartered and shot
brabon1 1 year ago
uhm, yeah, b/c no other president has done what obama did during the state of the union. he broke rank with past presidents by using the occassion to criticize the justices within an arena which they are prohibited from rebuttal.
snowtrot 1 year ago
...together with the rest of American politics.
mayhempropeller 1 year ago
I wish the Supreme Court would by more involved. Especially since American's are slowly losing their Civil Liberties with each passing day. They really need to take a look at the Patriot Act.
operationD 1 year ago 2
I agree! The Patriot is a very loosely worded violation of the 1st amendment rights and should never have been put into circulation. Also, the department of homeland security has no reason to exist as they are a waste of money and have yet, to this day, to provide any extra measure of security then we have already had.
Cordantheman 1 year ago 2
"The State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally." - Roberts
I agree with this statement.
lambus1234 1 year ago 6
What is REALLY troubling and very dangerous to the US, is men like Roberts. Appointed to this serious position by a sub-par President, it is time the public demanded a Complete Review of the Supreme Court and the quality of many on those sitting on its bench.
dustysandy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dustysandy
please enlighten us, what exactly IS the problem with Roberts?
Your just a cock suck arnt you?
griptick 1 year ago
Roberts is a hero for standing up to Obama!!! SOTUA was no place to for Obama to criticize them. The ruling was sound. And saying the SOTUA degenerated into a political pep rally was dead on!
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
you are insane and if you believe that, freedom is the LAST thing on your mind. you are a creep. go crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.
ho2cultcha 1 year ago
I like Roberts he is right about Obama lying. Oh and i also agree they(SCOTUS) should sit out the SOTUA untill obama leaves.
computerpurple 1 year ago
@billeybop --nobody likes attorneys, except your own attorney. :)
sammvoyager 1 year ago
Roberts should be impeached. He lied to get his job.
osothegato 1 year ago
Activism by anyone on any court is a dangerous thing. I have never trusted a lawyer in any capacity. They will do anything for a stinking buck.
billeybop 1 year ago
Not a Roberts fan... but he's right here.
sdarms111 1 year ago
bullshit! we should all be rioting in the streets against this ruling.
ho2cultcha 1 year ago
@sdarms111
I second that.
operationD 1 year ago 2
Roberts is a decent man doing what he was put there to do, just like justices Thomas, Scare'ya, Sneezy and Grumpy.
stainskoolkidz 1 year ago
I agree. The SCOTUS should sit out the State of The Union Addresses until Obama is out of office in 3 years.
vidguy67 1 year ago 2
The Aristocrats enabler Roberts is like the corporatist lying creap Dubya but with an education.
Scary stuff!
brotherjupiter 1 year ago
The corporatocracies
chief enabler has spoken.
Creeps!
brotherjupiter 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court bitch slap that uncool, unclassy little twerp, Obonehead.
NotEasilyRegimented 1 year ago
Roberts and the other neocon corporate whores have diminished the court by their presence. Bought and paid for. All about preserving privilege, not about the Constitution. I'm proud of my Black, White, American-born (as if I care) President for calling them out. Anyway, the "tradition" of justices attending the State Of The Union address began only with Clinton's administration. Tempest in a teabag. Move on.
MartinGist 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@MartinGist
NotEasilyRegimented (6 seconds ago) Show Hide 0
Marked as spam
Reply | Remove
Nice to see the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court bitch slap that uncool, unclassy little twerp, Obonehead.
NotEasilyRegimented 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
like i told that other moron
"neocon", corporate, whores, blah blah blah...... word regurgitation
your just another imbecile who has the talking points mastered but no real understanding
shame.(as if i care)
eddyANDpepitoFILMS 1 year ago
Thats Tempest in a Tea CUP!
mssedmebich 1 year ago
Whether Roberts or the other judges attend any state of the union speech is utterly trivial. What the court did in unleashing corporate sponsorship of our elections is profound. 5 judges threw their weight behind the right wing goal of concentrating the greatest possible wealth in the fewest possible hands.
sewsoomi 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
right wing. money. fewest possible people. blah blah blah word regurgitation
just another moron who has the talking points mastered but no real understanding
shame.
eddyANDpepitoFILMS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wanna play games and contests to win points and get anything free from amazon, Then go watch my video (earn anything at amazon!) to see how or go here and sign up and start winning anything you want. Here is the link to sign up at. tinyurl(dot)com/ygwu9mb
poppybuzzy 1 year ago
OK, what have we here? A damned right -winged SC justice criticizing Pres. Obama for something that other presidents have done down through history. Oh, but I forget...."he's a nigra, and he ain't go no raught to crit'cize the Soopreme Curt.' "Nigra need to know his place." You right wingfreaks get more ridiculous by the day, As for the comment that he is the most divisive president in history...he's also the LEAST WHITE so I guess that goes hand in hand, huh? Jackass!
Fourat11 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why oh why can't the KKK, black panthers, and racist assholes like this "fourat11" guy just all get together and jump off a cliff? why!? the world would be SUCH a better place
now let me destroy this uneducated inbreed
OK, first of all obama's name is not even MENTIONED, so that pretty much renders your pathetic argument void. if you actually bothered to listen before you commented like the racist primate that you are you would've seen that Roberts was criticizing protocol in general.
pwned
eddyANDpepitoFILMS 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh and btw, that was a pretty detailed impersonation of a redneck you did, lol
were you by any chance a racist redneck inbreed in a previous life? lol i wouldn't be surprised
how does it feel to get owned by a independent Latino?
eddyANDpepitoFILMS 1 year ago
What's 'troubling' is the Republican party has become the party of fear. Beware, trouble, danger, etc. All key Republican terms to lead their sheep down the path. Far different than when I was a Republican in the 80's. Then it was more business like, about keeping America moving. Now it's about keeping the 'over medicated on anti-depressant drugs' followers in line like a Reverend Sun Young Moon cult. Sad.
onjoFilms 1 year ago
@onjoFilms: well, not really. You are looking at it from a distorted angle.
Remember it's always liberals who claim that there's always a crisis out there and we need a bigger, wiser, Ivy-trained gov't to regulate / prevent problems. They need artificial crises like the subprime, genocide, mass hunger, or, most conveniently, wars (after all, war is the health of the state) that they helped to create in the first place. Likewise, it's no surprise that neocons are welfare/warfare liberals.
tooltalk 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you were never a republican.
not that there is anything wrong with that, I've never been a republican either, but don't lie to support your pathetic arguments. just make better arguments.
proceed.
eddyANDpepitoFILMS 1 year ago
I was never a Republican? I was only a Republican, then an Independent. If you don't believe that is your choice. But your pathetic life if probably full of things you don't believe.
onjoFilms 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I was never a Republican?"
um..... its what i said isn't it?
"But your pathetic life if probably full of things you don't believe"
oh noes!!!! you called me pathetic behind a keyboard!!!! I'm utterly devastated!!! and what the fuck does the other part of that failure of an insult even mean? if i don't believe in "things" then what difference does it make really?
eddyANDpepitoFILMS 1 year ago
The certification of live birth posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same short-form document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true long-form birth certificate which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician - is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
LORKops 1 year ago
Take off your partisan hats please. If any of the justices are "assholes" what does that make our president for criticising them at the SOTUS address? There is a time and place for it. Notice the honorable justice didn't jab at Obama when he had the opportunity to do so! I have disagreed with some court decisions,but on what basis do I (a carpenter) have, to say something they ruled on is wrong?
albermarle19 1 year ago
I'm not sure why your there either, Mr. chief justice. But taking into account the decision in question, maybe you really shouldn't be there. Looks almost like a rogue's gallery.
willi234 1 year ago
The supreme court is acting like the filthy corrupt corporate Aristocracies obediant little lap dog that can turn into a vicious pack of rotwilers on comand.
Much like the catholic church enabled the absolute monarchies Aristocracies of the past.
Keep your torches and pitch forks close by Serfs.
brotherjupiter 1 year ago
This is a response to a private message sent to me by a birther in the below comments:
The Supreme Court has held in Dred Scott, Elk v. Wilkins and most prominently in Minor v. Happersett, that there is no legal difference between natural born citizens and citizens, and that the term "Natural Born" as used in the Constitution is an obiter dictum, a term without legal effect.
There is simply NO merit whatsoever to any contrary argument.
Esoteric0714 1 year ago 4
It reminded me of the video where Saddam Hussein started reading off a list of "traitors" during a party assembly. The so-called traitors were later summarily executed.
patsagainstrats 1 year ago
As long as there are mother fuckers in government like Roberts and Alito working for corporations, American public are doomed. This is not a democracy, it is: everything for the very rich, fuck the rest.
Antigodboy 1 year ago
CORPERATE CRONY!!!!!!!!!!
He should be IMPEACHED immediatley before he does anymore damage to our Nation!
hikonejo 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
CORPERATE CRONY!!!!!!!!
He should be IMPEACHED immediatley before he does anymore damage to our Nation!
hikonejo 1 year ago
CORPERATE CRONY!!!!!
He should be IMPEACHED immediatley before he does anymore damage to our Nation!
hikonejo 1 year ago 2
Oh, of course. These activist far right t judges eviscerate our freedom of speech, and they expect no one to complain?
Please . . .
Esoteric0714 1 year ago
Justice Roberts, we the people appoligize for the continued white house amature hour we mistakingly made possibe. We assure you we will rectify this situation at the earliest possible convience, 2012 is our best guess estimate at this time. You can rest asssured he will formally reach lame duck status in 7 months. (he's actually there now...)
again, our sincere appoligies,
the U.S. citizens
1Guitarslayer 1 year ago
just don't criticize "The Savior"..or you're a racist
floatpool 1 year ago
@floatpool,
No sh!t! I've been called a racist against Obama by winning an argument that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax. I didn't mention Obama once, but yeah I was a racist against Obama for believing in the sound science that atmospheric physicist John R. Christy found using satellite and weather balloon data.
FreedomInAmerica 1 year ago
you just need to embrace the fact that if your a white male, you're a racist, bigotted, homophobe..don't try to deny, or explain to the politically correct accusers..just smile and know you're labeled
floatpool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Not bad.
RightCountry 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck justice roberts
Boogathegreat 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Roberts: you sir are an asshole of the worst kind. just remember that you wont be able to take your precious money with you to the after life.
Nonniemayrox 1 year ago
The State Of The Union Address has gone from being an informative address from the Executive to the Legistature to being instead a propoganda speech delivered by the sitting President to the people of the USA. I don't know when this change occured (I suppose I could research it) but I know from reading President Abraham Lincoln's SOTU addresses that it didn't used to be this way.
mhmalaska 1 year ago 2
@Quisquellano26: you're an idiot...
mader2302 1 year ago
The Justices should have gotten up and walked out!
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
It seems that if the president is BLACK then its ok to openly express disdain toward him, or be discourteous and down-right disrespectful...In otherwords, behave like you're at the White version of the Apollo theater, and not on the floor of congress....GW made plenty of outlandish and stupid remarks during his state-of-the-union, but everyone SHUT THEIR MOUTHS and listened politely and showed respect. With a Black president, there is no such restraint
Quisquellano26 1 year ago
@Quisquellano26 why the hell does being half black make you a black person? he is just as much white as he is black, but everyone calls him black. stupid idiots.
wanderer1031 1 year ago
It is as simple as that the vast majority of white people in this country would not see him as white.
Were Barack Obama to walk down the street, just another guy walking to the store or his job, etc, your initial response would be based on your own prejudices black people.
I think white people should stop trying to claim the president as one of their own. The fact of the matter is he is not wholly white, does not appear white and just 30 years ago couldnt even play golf wherever he liked.
livingstonme 1 year ago 2
if he's 50% white than he is just as much mine and any black. besides, we're supposed to be a free country a melting pot of differences. you call him black, i call him white.
wanderer1031 1 year ago
Roberts indicates the 3 Branches should remain quite separate and thus the Executive shouldn't be publicly criticizing the Judges on the Court as he, as the Supreme Court Judge, criticizes the President.
Republican hypocrisy has no bounds!
DillonX 1 year ago
Dill...
Can you be any more wrong. He states that it is more than fine for the court to be criticized re its decisions by other branches of govt. His point was that it is inappropriate to do it in a forum where the justices cannot respond. Wrong place, wrong time. That is no hypocrisy, that is decorum.
bohs1984 1 year ago 2
You don't know what you're talking about. Did you even listen to what he said? The president can publicly criticize SCOTUS just as much as anyone can. Just not in a setting like the SOTU address. The justices CAN'T react to anything said in the speech (except, of course, Alito)
mrmatalino 1 year ago
That's like saying voting has nothing to do with a democratic or representational constitutional government. Corporate speech isn't the problem; it's the absurdity of the enviroment in which it is to be promoted and advanced. Furthermore, it's a done deal anyway for now. What exactly is the proper "forum" for a person's last words who is about to be executed? He might as well said the sky is made out of cotton freaking candy anyway.
Parent33w 1 year ago
Obama lied or misspoke at the state of the union and that is why he mouthed to himself what he said that it wasn't true. Even MSNBC this morning said that he misspoke.
revizcaino 1 year ago
and I am not sure WHY YOU ARE THERE! Roberts, to protect and serve the PEOPLE? ??... I doubt YOU!
Scvlptr 1 year ago
and NOW Exxon Mobile will soon have the right to bear arms?
Roberts, and the other STOOGES are a disgrace to our founding fathers and principles. I wish Jefferson was here to tell him something!
Scvlptr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You know what was REALLY inappropriate? The SCOTUS decision. "
Definitely.
I think chief Justice John Roberts is mostly wrong but may be right when he suggests he and other supreme court justices should be omitted from State of the Union addresses.
thermalf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shoes:Nike Air Jordan, Nike Rift, Max 90, Bape, Adidas, Puma, Gucci, Timberland, Prada, Lv, Ice cream, UGG Boots,AF1,Visvim,CA shoes,Burberry,Hogans shoes, converse shoes; Jeans of Diesel, Rock&Republic,Seven,red monkey, Evisu, D&G, ED hardy, A&F, BBC, GGG, Armani, Short, Coogi
T-shirt :Polo, lacoste, burburry, boss, A&F,Armani, Artful dodger, Bape, Bbc,Coogi,D&G ,Ed hardy, Evisu,GGG,LRG, True Religion, Smet etc, welcome to visit website:
w w w jordan-af1 c o m
maojiecai 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the new world order is upon us..wake up and get informed..check out my page for info
DirtyMill08 1 year ago
You know what was REALLY inappropriate? The SCOTUS decision.
happygamer91 1 year ago 4
RESIGN!!!!
DeSwiss 1 year ago
Lovely softball question. Roberts has shown himself 2b dishonest. He was the one who said how much he respected precedent, and has spent most of his time ignoring precedent. This ruling was a BAD ruling and it was a ruling to aid corporations -- which is what the five on the court live for. The notion that a corporation is a person is moronic. Individuals in a corporation are persons, but the body is an entity not a person. But that doesn't help who he's bought and paid by. Corporate USA.
phillycap 1 year ago 3
Mr. Obama has zero decorum. Still blaming Bush, still in campaign mode. Is it 2012 yet?
bhardecker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excactly what you can expect from a community antagonist -fatherless ghetto bastard raised by a worthless whore-.
ObaManure 1 year ago
@ luilun. Great language skills mate.
Downthere2Biocic 1 year ago
Obama turned the state of union into a political rally and abused his position to make an idiotic criticism of the Court. Obama SHOULD know better since by all liberal accounts he is the greatest Constitutional scholar of all time. In reality he was an affirmative action beneficiary who never had the qualifications to get into Harvard in the first place. His lack of decorum or understanding of the case he was criticizing only serves to make this point self evident.
bohs1984 1 year ago
@bohs1984 Obama was voicing the feelings of many, many of us who don't a public voice to be heard. You should have put your ending comments at the beginning, so as to make your anti-President Obama views obvious.
alternagrunk 1 year ago
@bohs1984. I agree that the President's slap at the Supreme Court justices was inappropriate, just as it was inappropriate for Joe Wilson to call the President a liar in a session of Congress. It's a matter of civility and fairness.
hns123192 1 year ago 3
It was a bad ruling and well beyond the case they reviewed.
Roberts is turning out to be a horrible Chief Justice.
zaurakdigis 1 year ago 3
I remenber when I was a kid how bad it was under Carter, I t is worse today. Obama is a shady Politician and should be removed from office.
luilun 1 year ago
Obama and his Administration is trying to control or intimidate Wall street, Banking Industry, Auto Industry, News Industry, Insurance, HealthCare, Business, House, Senate, and Supreme Court. Remind ya of anyone with half a moustache?
bigdogsdontbark 1 year ago 4
Sounds like Roberts is ready for the impeachment of Barry Steve Dunham next year. Justice Robert, this whole Presidency is VERY TROUBLING.
TTURedRaidr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fail Videos!! @ My Channel!!
FailJunkies 1 year ago
Let me tell you what is obscene.
To give the Corporations national and foreign power over the campaign financing.
I mean, ARE YOU FRIKING KIDDING ME !!
I really need an explanation from Mr Roberts on such decision.
Lucem2 1 year ago
read the majority's argument. available for all. try reading it.
snowtrot 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lucem2 Obonehead should just shut the fuck up.
GreatSatan1 1 year ago
Roberts is a full-fledged NWO CORPORATE WHORE and unfortunately he'll be on the USSC for many years in all likelihood.
DillonX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lunatic.
snowtrot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my profile on how to get thousands of dollars monthly for FREE, I mean free. You dont have to pay for anything and its not complicated. All it requires is alittle effort and you can be making $5000 and more monthly.
Kameon1234 1 year ago
The bottom line is that our President mis spoke the truth in the State of The Union Address. Our own President didn't understand our own Constitution and thought that foreign countries could contribute to us during campaigns. We have strict laws against this and they can't donate. Roberts was correct. It is strange however that during our President's campaign he accepted a ton of foreign money through internet donations from other countries. Weird how nobody in the media is looking into that.
idfa4 1 year ago
Did Obama mis speak out of ignorance or did he lie intentionally? Either way is disgusting and bad news for America. And it is strange how Obama and Clinton (the china connection) both took foreign money and nothing is said about the hypocrisy.
nighthawg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How dare Obummer publicly chide the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address - AND he LIED about the very decision he chided them for - because HE DIDN'T DO HIS HOMEWORK - once again the Teleprompter-In-Chief degrades the office of the President of the United States. What an ARROGANT, SELF-IMPORTANT ELITIST EGOTIST! He really does see himself as DICTATOR of the USA. Is it 2012 YET??!!! This albatross has GOT TO GO!
kukim77 1 year ago
Not appropriate for chief justice to behave this way. Very troubling.
thermalf 1 year ago
Roberts is starting to sound like an activist judge to me. How ironic - and unfortunate.
Rennpanzer 1 year ago
I always felt like Roberts was an honest man.
Keep it up!
peace
llandshark 1 year ago
I posted a video response except to indicate how the state of the union no doubt played to a vast majority of America.Washington DC has jurisdiction over 12 square miles and is like the janitors closet for the states.Where they keep the puke mop and sawdust bucket. People take Washington too seriously. Unfortunately the television watchers of this nation believe it is the head of all power in the US. Read Saul Alinsky and see it's not the power they have but the power you believe they have.
TheVeryMuchSoShow 1 year ago
Oh boo hoo. Cry to mommy John. Let's talk about the decision that gives the same right of freedom of speech to corporations. Next you'll decide that dogs indeed have souls.
If you don't see the inherent danger you're either fishing for a donation or shortsighted. Remember America, Supreme Court justices have egos too and it looks as if one has had his bruised.
BeltwayGreg 1 year ago
Obonehead is a real classy guy.
TAMARLANE 1 year ago 2
Obama thinks he is a dictator. This man is right now trying to outlaw fishing! Saying you no longer can fish in the Oceans, lakes and rivers! Can you imagine the economic impact if we are no longer allowed to fish! The American citizen has few friends in our own gov't. that is trying to take away our freedom. Thank god for people like John Roberts that will stand up to him.
krisd1234 1 year ago
@krisd1234
"trying to take away our freedom"
What freedom? The freedom to conform to the mythology of the "American Dream"? The mythology of endless consumption? The freedom to forever act like a teenager? The freedom to catch and eat polluted fish?
substanti8 1 year ago
The American dream is still there. With all of the politicians screwing up so many things one can still make it in America. The Obama administration is trying to make it very hard or near impossible. So what kind of soy milk and tofu do you consume ?
krisd1234 1 year ago
@krisd
Listen up, pea-brain. You never answered by questions. What "freedom" were you blathering about?
substanti8 1 year ago 2
Fair point . . . The Supreme Court can stay at home.
That said, given the insanity of the (Roberts' Court) ruling, the president said what absolutely had to be said . . . and in no uncertain terms.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 1 year ago
barry is the least presidential acting occupant of the White House in history. 2102 please hurry so we can get rid of this Leftist clown. OTP!
nomosocialists 1 year ago
When you take extreme action and overturn a crucial law that's been on the books for over a hundred years - and for good reason - the LEAST you should expect to get is a few irate remarks. Some more public than others. Some more audible than others. And some from the other branches of government.
When you choose to give more power the bully that is already too powerful and controlling much of the government as it is, don't cry foul when someone calls you on it, even if it is the president.
kossmikham 1 year ago
The bully was Obama when picking on a group of nine jurists that aren't allowed to speak and expected to show no reaction whatsoever.
There's a time and a place. Obama should show some class, even if he's not accustomed to doing so.
incognito9887 1 year ago
364 days a year the supreme court gets to make unilateral ruling that affects all of us. Let me repeat: UNILATERAL RULING. That means no one gets to question them, and what they say is the final word. Occasionally, they even get to select a president despite the outcome of an election.
So, 30 seconds a year of public bashing of a branch of government that is otherwise beyond all reproach is hardly unfair in a supposedly democratic society. The other 364 days, 23 hrs, 59.5 min it's the reverse.
kossmikham 1 year ago 3
Obama looks at the court as an obsticle in his way. He will drag this counrty as far left as fast as he can. In his mind the end justifys the means. Oppose Obama he is dangerous!
john51880 1 year ago
Oh please, I so hope you are right!!!!!!! He could drag us as far left as he possible and we'll still only be in the center after the stupidity of George Bush's decisions.
kattt200011 1 year ago
Yeah, because Dubya was a raving right-winger. LOL.
incognito9887 1 year ago
YouTube is filled with juvenile Obama haters (often racists) who are far too ignorant to understand what "left" and "right" even mean.
substanti8 1 year ago
I don't hate Obama. I don't hate any one. Obama is damamged goods. He believes our constitution and our bill of rights are flaud because they limit government power over us. The man is two faced. Obama says one thing and does another. He thinks government does not have enough power over you or control of your money. Dangerous!
john51880 1 year ago
"Obama thinks government does not have enough power over you ..."
Maybe so. But your rhetoric obscures the plain fact that the Bill of Rights has been eroded the FASTEST under Republican leadership in this empire. Government has become a fascist tool for greater corporate hegemony.
Right wing -- by definition -- is the politics of maintaining that status quo. Left wing is the politics of opposing the existing system. You cannot understand complexities until you at least grok the fundamentals.
substanti8 1 year ago 3
@kattt200011.. Obama is a loose canon and it's very scary that he is "running" our country! How long is he going to continue to blame Bush for Obama's screw ups?
VelvetHammer73 1 year ago
@john51880...I could not agree more! Obama is a loose canon and it's very scary that he is "running" our country! How long is he going to continue to blame Bush for his screw ups?
VelvetHammer73 1 year ago
"How long is he [OBAMA] going to continue to blame Bush for his screw ups?"
Until one of them dies.
incognito9887 1 year ago
His last time as president will be during his farewell address.
KenMacMillan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL. He will also declare that nothing can ever be his fault, and warn the new president that the buck stops in the oval office.
incognito9887 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
End the INSURGENCY PRESIDENCY the Historic Photoshopped FRAUD Usurping ilegible presidency.
Vote out all the Neo-Commies.
Get informed:
citizenwells.wordpress. com
PORTUGAL1010 1 year ago
I agree with roberts. It was the wrong forum. And lets not kid ourselves to think corporations and unions have not have their hand in the political process. Its been there behind the scenes the whole time. Take it from my brother inlaw, an apprentice in the IBEW who against his wishes was forced to campaign for Obama. Where the freedom in that?
bosco604 1 year ago
Where the freedom in that???? LOL
Where the good grammar as well?
kattt200011 1 year ago
So i missed an s. thats your whole point on the topic? Do you have a brain or do you just like to make stupid random comments showing your 1st grade mentality? Get a life!
bosco604 1 year ago
he thinks its in poor taste? troubling?
wow...the courts decision was troubling, not the remarks made during the state of the union. the majority acted unwisely...again. and there is no venue where it should be taboo to call that out...
EnhancementSmoker 1 year ago
Right. We should never, and should've never reversed any Jim Crow laws.
incognito9887 1 year ago