Roberts: Scene at State of Union `very troubling'

more: http://www.law.ua.edu/news/articles/?re=roberts10

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• roberts

[lambus1234]

"The State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally." - Roberts

I agree with this statement.

[kossmikham]

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.

[Obamabotting]

Obamabots are everywhere!

[kossmikham]

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?

[FreedomInAmerica]

@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!

[kossmikham]

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.

[FreedomInAmerica]

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]

1/2 [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?

[kossmikham]

@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.

[stainskoolkidz]

all in favor say.. what?

[FreedomInAmerica]

@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.