SOTU

Picking a fight with the Supreme Court, he isn't too bright is he?  I guess he's upset that his unions will have competition when buying government.

are you talking about the supreme court ruling regarding the funding of election campeigns via businesses or industry? If you were, I have a question regarding that.

Not only that, he got it wrong.  Constitutional scholar my ass.

All I needed to hear to know how much Obama hates the US Constitution was the words, "Charter of negative liberties".  Especially considering he didn't mean negative liberties for the People, but negative liberties for the Federal Government.  The idiot thinks the Constitution should allow his majesty to do whatever he wants, simply because he wants to do it. 

He hates the US with the same passion as his friend Rev. Wright (spit).

Obama was referencing that when he trashed SCOTUS.  I do not agree with Daiwa in the reprecussion end of it.  I think the democrats love to legislate from the bench, but like all other things, cant stand their own medicine.  To his party, Obama is a hero for defying them.  They dont understand that when you do an end run, it will come back to get you in the end.

It was contemtible, but not unsurprising or unexpected.  And I doubt he will suffer for it.  Most of the electorate has no clue about what the SCOTUS does - nor do they seem to care.

Given how many people could care less about & didn't watch the SOTU, you're probably right, DG.

Whenever I asked americans to explain to me the need for an indirect election system they told me that it would be unfair if only the populous states recieved attention and that this way the candidates were forced to campeign in states like Iowa (which would be totally unimportant otherwise because hardly anybody lives there). Doesn't this ruling of the SCOTUS nullify this attempt of a balanced and fair election campeign? So it is the freedom of speech that gives those with alot of money the opportunity to create advertisement that support their candidate.. it is interesting that too much government control is described as evil incarnate but possible too much private influence on the election process through privately funded commercials and by that directly on the political process is tolerated. Are those companies bound to addvertise in all regions like candidates have to tour all regions?

I am curious how this will look during the next election. Too much intertwining of busines and politics never ends well, and I for one wouldn't want to have some billionaire who draws the strings from behind the scenes because it's his constitutional right. It might be private and not government influence, but that doesn't make it positive. I don't like lobbyism and this ruling opened the floodgates for that even more.

Sister Toldjah has a humorously contemptuous summary here.

Utemia, name one time the labor unions, George Sorros, Michael Moore or musicians (most of which are incorpated) were limited by McCain Feingold.  Not only was this farce unconsitutional, but it was so selectively enforced it would qualify as discriminatory.

This assumes the 'floodgates' were at some time closed, which they never were, and suggests you've never heard of George Soros.

McCain-Feingold just stacked the deck by redirecting the flow of money to the advantage of incumbents (many called it 'The Incumbency Protection Act').  If you think corporate influence in elections was inhibited in any way, you are wrong.  It just made it indirect and less transparent.  The SCOTUS ruling does not prohibit regulation of corporate political speech, which should be subject to meaningful disclosure requirements.

You should also remember that with McCain-Feingold in place, BO took in millions in foreign campaign contributions without any disclosure of sources, and was the beneficiary of many millions spent by dozens of Soros front organizations on his behalf.  He's a brazen hypocrit.

Full disclosure: I lent my name and support to a Soros-funded effort to legalize medical marijuana in my state almost 15 years ago (I believe it should be as legal as alcohol, for that matter, but that's another story).

I don't know what you refer to, Ted. I didn't really follow the specifics of the campaign, it all looked like a overblown circus from my pov. I think there is a discrepancy between not having a direct democracy because the little and less populous states should have importance as well which forces candidates to campaign there and direct corporate influence.

I don't like political endorsements by prominent figures of public life of either ilk. Candidates should say what they want to say and the voter should make up their minds according to that, not according to some emotional polarizing and utilization of psychological tricks as it is done in some american commercials that tailored to reach a specific demographic.

I hadn't heard of George Soros - but the US election process is so overblown and pompeous that I find it pretty boring and rarely pay attention to anything but the actual election day when the seats of the electorate body are counted out.

That's fair.  I only follow German politics for flashes of Merkel's cleavage.

Stop, you're making me hun-gry!

My God, it's even worse than I thought.  The hypocrisy, that is.  What utter bozos these guys are.

Its really ironic how old man McCain was burned by his own campaign finance reform laws, Obama raked in money hand over fist from unknown foreign sources, (some linked to Hamas) and he refused to live up to his word on the public financing...  I'm not surprised that he is so enraged by the ruling

I had missed his condescending calldig to 'put aside childish taunts' - which I think came before his childish taunt directed at the SCOTUS.

Not really.  The SCOTUS ruling just said that corporations and organizations (Unions) can buy ads, the people still have to vote to elect the electors.  And besides, the ruling is very moot.  After the passage of the last law to reform it, the money still found a way in with the 527 groups (named for a subsection of the law).  So instead of being "sponsored by Moveon.org" an ad will be sponsored by "GE".  It will still be there, just from a different source.

No.  Candidates are not required either (many 3rd party Candidates are not on the ballot in all states).  They can pick out a point they do not like and direct the ad to that area.  An easy example is if one candidate is against coal mining.  A coal mining company can run an ad in West Virginia pointing that out.

The fallacy that Obama was playing on is that there was no money in it before.  There was (through the 527 groups).  The only real difference is that instead of saying "Sponsored by..." an organization, it will be a company.  The money never left, just the way it got there.  And the ruling, contrary to what Obama said, only overturned the McCain Feingold law which is only about 10 years old.

This will come as a shock to many, but I caught a bit of Brian Williams newscast this evening and the story angle taken by NBC News regarding the POTUS, SCOTUS & the SOTU was all about how inappropriate Alito was to have 'broken decorum'.

Hard to believe, I know, but there you have it.

Alito could have been throwing tomatoes for all I care.... what a nerve Obama has. At least Chris Matthew was finally able to forget that he was black

Alito did NOTHING wrong!  If there was a wrong, then it was the cameras that caught him "yawning".  There was no vocal expression, so the State Run media is basically saying "You cannot think incorrect thoughts"!  And liberals accused Bush of big brother?  This is a perfect example of Big Brother is now HERE and the State media is fully complicit!

Apparently, to the incompetent press, the president should never be challenged on anything said before Congress.  The problem is, Congress and the SCOTUS shouldn't have to call him out, the press should be doing that.. but they would rather put bullets in their own mother's heads than do their jobs.