Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit politicalcenter's column >>

POLITICALCENTER

Home Page
Politics from the center, without bias toward Democrats or Republicans
Articles Posted: 354  Links Seeded: 268
Member Since: 3/2008  Last Seen: 2/21/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama State of the Union: Missing Justices Just One Example of Republican Immaturity

Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:25 AM EST
politics, obama, republicans, democrats, romney, gingrich, boehner, state-of-the-union, coulter
By politicalcenter

President Obama at the State of the Union Address 2012 with Vice President Biden and House Speaker Boehner.

Advertise | AdChoices

While Republicans squirmed during one of Barrack Obama's best speeches, it was the other telling signs that make this an election year to watch and Obama's to lose. The leading theme moving into this campaign year is maturity. Obama now has it. And Republicans do not. After all is said and done, we want a mature president. One who shares our values. And one who can guide us to new frontiers.

The signs of immaturity lay all over the Republican debates during the past two months. Most recently, we have Mitt Romney holding his tax returns back, Newt Gingrich with his open marriages and attacks against the media, and the whole huge field at the debates, with most having no chance to win the Republican nomination, just there for show. 

But these immaturities pale compared to the immature Republican Supreme Court justices who are so school ground slighted that they simply cannot even come to the one show of governmental unity given every year. For Justices Alioto, Thomas and Scalia, attendance is wrong because they were insulted by Barrack Obama (Alioto) or believe that the State of the Union is "too political."

Obama did overstep his bounds in January 2010, acting immaturely, when confronting the campaign financing case allowing unlimited corporate expenditures by insulting the Supreme Court justices who authored and voted for the majority opinion in that case.

But for these Justices to stay away from the State of the Union message, a sign of disrespect for all government and the President, is like being back in the school yard. We will shun you because you acted so wrong or because we are above you all. For Alioto, he is unforgiving, do not believe in turning the other cheek, will bring the wrath of God on you and make certain you and everyone else sees how principled we are.

There is no turning the other cheek or compromise for most Republicans. They play their playground games daily on Fox News. They are visible every day they come into contact with Democrats. Theirs is the Newt Gingrich Congress versus Bill Clinton once again.

While Republican immaturity first appeared with the Republican justices absence, it did not end there. Walking up to the podium to shake the Vice President's and House Speaker John Boehner's hand, Boehner pulled an Obama once again. The practice began in 2011, presumably after Obama had physically pulled Boehner towards him one time too many. Boehner tried to pull Obama across the podium into his lap. Obama resisted, had a few words for Boehner, and moved on to one of his best speeches ever.

Maybe Obama still pulls people toward him, reaching out and holding his hand near himself the other person must either come forward or wrestle for position. But there is no need to show this in front of the country as a tit for tat moment before the State of the Union speech begins. And it was there for all to see.

Equally true, the immaturity of refusing to stand even when something good is said on which all can agree, and sitting stern such as the way House Majority Leader Eric Cantor sat throughout the proceedings, has been shared through the years by Democrats when attending Republican president State of the Union speeches. If you are the opposition party, do not agree with anything is the motto of this group of Republicans. They took the theme to new heights last year, and are poised to show the country how compromise is nothing compared to their own goals for the rich and powerful.

Is it not time to bend a bit?

Some Republicans did on some topics. Speaker Boehner does not have to stand, but was seen repeatedly clapping his hands. Why not everyone for the comments they can agree with?

Of course, this is just more of the same for the Republicans sitting last night in the House Chamber for Obama's speech. They have failed to compromise on much for more than a year, and will continue to fail to do so.

And that is the very heart of Republican immaturity. This is what will send the Republicans to certain defeat this year.

Failure to work together. Failure to act maturely. And failure even to present someone who has the prospect of being better than Obama.

Obama has grown into his job. And has always been Republican at heart.

His national security positions are Bush III, not George McGovern.

His mentor relationship with US Senator Richard Lugar from Indiana is well-documented. And Lugar is and has been one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate for the past three decades.

His absurd categorization of the middle class as including millionaires making $250,000 is a sign of his inclination toward those making money. He favors the rich, leaving in place lower taxes that allow Romney to make his tens of millions every year. 

His hawkish views have played out over his first four years at the cost of added trillions in making war in the Middle East. These are as Republican as they come.

But he has some modest feelings about everyone. He is an internationalist. And he has a vision for America that we can all share. 

Perhaps this is what Republicans despise so much. That he has stolen their thunder and is as Republican as they are.

Except on one, ultimate immaturity. The one dealing with keeping your marbles. You know. They are my marbles and I will not share them with anyone, or especially give them away to those who have none. If you try to do that, I will go home.

Obama does not believe that billionaires are paying enough. He feels Bill O'Reilly needs to pay more taxes.

And last but not least, Obama is a moral man in a Republican field that prefers an immoral Newt Gingrich to a Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. 

Except of course for Ann Coulter who blasts Gingrich in favor of Romney because Gingrich cannot win while O'Reilly appears to favor Gingrich, both making arguments in favor of their candidates while blasting the other candidate on national TV.

Republicans are not an immature lot waiting for disaster to hit. 

These days Republicans are a disaster already happened.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • politicalcenter's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: American Cold War Veterans, Anti-War, Centervine, Clinton Conservatives, Democrat Watch, Down With Tin Horn Dictators, Gut Check America, Heated Debate, Obamaholics Anonymous, Open Minded, Over 20, Over 30, Over 40, Over 50, Over 60, Political Analysis, Politically Correct Twerp, Seeders and Posters w/ Manners
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (151)
politicalcenter

There is no question but at this point Obama is winning. His poll numbers will soar after this State of the Union.

  • 29 votes
#1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:34 AM EST
ryoushi12

So most of the catholic fascist mafia DIDN'T show up for the State of the Union because their feelings were hurt, or because they weren't sure WHICH side of the aisle might want to l--- them on the spot for Citizens United (somehow I think they've been getting an awful lot of republican hate mail at the moment on that one).

My mesage to those three fascist jerks is if you want to play reactionary politics on the bench, expect to get your share of political blow back and disrespect, and if you can't handle that, RESIGN.

  • 19 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:47 AM EST
hard2port

They couldn't figure out how to get their Koch Industries kneepads off. C'ya Teabags!

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:55 AM EST
Coral Atlas

THe GOTP wing of the SCOTUS making a political statement just reinforces why we need OUR President in the oval office for at least another four years!

The prospect of adding more teapublican types to the SCOTUS is truly frightening!

As it is Alito and Thomas should be impeached.

  • 14 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:11 AM EST
Truth Sleuth

I'm curious, politicalcenter. Did these three justices confirm that they were deliberately not attending last night's address as a form of protest, or, were they not in attendance and with no reason given? I've been trying to find some info on this and can find none. I know of their displeasure at Obama, but is there some confirmation that what you're suggesting is the reason they were not in attendance last night, or was there some other reason?

As an aside, the Supreme Court has no "continuity of government" plan or requirements as the executive branch does, whereby one member of the cabinet watches the SOTU in an undisclosed, secure location. I don't understand why the continuity plans don't involve the judicial branch. If the entire SC were wiped out during an attack on the capitol during the SOTU address, it would be almost as devastating to the continuity of government as it would be for the executive branch. If John Boehner were the surviving, ranking official in line of succession to assume the presidency, would you want him appointing the entire new SC? Or, alternatively, John Biden appointing all nine members? If you think the court is politicized now, what would you think about that scenario?

    #1.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:09 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    Sotomayor's reason for not attending: out of the country (Guam). She's obviously not "protesting" Obama with her absence.

    • 11 votes
    #1.5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:19 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    "...Alito, whose silent rebuke of Obama at the 2010 speech was replayed often on television, said later that he would likely not attend again. He has made good on his word, sitting out the 2011 speech and tonight's [2012] as well. Also missing were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom have also complained about the awkwardness of attending such a political event..."

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/01/supreme-court-legal-issues-stay-out-of-the-spotlight-at-state-of-the-union.html

    So we know for sure Alito is not attending SOTU addresses any more, at least during this administration. And we can assume that's probably the case for Scalia and Thomas as well.

    Got it. I still think it's a good idea for one Democratic appointee and one Republican appointee to sit it out, for continuity of government reasons. Just mho.

    • 5 votes
    #1.6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:26 PM EST
    politicalcenter

    Sadly, the political aspects including the reasoning is just what we do not want. Chief Justice Roberts was a good guy, with a great amount of Republican in him if I remember correctly. Yet, he is an example of what should be done. The others are their own men. They can decide to avoid politics. The real reasons are definitely political, be they avoiding political events or to set themselves up as above it all.

    I would have hoped that the three branches of government could show respect for each other. Obama showed little respect when he directly challenged the Court. And the justices show little respect for everyone for not attending.

    If I remember correctly, in the past justices have applauded things about the federal court system that they support. Why not?

    • 1 vote
    #1.7 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:31 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    I agree. I think it's one thing to maintain impartiality--or at least the appearance of it--that's a good thing, but one's mere attendance at the event doesn't mean one is partial to Obama or an enemy of Obama. Or, rather, it shouldn't mean that.

    I like the idea of justices not applauding during the speech because applause indicates approval of a political statement the president is making, and their job is supposed to be apolitical. I wish this apoliticalness extended beyond just the symbolic (applause) and into their actual chambers.

    Supreme Court justices shouldn't be making political statements of any kind, and that includes applause, imho, as well as boycotting the SOTU address. And if that's what Alito, Thomas and Scalia were doing--boycotting because of their political opinions about Obama--I vehemently disapprove, as I would if the boycotters were from the other end of the political spectrum.

    Interesting topic. Well done.

    • 4 votes
    #1.8 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:38 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    Obama showed little respect when he directly challenged the Court.

    In principle, I agree with you. Ordinarily I would say that the President is out of line in making a political statement about the rulings of the SC, which are supposed to be apolitical. However, I think the implications of Citizens United and the literal erosion of the people's right to control their own government--the very heart of our country--is serious enough that I'm willing to give the President a break on this one. I think CU portends to be maybe one of the most damaging and destructive rulings so far in terms of our right to self-government and I think it was important enough that it warranted a mention in his speech last year (or the year before, whenever it was).

    And the justices show little respect for everyone for not attending.

    If they're doing it for political reasons, I agree 100%. I'd like to have a continuity plan for the SC though which would require two of them to sit it out somewhere else.

    • 4 votes
    #1.9 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:50 PM EST
    Boudicea

    et tu, Truth Sleuth? I had thought that you (whom I respect GREATLY) would be able to see that the CU decision was absolutely correct on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds. It would have been a breach of their duty for the SCOTUS to look at the IMPLICATIONS of the decision, as that would be politicizing things. It is their duty ONLY to look at precedents, and the law in question (McCain-Feingold) and determine whether the law was unconstitutional as written. IT WAS. It is now up to CONGRESS to "fix" it, but don't plan on it.

    • 1 vote
    #1.10 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:08 PM EST
    Jake319

    Really truth?
    The SC has been built over the last 40 years as a small minded republican tool. They serve zero intreats of the state.

    The should be term limited. I find the republican judges to be a threat to the the very consitutional they get payed for protecting.

    The republican justices have eroded the freedoms of every American since 1986...

    I believe they should be charged with crimes against the state. Which hopefully there replacements will demand the death penalty for and of course an unmarked grave...

    • 2 votes
    #1.11 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:11 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    I had thought that you (whom I respect GREATLY) would be able to see that the CU decision was absolutely correct on CONSTITUTIONAL grounds...

    Hi, Boudicea!

    It was correct. I admit it.

    The SC was correct in its CU ruling. Since corporations were deemed "persons" under the law a long time ago (albeit fictional, manufactured ones), they are entitled to all the First Amendment rights as other persons. The problem with that though, imho, is that these fictional, manufactured "persons" are simply machines designed to facilitate business. They have no free will or reasoning ability of their own, and therefore can't even conceptualize of First Amendment rights, much less exercise them.

    I agree corporations should have the freedom to do certain things as private enterprises and should be protected accordingly, but I don't believe that should extend to literally over-powering the voice of individual citizens--REAL persons with free will and reason--in the town hall meeting of ideas and influence in running their own government.

    Machines shouldn't be running and buying government. Machines innately have far more power than an individual person and can literally kill you when out of control or mishandled.

    • 2 votes
    #1.12 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:13 PM EST
    Boudicea

    OMG are you really suggesting that only DEMOCRATS can be "real" justices? That's ridiculous! And your entire rant shows an alarming lack of education regarding the purpose of the SCOTUS.

    "They didn't rule the way I wanted them to - so kill them?" Really?

    • 1 vote
    #1.13 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:14 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    The should be term limited.

    I disagree. Theoretically, if the truths and rights guaranteed in the Constitution are timeless and since they exist regardless of right or left politics, then those entrusted to interpret such things don't have time limits either. Term limits are for politicians.

    I find the republican judges to be a threat to the the very consitutional they get payed for protecting.

    As far as the current Republican-appointed justices are concerned, I agree with you. John Paul Stevens and a lot of other Republican-appointed justices in the past left politics at the door.

    The republican justices have eroded the freedoms of every American since 1986...

    When it comes to a lot of issues, I agree with you. Not all, but a lot.

    I believe they should be charged with crimes against the state.

    I disagree. That's politicizing the court. Every effort should be made to keep politics OUT of the judicial branch, whether it's right-wing politics or left-wing politics. Rights and justice have no political affiliation whatsoever. People should be charged with crimes if they've broken the law, not for being politically disagreeable. However, conflicts of interest and obvious, overt misinterpretation of the spirit of the Constitution are other matters that could relate to impeachment.

    Which hopefully there replacements will demand the death penalty for and of course an unmarked grave...

    Nah. Again, we should keep politics and emotion out of the judicial branch, but the problem with trying to do that is that the politicians who are responsible for confirming SC justices are political themselves. The confirmation process is the problem; politics is the problem.

    • 1 vote
    #1.14 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:22 PM EST
    Truth Sleuth

    Boudicea, don't understand your 1.13 at all. You're going to have to explain.

      #1.15 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:22 PM EST
      Truth Sleuth

      Sorry. I guess you were addressing Jake in your 1.13.

        #1.16 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:27 PM EST
        Boudicea

        Right now the entire numbering thing is screwed up. If you agree that CU was a correct decision, I'm OK. NOW - is Congress going to do something about it???? Not on your life!

        • 2 votes
        #1.17 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:29 PM EST
        Truth Sleuth

        is Congress going to do something about it???? Not on your life!

        Of course they're not. They need their money to finance their campaigns/careers.

        • 2 votes
        #1.18 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:48 PM EST
        Jesse-Az

        Immaturity is singling out the USSC in a speech last year. Something that no president previously had done except for one other. They are co-equal branches of the Government. For the President to attack the Judicial Branch is highly immature. Justices didn't even attend the SOTU until 1913 to avoid this attack of politics. Not only that, but almost everything Obama said about CU was completely wrong. It did not upend 100 years of precedence, but 20 years.

        But why let facts get in the way of a good political attack.

        • 2 votes
        #1.19 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:52 PM EST
        sambonner

        I don't know how much more simple this could be, but still it seems unclear to people.

        Scalia hasn't attended a State of the Union Speech since 1997 and Thomas has attended only one (2006) since 1999. It does not appear their absence had anything to do with Obama. Ailito was in Hawaii.

        What in God's name is all this nonsense about?

          #1.20 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:57 PM EST
          Truth Sleuth

          What in God's name is all this nonsense about?

          I think some folks construe it as just the same ole usual partisan hatefest, and who's "team" is better--mine or yours, with the obvious answer always being, "mine," of course.

          However, I think the subject of politics and the Supreme Court (which is supposed to be apolitical), even over something as seemingly benign as not attending a SOTU address, is significant. Any time a SC justice tries to make a political statement or political "demonstration," such as "boycotting" the event because he/she doesn't like the President or what he has to say, is not a good thing. The SC isn't required to attend. But they are required to restrain from making political statements, whether verbal or symbolic (and I personally construe that to include applause and boycotts). Making a decision not to attend, however, is not always tantamount to a boycott. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... :)

            #1.21 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:13 PM EST
            sambonner

            But they are required to restrain from making political statements, whether verbal or symbolic (and I personally construe that to include applause and boycotts).

            How is someone who hasn't attended a SOTU address in 15 years making a political statement by not going this year? He hasn't gone in 15 years ! Thomas has gone once in the last 12 years. How is he making a political statement?

            The one, ironically, given this thread, that could possibly be construed as having made a political statement is the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did not go to ANY of George W. Bush's SOTU addresses, but did go to most of Clinton's and all of Obama's.

            This discussion is maddeningly annoying.

            • 1 vote
            #1.22 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:32 PM EST
            Truth Sleuth

            How is someone who hasn't attended a SOTU address in 15 years making a political statement by not going this year?

            I don't necessarily consider that a political statement at all on its face. As I said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Nothing more.

            This discussion is maddeningly annoying.

            If the point and ulterior motive was to stoke the partisan fight under the guise of having a conversation about the SC and politics, then I agree 100%. Therefore, I prefer to stay away from the partisan aspects of this and stick to the issue that I personally got out of it. And after reading the article again, I thought the author was pretty fair about being critical (and complimentary) to both sides. I didn't infer that he was pitting one side against the other.

              #1.23 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:57 PM EST
              sambonner

              You've got to be kidding. The "republican" justices stayed away because they tired of the partisanship long ago, not now.

              The headline of the article says that the missing justices are an example of "republican immaturity", and not once in the article does the writer say that Scalia and Thomas haven't gone in years and years. Neither does it mention Ginsburg's SEVEN YEARS of not attending Bush SOTU addresses, in other words every single one of them.

              The article, as it concerns the Supreme Court justices , is a total joke.

              • 2 votes
              #1.24 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:07 PM EST
              Truth Sleuth

              Ok, ok, ok. I absolutely agree with you that one shouldn't necessarily read anything into a SC justice's decision to attend or not attend a SOTU address based solely on which President appointed which justices, and/or based solely on Obama and his politics. Believe me, I get it. Seriously.

                #1.25 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:27 PM EST
                sambonner

                I don't think you get it at all, or even want to get it.

                one shouldn't necessarily read anything into a SC justice's decision to attend or not attend a SOTU address

                The man hasn't gone in 15 years and you still believe there is a possibility that he didn't go last night because Obama is the President. This is hopeless so I will leave you folks alone to your delusions.

                • 1 vote
                #1.26 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:45 PM EST
                Boudicea

                Obviously, he's racist (/s)

                • 2 votes
                #1.27 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:45 PM EST
                Truth Sleuth

                The man hasn't gone in 15 years and you still believe there is a possibility that he didn't go last night because Obama is the President.

                If you're talking about Alito, yes, there's a pretty good reason to assume that.

                As far as Scalia and Thomas are concerned? No, there is no reason to presume any such thing.

                And, yes, I understand Ginsberg and others have a history of not attending, and I don't presume to know what's in their heads as regards their decisions to attend or not attend, only what they choose to tell us, and they're under no obligation to do that.

                If there's something I'm not understanding about your point, please just let me know. No need to get frustrated.

                  #1.28 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:53 PM EST
                  sambonner

                  Your reasoning is curious. Ailito doesn't go one time, and is in Hawaii, and you see "pretty good reason to assume" something. Ginsburg doesn't go 7 times to Bush ( but she does go to Clinton and Obama) and you "don't presume to know".

                  This is a riot.

                  I don't know what your political orientation is, and you seem to be going out of your way to be "fair", but your point is lost in confusion if not concealment. How can you assume something about Ailito but not Ginsburg?

                    #1.29 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 PM EST
                    politicalcenter

                    Ginsburg was clearly sending a political message.

                      #1.30 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:57 PM EST
                      Truth Sleuth

                      don't know what your political orientation is,...

                      Ahh, and there it is, of course, the crux of the matter, just as I suspected. This isn't so much to do with the Supreme Court and politics, but "which team are you on." Bingo.

                      OK. I'm very fiscally conservative and a pretty staunch advocate for the Constitution's protections of the rights to individuality, property, autonomy and self-determination.

                      Therefore, that means I'm also an advocate for as limited and as small of a government as possible to protect the rights of all, not just some. And it means that I'm all for the government butting out of sexual, medical and privacy issues.

                      Does that answer your question?

                      My problem with your question and your challenges is that you have to determine which side of the aisle I reside on so as to determine my credibility. Problem is, I'm not a stereotypical "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Libertarian." Ask me about a specific issue, though, and I WILL give you a specific answer, if I can.

                      What else do you want to know?

                        #1.31 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:43 PM EST
                        sambonner

                        The only reason I asked about your politics is because I was trying to figure out why you were being so imperceptive.

                        But, it's over now and we will move on to the next thing.

                          #1.32 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:52 AM EST
                          politicalcenter

                          Ah, politics! No matter what we are asked, few believe what we say and fewer understand what we do, sometimes including ourselves.

                          Welcome to 2012! And thanks for stopping by.

                            #1.33 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:35 AM EST
                            Truth Sleuth

                            The only reason I asked about your politics is because I was trying to figure out why you were being so imperceptive.

                            I'm as puzzled as to what one's political persuasion has to do with being "imperceptive" as I am over what it has to do with credibility or anything else. The inference is that one political party or persuasion is perceptive and credible and the other one is not. I disagree. I know of a lot of pereptive and credible people all over the political spectrum, and the opposite is obviously well-represented too. If you have to find out if somebody has a "D" or an "R" after their name before you'll engage them civilly in political discourse or to find out if they're enemy or friend, then no wonder the partisan divide is as wide as it is.

                            And, yes, I'll gladly move on too.

                              #1.34 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:19 PM EST
                              Michael in S J

                              Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was the determining SCOTUS decision giving citizenship to corporations with its (erroneous) listing of a corporation as a natural person.

                              Somehow Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad needs to be revisited and correct the clerk's error and put corporations back where they belong - as a creation of man, not man itself.

                                #1.35 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:05 PM EST
                                Truth Sleuth

                                I thought it was interpreted to mean that corporations are persons, not necessarily citizens. I may be wrong. But, citizen or person, I guess it really doesn't matter, does it. The harm was done. But, yes, the fact that it was a notation by a clerk, and an afterthought at that, is amazing.

                                  #1.36 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:12 PM EST
                                  Tim Boothby

                                  Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was the determining SCOTUS decision giving citizenship to corporations with its (erroneous) listing of a corporation as a natural person.

                                  Goes back farther, the roots of "corporate personhood" go back as far as Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in 1819.

                                  I always found it interesting that groundwork was laid for Citizens United when Michael Moore ran Fahrenheit 9/11 during the 2004 election, the FEC allowed it to be run but when when Citizen's United tried to run a movie called Hillary the FEC blocked that one, leading to the suit.

                                  I also found it interesting that the lawyer from the Solicitor General's office (representing the FEC) stated the authority of the FEC could also ban books from being published during restricted campaign times if there was a single sentence in it pushing election or defeat of a single candidate.

                                  Evidently the government didn't send their brainiest lawyer.

                                  Anyway, the ruling ripped out the surviving bits of McCain–Feingold, and it struck down a few other rulings.

                                  Oddly, among those supporting the decision were the ACLU:

                                  Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits unions and corporations (both for-profit and non-profit) from engaging in “electioneering communications.” The legislative definition of an “electioneering communication” was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 and then substantially narrowed by the Supreme Court in 2007. In scheduling this case for reargument, the Court specifically requested briefs on whether section 203 should now be struck down as facially unconstitutional. The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.

                                  So, where are the politicians that can set this right? Oh, yeah, shaking piggy banks at corporations.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #1.37 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:38 PM EST
                                  Tim Boothby

                                  The harm was done. But, yes, the fact that it was a notation by a clerk, and an afterthought at that, is amazing

                                  The clerk story is a new one on me, link?

                                  I did see where, years later, Justice Black in a dissenting statement in another case wrote "this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations." in his opinion, "The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."

                                  But, his was a dissenting opinion. I see nothing about a clerk mentioned with this case though.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #1.38 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:51 PM EST
                                  Michael in S J

                                  I equated personhood with citizenship incorrectly.

                                  Here is a link to an understanding of the error:

                                  http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

                                    #1.39 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:38 PM EST
                                    Boudicea

                                    Actually, it goes further back than that, Tim. It goes back to 1790 when the Supreme Court of Virginia decided that William & Mary College had the right as a corporation to act as an "individual".

                                      #1.40 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:45 PM EST
                                      Truth Sleuth

                                      "...There is perhaps no better illustration of the consequence of a headnote than in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company ( 1886). There, after consulting Chief Justice Waite, the Reporter [J. C. Bancroft Davis] at his own discretion decided to note in an otherwise uninteresting tax case that the Court considered corporations "legal persons" entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment..."

                                      -- Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics by David M. O'Brien

                                      "...The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court - a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad - wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.

                                      "And in so doing, he - not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder - inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis’s headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.

                                      "What is especially ironic about this is that Davis knew the Court had not ruled on this issue. We found a handwritten note in the J.C. Bancroft Davis collection in the Library of Congress, from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis, explicitly saying, “we did not meet the constitutional issues in the case.” (In other words, the Court had decided the case on lesser grounds, which it always prefers to do when possible.)

                                      "Yet Davis wrote that the constitutional issue of corporate personhood had been decided, and his headnote was published the year Waite died, most likely after Waite’s death. The railroads were persons, he wrote (in the headnote), implying that they’re entitled to the same rights as persons. And Davis attributed this new legal reality to Chief Justice Waite who had specifically, in writing, disavowed it (although that note wouldn’t become public for over a hundred years - it’s now on my website)..."

                                      -- http://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2001/12/restore-democracy-first-abolish-corporate-personhood

                                        #1.41 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 7:52 PM EST
                                        Truth Sleuth

                                        "...According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of argument in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that 'the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.'

                                        "The court reporter [J. C. Bancroft Davis] duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that:

                                        "'The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

                                        "Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge [Waite in the first paragraph] elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history..."

                                        Rat haus reality, U.S. Supreme Court: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886), http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

                                        and

                                        "The Supreme Identification of Corporations and Persons" by Lance Strate. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics. Volume: 67. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 2010. Page Number: 280+. COPYRIGHT 2010 Institute of General Semantics

                                        I've read that a lot of people consider this version with Davis's headnotes on it may be an unauthorized version and not the official ruling itself.

                                          #1.42 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:04 PM EST
                                          Michael in S J

                                          With all the historical facts, as listed above, the SCOTUS does not want to correct the error.

                                            #1.43 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:08 PM EST
                                            Truth Sleuth

                                            Ailito doesn't go one time, and is in Hawaii, and you see "pretty good reason to assume" something.

                                            No, that wasn't the reason. The reason was this [boldface mine]:

                                            "...Alito, whose silent rebuke of Obama at the 2010 speech was replayed often on television, said later that he would likely not attend again. He has made good on his word, sitting out the 2011 speech and tonight's [2012] as well. Also missing were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom have also complained about the awkwardness of attending such a political event..."

                                            http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/01/supreme-court-legal-issues-stay-out-of-the-spotlight-at-state-of-the-union.html

                                            However, I'm more than willing to acknowledge that this is only one legal journalist's take on it.

                                              #1.44 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:11 PM EST
                                              Truth Sleuth

                                              With all the historical facts, as listed above, the SCOTUS does not want to correct the error.

                                              I think, Michael, a lot of people think that the headnotes issues is sort of like a "conspiracy theory" and lacks credibility. A lot of people are of the opinion that the version of the ruling with the headnotes is not the "official" ruling. Also, even if that were not the case, I don't think the Congress, the President or the Supreme Court is the least bit interested in backing down on corporate personhood, and by extension, and much more importantly to them, campaign financing.

                                                #1.45 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:15 PM EST
                                                Tim Boothby

                                                Actually, it goes further back than that, Tim. It goes back to 1790 when the Supreme Court of Virginia decided that William & Mary College had the right as a corporation to act as an "individual".

                                                Its always fun trying to track all of this back! lol

                                                With all the historical facts, as listed above, the SCOTUS does not want to correct the error.

                                                Its not the duty of the SCOTUS to correct this, they have to work within the framework of the Constitution, laws and precedents to interpret the constitutionality of a law. People are blaming the court for not trying to make law when that is the power of congress, not the courts.

                                                In order to correct it, it takes action by congress. They thought they could do it with laws; well, as far as congress is willing to go to cut off their PAC cash. The laws were found wanting. Its going to take a constitutional amendment to fix this, but there's no itching bitching hurry in Congress to resolve all of this, and there's certainly no push from donors and super pac contributors to cut it off.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #1.46 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:47 PM EST
                                                Truth Sleuth

                                                People are blaming the court for not trying to make law when that is the power of congress, not the courts.

                                                You're absolutely correct. Since corporations had already been deemed "persons" under the law a long time ago, the CU ruling was, therefore, correct. Persons are guaranteed their First Amendment rights with no qualifications. The problem is the ruling of corps as persons in the first place. As far as dealing with the campaign finance aspects of it are concerned, I agree that the legislative route makes the most sense as the most logical remedy, except for the fact that I know the Congress does not want to deal with it. They're embracing all those 501(c)4 lures--Republican AND Democratic alike. So, even though the legislative route makes the most sense, I would be amazed if the Congress ever touched this.

                                                  #1.47 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:15 PM EST
                                                  Tim Boothby

                                                  I would be amazed if the Congress ever touched this.

                                                  Unlikely, and made further ironic when you consider that Chris Dodd, former senator turned MPAA chairman, blatantly pointed out the financial repercussions to politicians that don't vote the way their organization wants them to.

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #1.48 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:48 PM EST
                                                  Boudicea

                                                  Not meaning to toot my own horn, but a few weeks ago I wrote a detailed article about "corporate personhood", how it evolved and how it is relevant to doing business today. Maybe you might want to take a look at it.'

                                                  Truth, as has been pointed out, NONE of the rulings said anything about "personhood" - they said that corporations cannot be denied the rights extended to individuals. It makes sense - with the SINGLE EXCEPTION of campaign finance. Why do we have limits for persons and not corporations? Because PERSONS are all treated equally. Congress tried to treat corporations DIFFERENTLY from each other.

                                                  IF you can come up with a single solitary OTHER reason that "personhood" is bad, please let me know, because nobody I've talked to thus far can come up with one.

                                                    #1.49 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:12 AM EST
                                                    politicalcenter

                                                    This is a terrific, educational, and very worthwhile discussion. Thank you all for the information and insights!

                                                      #1.50 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:13 PM EST
                                                      Truth Sleuth

                                                      I wrote a detailed article about "corporate personhood", how it evolved and how it is relevant to doing business today. Maybe you might want to take a look at it.'

                                                      I will. Thanks.

                                                        #1.51 - Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:12 PM EST
                                                        Reply
                                                        demdame

                                                        Obama has a cool head and encouraging words, two things we need at this time. Obama 2012

                                                        • 15 votes
                                                        Reply#2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:48 AM EST
                                                        politicalcenter

                                                        He is more mature. Plain and simple.

                                                        • 16 votes
                                                        Reply#3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:53 AM EST
                                                        sistagirl

                                                        Our President may have come in with high expectation of trying to change the tone in Washington, but that soon deflated into reality. This thinking almost cost him he base as we started to view him as weak, but it was his overall goodness in him that he thought would triumph. I saw right away that the repubs being led by McConnell they would stifle any chance of bipartisanship and he so much as said it twice openly. When senator Demitt said "let HCR be Obama's waterloo" I knew then that this historic victory of health insurance reform would be a battle. Even before the first committee was formed we had this senator saying such foul hopes for Obama's goal. I saw the jealousy of his winning the election on the face of John McCain when he had his first SOTU address. Do these congress people not know we are watching? I have been waiting for any republican congress person to finally speak up and work with the dems. I have seen displays of this bipartisanship by my own state's senator and her counter republican as they both are working on a bill. But will it come to fruition if will have the republican leader McConnell telling his members to vote "no" regardless? And we have seen this happen all too often with bills full of republican amendment still getting no votes from them in the end. It's a sad state of affairs that our congress' approval is at its lowest. And despite what others may say, its disapproval is not bipartisan since we have heard the words of the republican leader expressed so pointedly...."our number one goal is to defeat Obama". And we see him doing all he can to make that happen and what the American people want be damned!!

                                                        • 16 votes
                                                        Reply#4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:07 AM EST
                                                        politicalcenter

                                                        Well said!

                                                        • 12 votes
                                                        #4.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:12 AM EST
                                                        Bill-910376

                                                        The number one goal for any political party, any politician, is to defeat the incumbent. Why do you find this wrong? You don't think that the democrats had the same objective when Clinton first ran for president against the incumbent Bush Sr?

                                                        • 3 votes
                                                        #4.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:31 AM EST
                                                        MYOB-1251250

                                                        What is wrong, bill, is destroying the country in the process.

                                                        • 20 votes
                                                        #4.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:44 AM EST
                                                        caballojoe

                                                        We all know those kind of people who don't do their job, but do everything they can to undermine others who are carrying all the resposibility. Why do you find that okay, Bill?

                                                        The number one job of of legislators is to govern, to legislate. Politics is an unfortunate aspect to how they get their job and how they keep it, but it shouldn't get in the way of doing the work they were elected to do. The Republicans have lost their ability to discern between the two, governing and politicking.

                                                        • 14 votes
                                                        #4.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:02 AM EST
                                                        Andrew-1162039

                                                        The number one goal for any political party, any politician, is to defeat the incumbent. Why do you find this wrong?

                                                        That's completely moronic, and as MYOB points out, bad for the nation. Politicians should make the compromises necessary to get things done, and then make their case come November for why their party should gain power and influence to enact more of their policies. A scorched earth policy just leads to politicians squabbling over who will be king of the @!$%# pile they're leaving in their wake.

                                                        • 11 votes
                                                        #4.5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:08 AM EST
                                                        sistagirl

                                                        MYOB......can you tell him again, please. When you have the leader of the republican party doing everything to sabotage even bi-partisan bills and vote no for their defeat, how is this helping our nation? The repubs already said there was nothing wrong with the Consumer Protection guy, but they still voted him down cause they did not want the agency in the first place despite it being in the Frank/Dodd bill to be established. How many bills had amendments from the repub and still got a "no" vote from them? It has been Mitch's strategy since he first heard Obama speak of "changing the tone" and working in bipartisanship. I do believe there is an article recently written that talks about Obama's first three years and Mitch's strategy of "no". So right from the start this President had two strikes against him. Just think how much better our economy would be if the party leaders actually decided to work together and both took credit. And the polling said this is what we wanted. Working with one another as adults should not a bad thing and this is what we pay them to do. Damn, is that so hard to do????

                                                        I'm out...

                                                        • 8 votes
                                                        #4.6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:14 AM EST
                                                        Bill-910376

                                                        My comment had nothing to do with whether or not any politician is doing a good or bad job. I was responding to Sistagirl's quote.

                                                        Caballojoe, where in my comment did I say anything about it being ok for anyone to undermine anyone else?

                                                        Andrew, what is moronic? My view about a politician wanting to beat the incumbent or the fact they they actually want to? Are you so naive to think that the opposing party is just going to stand down because it thinks the incumbent is doing a great job? Get real. That is never going to happen in politics. Ever. That is all I am saying.

                                                        Read the post without injecting something that is not there.

                                                        • 2 votes
                                                        #4.7 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:21 AM EST
                                                        politicalcenter

                                                        To work, we need maturity and will. The will cannot be separated from politics, but it can deal with what politics is really about. Compromise.

                                                        • 7 votes
                                                        #4.8 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:21 AM EST
                                                        sistagirl

                                                        Politicalcenter.....COMPROMISE....you mean the work that Boehner can not say?

                                                        now I'm out.....see you all this evening. Have a good day.

                                                        • 6 votes
                                                        #4.9 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:25 AM EST
                                                        Andrew-1162039

                                                        Andrew, what is moronic? My view about a politician wanting to beat the incumbent or the fact they they actually want to?

                                                        The fact they make beating the other party the priority. They are called civil servants for a reason, their primary goal should be to serve the nation, which is what we pay them to do, not advance their party or personal aspirations.

                                                        • 4 votes
                                                        #4.10 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:39 AM EST
                                                        politicalcenter

                                                        True for all sides. They both argue the reason for voting is politics. In some ways and at some times this is good. Others make them appear more likely to be advancing their party goals.

                                                        The problem with branding anyone with politics (other than an aversion to them) is that they immediately can be seen as doing what they do as "political."

                                                        I admit that I write what I do because of politics. I have tried to be even-handed, but my article is not really even handed when it comes to the justices.

                                                        I also admit prejudice towards these three justices for varying reasons that relate to their conduct as judges, their personal conduct, and their divisiveness. Nonetheless, I am just a writer and commentator, subject to mistakes as we all are.

                                                        I do call them like I see them. And on this one, I believe that Obama hit a home run. For now, we face the almost certainty of an Obama administration stretching into 2016.

                                                        From his speech, he is likely to face enormous pressures. They will say his position on moving funds from the wars is no good. They will say that tax-free companies are fine, even when they are General Electric. And they will say that there should be less, not more taxes.

                                                        It is interesting that Romney gives to his church in part in order to help those in need. Good for him. Maybe O'Reilly does too.

                                                        But the government systems also need money for things we and others need. They also made promises that need to be kept. Not promises about taxes, which are transient and require a lot of thought whenever we face crises. But for fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

                                                        • 3 votes
                                                        #4.11 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:39 PM EST
                                                        sambonner

                                                        You wrote an inaccurate article and refused to correct it, that's all there is to it.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #4.12 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:04 PM EST
                                                        politicalcenter

                                                        I did change it. I think it is now accurate.

                                                          #4.13 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:58 PM EST
                                                          Reply
                                                          caballojoe

                                                          What I witnessed last night was for the most part what I have witness all year long, a lot of Republicans sitting on their asses and doing nothing, refusing to get up even when a Democrat had something good going on.

                                                          John McCain could no longer stand up when the subject of immigration reform came up. But he was for it before he was against it.

                                                          The Supreme Court Justices who did not show up, I hope it is because of a flu bug. I really don't want to find out that 3 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are that immature that they would intentionally miss the SOTU address. Please tell me that isn't why they were absent. If anyone should be beyond reproach, they should. Please let me find out they didn't stoop that low. If they did, it's below reprehensible and despicable. Please let it not be that their reactionary extremism was the basis for missing the most important show of American patriotism of the year. Please, please. I always thought the SCOTUS remained above the poltical fray. No longer? America has profoundly changed with the current bunch of right winged idealogues. They disgust me.

                                                          • 14 votes
                                                          Reply#5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:52 AM EST
                                                          ERich-356044

                                                          Joe,

                                                          I completely agree. The fact that two justices were not there is beyond disgusting and immature. As justices, they are not supposed to show partisanship, and yet they did just that by not showing up.

                                                          • 7 votes
                                                          #5.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:20 AM EST
                                                          politicalcenter

                                                          The Supreme Court includes a justice who was close friends with Cheney and did not recuse himself on the secret oil consultants who ran our oil policy during the Bush years, a justice who is so political he writes and talks on subjects that should be forbidden for all justices when he is not discussing pubic hairs, and a justice who believes that the political arena is best left to those with the most money. None of them are or were worthy as justices. At least Roberts was there.

                                                          • 8 votes
                                                          #5.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:25 AM EST
                                                          sambonner

                                                          You should have done a couple minutes of research. The part of your article about the Supreme Court justices is completely inaccurate and misleading.

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #5.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:59 AM EST
                                                          politicalcenter

                                                          Tell me what is wrong and I will correct it.

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #5.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:21 AM EST
                                                          sambonner

                                                          I have it below.

                                                          Scalia and Thomas do not attend State Of The Union addresses, they didn't do it for Bush either.

                                                          Ailito is away, at a legal conference.

                                                          The liberal Justice Ginsburg didn't attend any of George Bush's 7 SOTU speeches.

                                                          The headline is wrong and the lead part of your premise is disproved.

                                                          • 4 votes
                                                          #5.5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:33 AM EST
                                                          politicalcenter

                                                          Changed the article. Thanks for the help.

                                                            #5.6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:36 AM EST
                                                            sambonner

                                                            I don't see any changes.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #5.7 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:42 AM EST
                                                            RobPlumley

                                                            sambonner,

                                                            The mere fact that Scalia and Thomas didn't show up for any State of the Union, is in fact a sign of immaturity, as well as stupidity.

                                                            As for Ailito, there's a thing called a @!$%#ing calendar - use it.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #5.8 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:00 AM EST
                                                            sambonner

                                                            "For Justices Alioto, Thomas and Scalia, attendance is wrong because they were insulted by Barrack Obama (Alioto) or believe that the State of the Union is "too political.""

                                                            The direct implication that the "republican" justices singled out Obama is a ridiculous distortion of fact.

                                                            Why did Ginsburg not attend any of Bush's seven SOTU addresses, but almost all of Clinton's and all three of Obama's? Is she proof that liberals are 'immature'?

                                                            The article and headline are bogus and should be extensively rewritten or taken down.

                                                            • 3 votes
                                                            #5.9 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:13 AM EST
                                                            sjayne2355

                                                            Rob Plumley,

                                                            Where was Sonia Sotomayer???

                                                            • 3 votes
                                                            #5.10 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:19 AM EST
                                                            Jake319

                                                            Working out of town.

                                                            So if your boss gave a speech and you didn't attend ..then did it really happen?

                                                            As far as Bush 's SOTU why did the three stooges attend those speeches? These three justices should be term limited. They only act for their best interest not the states.

                                                            The backlash for this bull @!$%# American unitied ruling should demand term limits for the SC justices. It's hard to call them justices since they only work for corporations......

                                                              #5.11 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:25 PM EST
                                                              Truth Sleuth

                                                              Where was Sonia Sotomayer???

                                                              Guam.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #5.12 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:30 PM EST
                                                              sambonner

                                                              As far as Bush 's SOTU why did the three stooges attend those speeches?

                                                              Who are the three stooges?

                                                                #5.13 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:44 PM EST
                                                                Reply
                                                                Better Careful

                                                                Our right-wing has moved to fascism. They have become anti-democratic. The sort of government they desire does not allow for views or ideas or programs other than their own.

                                                                • Mitch Daniels assigns blame to President Obama for America's push-back against the right-wing. The implication is that we'd all get along if we would all support the right-wing agenda
                                                                • John Boehner cannot help but to take refuge in the stance or posture that all would be well if only President Obama, and everybody else, would just do as they're told, by the right-wing, of course
                                                                • The right-wing, through Fox and the right-wing media, makes the claim that America is not a democracy, so in effect, the fascists are not destroying that which does not exist, anyhow. They cannot be anti-democratic if America is not, and never has been, a democracy
                                                                • As this thread points out, right-wing leaders are so petulant and self-centered that they cannot even pretend to partake in a democracy. So they boycott our political process, because they are not getting their way

                                                                The right-wing wants tyranny. They want one-party rule. They are fascists, and that must end badly, even for the fascists. Up with democracy. Down with fascism.

                                                                • 12 votes
                                                                Reply#6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:01 AM EST
                                                                Coral Atlas

                                                                Better Careful - the words that come to mind when the GOTP is brought up - are plutocrats and oligarchs .... as well as corpocracy.

                                                                As is their fashion they have been campaigning against democracy while at the same time waving flags and the constitution.

                                                                They claim we are a republic to the EXCLUSION of democracy - but the last time I looked we ALL can vote - although the GOTP is doing their best to suppress votes.

                                                                WE ARE A DEMOCRACY and having a republican form of Government has only allowed the tyranny of a minority who have bought the power they wield over the majority!

                                                                The tyranny of the GOTP minority and influence over the lives of ALL Americans must be stopped.

                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                #6.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:51 AM EST
                                                                Reply
                                                                caballojoe

                                                                The President asked Congress to send him a bill right away that prohibits legislators from insider trading and he will sign it. If they did that we could take it as a sign that the current Republican-controlled Congress is there to protect and promote the interests of all Americans from unfair and immoral trading practices. If they don't, we know that they care more about protecting their own unethical conduct. Anybody want to lay odds on which way they go?

                                                                • 7 votes
                                                                Reply#7 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:21 AM EST
                                                                politicalcenter

                                                                Let's not forget that Pelosi was a major beneficiary of the current rule.

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                #7.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:27 AM EST
                                                                Don Overton

                                                                Let's not forget that Pelosi was a major beneficiary of the current rule.

                                                                Makes no difference get rid of it.

                                                                • 4 votes
                                                                #7.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:33 AM EST
                                                                politicalcenter

                                                                I agree. It is nonsense, self-serving and a travesty against all the rest of us.

                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                #7.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:21 AM EST
                                                                roadhead

                                                                The citizens of each state need to pay attention to what their congress crook is doing TO the people instead of what they are doing FOR the people. They need to vote their own politician out if they vote consistently for themselves over the citizens. We can bitch and moan all day about what the other guy is doing while wearing blinders to our own guys foibles. That has to change so that we can start to move in the direction of helping the country, not just stop the other teams moves.

                                                                Getting money out of politics is a noble quest. Hopefully it is not just a Quixotic quest. Stopping insider trading by congress crooks would be a major first step forward in that quest. That neither party has proposed legislation to address the CU case shows that they both want to limit us peons from cutting down the money tree that the CU ruling has enabled to grow to immense size.

                                                                Time for the citizens to wake up and start to just say no to their own elected officials come voting time. Only then will we have a chance to change the direction of the out of control train that our bought and paid for government has proven itself to be. Hopefully it won't be too late.

                                                                Great article PC, thanks.

                                                                  #7.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:29 PM EST
                                                                  Reply
                                                                  sambonner

                                                                  Justice Scalia told a newspaper that he hasn't attended a State of the Union Speech "in at least 10 years". Unless he's lying, he didn't see George W. Bush's speeches either.

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  Reply#8 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:36 AM EST
                                                                  Tom in NH-294381

                                                                  Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito insulted the Office of the Presidency!! It is further proof that this country is politically biased and cannot be trusted to render justice according to the law. It is further proof of the corruption of this court by the GOP!

                                                                  • 4 votes
                                                                  Reply#9 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:38 AM EST
                                                                  sjayne2355

                                                                  Sonia Sotomayer didn't attend either...wasn't she appointed by Obama?

                                                                  • 3 votes
                                                                  #9.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:20 AM EST
                                                                  Reply
                                                                  sambonner

                                                                  This article is bogus . In a New York Times story it is revealed that Clarence Thomas has attended one state of the union speech since 1999 (2006), and Scalia hasn't attended any since 1997. But here is the best part - the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has attended most of Clinton's and all three of Obama's, but didn't attend ANY of George W. Bush's.

                                                                  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/23/us/the-court-at-the-state-of-the-union.html?ref=supremecourt

                                                                  Game, set, match.

                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                  Reply#10 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:47 AM EST
                                                                  politicalcenter

                                                                  Not sure what Ginsburg has to do with this. She was clearly wrong too. It is the principle that is wrong. No matter who is doing it. However, I also think that you are right as to Scalia and I was wrong in relating this to the case. I'll see what I need to do to correct the article.

                                                                    #10.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:30 AM EST
                                                                    sambonner

                                                                    Ginsburg has everything to do with it. You claimed that conservative justices did not attend out of disrespect for Obama. You don't mention that Scalia and Thomas didn't attend Bush's speeches either. So you are left with Ailito as an example of a conservative justice who snubbed Obama, but even leaving aside that he is in Hawaii on legal business, we see that a liberal justice 'boycotted' ALL of Bush's speeches. In recent years, especially during Bush, more justices stay home from this event than go. As regards the Supreme Court disrespecting Obama, you don't have a single bullet in your gun.

                                                                    • 3 votes
                                                                    #10.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:40 AM EST
                                                                    Coral Atlas

                                                                    The members of the SCOTUS as is the case with the House and Senate are not required to attend.

                                                                    Most do ... and ALL should.

                                                                    And that is that.

                                                                      #10.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:55 AM EST
                                                                      sambonner

                                                                      Most do ... and ALL should.

                                                                      It is absolutely untrue that most members of the current court usually attend. There have only been 2 years since 2000 when more than half the court attended the state of the union speech. Both of those years were during Obama's presidency.

                                                                      I don't recall Bush's supporters complaining about non attendance at his speeches. This is ridiculous.

                                                                      • 2 votes
                                                                      #10.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:02 AM EST
                                                                      Reply
                                                                      sambonner

                                                                      mistake, can be deleted

                                                                        Reply#11 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:57 AM EST
                                                                        Boudicea

                                                                        I guess this is a liberal love fest here and I (NOT a republican) feel very uncomfortable posting my true feelings.

                                                                        Suffice to say this - in response to your comment about the Justices - THEY are appointed for life. THEY have earned their positions. THEY are charged with one of the most difficult - and thankless - jobs in American Government today. How DARE some upstart politician who was been elected for 4 years question their combined 180-200 years judicial experience! And How DARE he do it on National TV on a day the entire world was watching.

                                                                        Just as liberals like to say "he is everyone's president and we should respect him", Obama has every responsibility to respect the Justices of the highest court in the land. His comments last year were disgusting, disrespectful and arrogant. The action of those Justices to NOT attend this year is completely appropriate, I believe.

                                                                        Obama is the head of the Executive Branch - he is NOT above the Judicial Branch - they are his equals. He treated them as if they were bad little children who should be sent to their rooms. His display was beyond offensive.

                                                                        • 5 votes
                                                                        Reply#12 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:18 AM EST
                                                                        sambonner

                                                                        It is obvious that last year has nothing to do with it. There are always justices who are not there. Since 2000 there have only been three years when there were 5 or more justices at the speech, and those three years have been Obama's years!!

                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                        #12.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:22 AM EST
                                                                        Boudicea

                                                                        whether or not there are always justices who do not attend, my comments stand.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #12.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:30 AM EST
                                                                        politicalcenter

                                                                        So is Congress.

                                                                          #12.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:33 AM EST
                                                                          Boudicea

                                                                          So is Congress what?

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #12.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:57 AM EST
                                                                          caballojoe

                                                                          Boudicea, the Supreme Court justices ARE like bad little children that should be sent to their rooms. Their reversal of 200 years of tradition in limiting campaign/pac financing was one of the worst legal rulings for this country. I can say it and so can the head of the Executive Branch. Your reasoning that one has to be "above" the Judicial Branch to find fault there is without merit. Republican Congressmen rail against activist judges constantly, and they (the legislative branch) are not above the judicial branch either, and I don't find that "offensive." Why should you?

                                                                          • 1 vote
                                                                          #12.5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:12 AM EST
                                                                          Boudicea

                                                                          Caballoioe - there you go - talking without understanding what you're saying. The SCOTUS didn't REVERSE 200 years of tradition - it AFFIRMED 220 years of Precedent that Companies cannot be denied equal rights. Why don't you do some investigating. I wrote TWO articles on the subject a couple of weeks ago. You blame the SCOTUS for something CONGRESS did (write a bad law) and for the outcome which CONGRESS could fix, if they wanted to.

                                                                          And YES you can say something that is the TRUTH in front of the entire world, but a LIE goes beyond the pale. And I find it disingenuous and outright appalling! (Especially for someone who insists he is a "Constitutional Scholar".)

                                                                          • 2 votes
                                                                          #12.6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:47 AM EST
                                                                          Coral Atlas

                                                                          To those here who represent themselves as members of the GOTP or Democratic Party I suggest you take another look.

                                                                          You are ALL Americans ... and that is all that matters going forward.

                                                                          Time to stop the blame game and work together for the common good.

                                                                          VOTE!

                                                                            #12.7 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:59 AM EST
                                                                            politicalcenter

                                                                            Congress is an independent part of the government, just like the Supreme Court.

                                                                              #12.8 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:41 PM EST
                                                                              greg-709692

                                                                              Time to stop the blame game and work together for the common good.

                                                                              ?????????

                                                                              Shhhh, the blamer in chief is talking.

                                                                              Oooops, sorry, it was Coral Atlas.

                                                                              Come on Coral, nice, but you know it's not going to stop from either side in Congress, nor will it stop here on the Vine. It's how they run and get elected nowadays.

                                                                              We can agree on one thing ......... VOTE !

                                                                                #12.9 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:45 PM EST
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                TheyreAllCrooks

                                                                                I don't see how missing justices matters at all. They were probably having dinner with the Koch brothers!

                                                                                But what I did find funny as hell was when the President rattled off the success of bailing out GM, saving 1 MILLION jobs in the process, and now GM is #1 in sales again and Detroit is roaring...you could've heard a worm fart on the GOP side!

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                Reply#13 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:01 AM EST
                                                                                sambonner

                                                                                Sorry, the article is incompetent and should be removed. The headline is extremely misleading and the premise regarding the "republican" justices is utterly unsupportable. Scalia and Thomas don't attend any SOTU speeches and didn't attend Bush's either. It is inexcusable to draw the conclusion that the writer of the article did. Then he claims to have fixed the article, but it looks the same to me.

                                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                                #13.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:12 AM EST
                                                                                Boudicea

                                                                                Yeah, but what he DIDNT say was that Japanese car sales were down in part because of the earthquake that disrupted manufacture of vital parts for their cars in Japan and Thailand. And he DIDNT say that GM's position as #1 was a result of fudging the numbers. Imagine, the GOP not jumping for joy at ANOTHER Obama falsehood (actually, they should have laughed out loud)

                                                                                http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16643790

                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                #13.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:16 AM EST
                                                                                Reply
                                                                                Texasguy01

                                                                                Here is your reason right here in your article. President Obama insulted them publicly and humiliated them. The other factual error is calling them Republican judges. They have no political party.

                                                                                Obama did overstep his bounds in January 2010, acting immaturely, when confronting the campaign financing case allowing unlimited corporate expenditures by insulting the Supreme Court justices who authored and voted for the majority opinion in that case.

                                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                                Reply#14 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:13 AM EST
                                                                                Coral Atlas

                                                                                Are you for real?

                                                                                Almost every American left and right disagrees with corporate person-hood.

                                                                                The President speaks for ALL Americans while 5 out of 9 SCOTUS Justices speak for the 1%

                                                                                One major reason why the majority must ALL vote in 2012 is to prevent the GOTP from further tainting the political impartiality of the SCOTUS.

                                                                                As it is Alito and Thomas should each be impeached and removed.

                                                                                  #14.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:05 AM EST
                                                                                  Boudicea

                                                                                  Most people don't know WTF "Corporate Personhood" even IS. Most Americans resent unlimited campaign funding by corporations. But you see, Congress could FIX THAT if they wanted to. They don't.

                                                                                  If you think that those justices should be impeached and removed for the decision, then I suggest we would have had to start removing Justices in 1790 - when the FIRST corporate equal protection decision came down - and all the rest since then, because there have been many.

                                                                                  • 2 votes
                                                                                  #14.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:54 AM EST
                                                                                  Texasguy01

                                                                                  I watched the SOTU when Obama publicly mocked the Supreme Court. They were mad. Here is the video. This is the reason they were not there.

                                                                                  http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

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

                                                                                  "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

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

                                                                                  Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

                                                                                  “The President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” said Bradley A. Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, in The Corner blog on Nationalreview.com.

                                                                                  • 1 vote
                                                                                  #14.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:52 PM EST
                                                                                  Truth Sleuth

                                                                                  Actually, the SC was correct in its CU ruling. Since corporations were deemed "persons" under the law a long time ago (albeit fictional, manufactured ones), they are entitled to all the First Amendment rights as other persons. The problem with that though, imho, is that these fictional, manufactured "persons" are simply machines designed to facilitate business. They have no free will or reasoning ability of their own, and therefore can't even conceptualize of First Amendment rights, much less exercise them.

                                                                                  I agree corporations should have the freedom to do certain things as private enterprises and should be protected accordingly, but I don't believe that should extend to literally over-powering the voice of individual citizens--REAL persons with free will and reason--in the town hall meeting of ideas and influence in running their own government. Machines shouldn't be running and buying government. Machines innately have far more power than an individual person and can literally kill you when out of control or mishandled.

                                                                                    #14.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:02 PM EST
                                                                                    SuperSaiyan

                                                                                    I guess Boudicea doesn't recognize the fact that no one likes the Citizens United decision and is in favor of be campaign finanice laws...

                                                                                    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/22/408756/poll-need-new-campaign-finance/

                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                    #14.5 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:51 PM EST
                                                                                    Boudicea

                                                                                    Guess Super Saiyan doesn't realize that the CONGRESS can do something about the outcome. It's not the SCOTUS's place to look at OUTCOME, just Constitutionality. Nobody said people don't want campaign finance reform. But then again, I just did an entire article asking just what was so bad about "corporate personhood" and NOBODY could give me a straight answer. So why doesn't the Congress address the issue?

                                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                                    #14.6 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:10 PM EST
                                                                                    Truth Sleuth

                                                                                    In the context of protecting the rights of corporations in that sphere within our society that they exist and operate, there's nothing wrong with their having certain rights that human persons do, imo.

                                                                                    But the pertinent distinction is that corporations are artificial persons; they're machines that were created and owned by man to perform certain tasks to facilitiate business and commerce. And in that context, they do deserve certain First Amendment rights and protections, and others as well. But entities that are created and owned and operated by man and can be liquidated by man are obviously not persons in the same context that human persons are, and therefore, imho, shouldn't and don't need identical First Amendment rights. That's ludicrous. Corporations are actually slaves: they're owned, bought, sold and used by humans. They're obviously not intended to be free human persons under the law in the same context as human persons. As entities, they have no ability to "speak"; ergo, no First Amendment rights. Their owners do as private individuals, but not as slavemaster using the slave to override the spirit of self-government and literally overpower the voice of individual humans when it comes to the ear of our elected officials. It makes no sense.

                                                                                      #14.7 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:23 PM EST
                                                                                      politicalcenter

                                                                                      I believe his attack was immature, as I said.

                                                                                        #14.8 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:02 PM EST
                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                        Burlap Mudflap

                                                                                        The GOP has chosen to dispute reality and argue their invented version instead .

                                                                                        It may have worked in 2010 it will not work again in 2012 ... IMO

                                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                                        Reply#15 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:39 AM EST
                                                                                        Coral Atlas

                                                                                        If we allow the GOTP to continue to "dumb down" Americans by destroying public education and promoting maxing out profits over new industries and new jobs and clean energy - we are doomed as a nation.

                                                                                        • 2 votes
                                                                                        #15.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:07 AM EST
                                                                                        Reply
                                                                                        greck

                                                                                        But these immaturities pale compared to the immature Republican Supreme Court justices who are so school ground slighted that they simply cannot even come to the one show of governmental unity given every year. For Justices Alioto, Thomas and Scalia, attendance is wrong because they were insulted by Barrack Obama (Alioto) or believe that the State of the Union is "too political."

                                                                                        I like bashing the conservatives on the bench as much as anyone, but i feel it important to point out that Justice Sotomayor wasn't there either.

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        Reply#16 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:08 AM EST
                                                                                        BostonMan-3128434

                                                                                        But that fact would not really help the seeder's point so please try and refrain from showing the hypocrisy of SOME on the left in the future please

                                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                                        #16.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:46 AM EST
                                                                                        Texasguy01

                                                                                        Sotomayor was in a fight to recluse over the Obamacare lawsuit. Perhaps she wanted to be out of sight and not remind people of it.

                                                                                          #16.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:07 PM EST
                                                                                          fstwarrior

                                                                                          Notice she didn't recluse herself nor the SCOTUS ask her too.

                                                                                            #16.3 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:10 PM EST
                                                                                            politicalcenter

                                                                                            Yes, this was also a problem. I did not say that Democrats were not also immature and political. They often are.

                                                                                              #16.4 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:04 PM EST
                                                                                              Reply
                                                                                              fstwarrior

                                                                                              The attendance was strictly voluntary - no one HAD to be there, 'cept of course the Pres. Of course, out of the 535 elected officials and the 9 SCOTUS members, does anyone really know the actual number in attendance or, more truthfully, does anybody really care about who was in attendance? The fact that the SCOTUS' didn't show makes a lot of sense - how 'bout somebody calling you an idiot and a turn coat - would you show up the listen to them talk? He!! no.

                                                                                              The numbers he quotes for GM - pure BS - Government Motors will not turn a profit until and only until they pay back their bailout(s) - which ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The Japanese manufacturers have been hit with some serious natural disasters, otherwise they would still be leading the pack. The quality of GM/Chrysler products still suck - Ford's product line is better and has a better reputation - aw, but gee, they didn't receive a government bailout so they don't rate mentioning.

                                                                                              • 3 votes
                                                                                              Reply#17 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:51 AM EST
                                                                                              Borncorn

                                                                                              You right wingnuts sure hate it when American Companies do well. GM is building some great products, so I can imagine why you're so pissed.

                                                                                                #17.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:15 PM EST
                                                                                                Dog_Blue

                                                                                                People are pissed at give aways to the greedy lazy union butt wipes. GM should have been allwed to go under period. Then it could have been reorganized without the dead weight unions.

                                                                                                • 3 votes
                                                                                                #17.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:03 PM EST
                                                                                                Reply
                                                                                                IndependentVoter

                                                                                                The article is a perfect example of how you start with a false premise and arrive at false conclusions. Even the slighest amount of research..makes this article rediculous.

                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                Reply#18 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:29 PM EST
                                                                                                lisaed

                                                                                                PC---my my my.....2012 is well underway and will wonders NEVER cease---PC has jumped on the Obama re-elect band wagon. Sad. Still waitin on a Hillary VP nod? I'll miss your obama bashing threads. Sincerely.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                Reply#19 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:51 PM EST
                                                                                                politicalcenter

                                                                                                Well put. But my article was not from my support of Obama. It was because, very sadly, Obama has improved and the Republicans degenerated into some fine mess.

                                                                                                Maybe they will recover. We will see.

                                                                                                I call them as I see them. I called this one based on the current climate. As we know, I am often very wrong about a lot of things coming in the future. Gingrich is going dead at the moment, Mitt Romney (who was our choice was he not) failed because of McCain and I voted for McCain.

                                                                                                This year until last night I thought I was going the same way. But I now thing otherwise.

                                                                                                By the way, it looks like a bit of immaturity for Obama today in Arizona.

                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                #19.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:08 PM EST
                                                                                                lisaed

                                                                                                Maybe they will recover. We will see.

                                                                                                PC---we can only hope and pray. Romney-Rubio!!! It's funny how Newt supporters and the candidate himself believes he is somehow not of the big bad "establishment." That's just sad to me....that anyone would buy that. I wouldn't despise Gingrich so much if he weren't so damned inauthentic in his presentation to the voters of just who he is (a vindictive bastard who is completely not credible when trying to play the victim).

                                                                                                • 2 votes
                                                                                                #19.2 - Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:28 PM EST
                                                                                                politicalcenter

                                                                                                Looks like Florida agrees. Only time will tell. Glad to get your comments!

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                #19.3 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 4:01 PM EST
                                                                                                lisaed

                                                                                                Looks like Florida agrees

                                                                                                PC--Yes, thank goodness they didn't make the same mistake that SC did.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                #19.4 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 5:15 PM EST
                                                                                                politicalcenter

                                                                                                Agree. Guess there is hope that the other states will follow suit (rather than the empty suit!).

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                #19.5 - Wed Feb 1, 2012 10:34 PM EST
                                                                                                agagnu

                                                                                                Come come concerned citizens, the republican campaign rhetoric overreached saturation point long ago. Step back and see the simple truth; Lobbyist Gingrich =K Street ! vulture capitalist Romney = Wall Street and majority of voters struggle to get by in Main Street. Gingrich and Romney are UN-electable.

                                                                                                Immaturity may rear it's obscene end, pity.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                #19.6 - Sat Feb 4, 2012 7:16 PM EST
                                                                                                lisaed

                                                                                                agagnu: Obama: four consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits putting America in fiscal crisis and our safety nets on fast tracks to INSOLVENCY all while creating another brand new entitlement we cannot afford. Unelectable. Next.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                #19.7 - Tue Feb 7, 2012 3:16 PM EST
                                                                                                Reply
                                                                                                Tim Boothby

                                                                                                Nothing requires the Justice to go, as NPR points out, only one Justice attending isn't uncommon and there have been none:

                                                                                                In reality, Supreme Court attendance is often spotty, even non-existent.

                                                                                                Breyer is the only Justice who thinks going is important, and since 2001, he has four times been the only Justice there. Indeed, in 2000, when he was sick, none of the Justices went.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                Reply#20 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:22 PM EST
                                                                                                itsnotademocracyDeleted
                                                                                                Strider1954

                                                                                                the term juvenile delinquents comes to mind. What a bunch of bozos.

                                                                                                fstwarrior - if, in fact, the GM numbers are BS where did you get your numbers? A little proof goes a long way. However I do agree with your statement regarding the Japanese.

                                                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                                                Reply#22 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:04 PM EST
                                                                                                fstwarrior

                                                                                                Just reading the newpapers where they tout the decrease in Japanese quality due to the freaks of nature and the status of the U.S. car market. Of the three U.S. producers, Ford is still rated as the most reliable, Government Motors is second and Chrysler is bringing up a very lagging third. Seems that mis-management in the Chrysler realm along with not-so-stellar quality control on its Ram products is causing customers to shy away.

                                                                                                Not a specific read - just an accumulation over the past few weeks.

                                                                                                  #22.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:20 PM EST
                                                                                                  Reply
                                                                                                  Tim Boothby

                                                                                                  MSN's own poll on the browser even shows that this speech was given a "D: or "F" by 48%!

                                                                                                  MSN, or MSNBC? Link?

                                                                                                  You guys may think it was great but it was just more talk from a failed Liberal Marxist

                                                                                                  Failed, too soon to tell. Liberal, depends on who you ask, progressives think otherwise for example. Marxist, the label socialist can't even stick, got a pants on fire rating in fact.

                                                                                                  Edit: Damn, this was supposed to be attached to #21, I misclicked.

                                                                                                    Reply#23 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:21 PM EST
                                                                                                    politicalcenter

                                                                                                    60% gave it an A and another 10% a B. Sorry, but I do not believe the percentages you mention.

                                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                                    #23.1 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:12 PM EST
                                                                                                    fstwarrior

                                                                                                    I know - NV has a story that gives it a 12% - just sayin'.

                                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                                    #23.2 - Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:42 PM EST
                                                                                                    Reply
                                                                                                    andrew-zito

                                                                                                    Wow what wonderful partisanship and love between Democrats and Republicans when actually for the most past they are some much alike they can not be distinguished lead by what this author stated was "acting immaturely". I have no need to debate and re-debate the many lies and half-truths of the Democratic and Republican Parties, who are deeply steeped in the privileges of international corruption criminality genocide oppression and subversion which has no respect for itself or others: in what is tantamount to a police state at home and neo-imperialism abroad, so please go back to your feeding frenzy as it suits the swine as you are cut your own throats, and everything you say is pretense.

                                                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                                                    Reply#24 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:18 AM EST
                                                                                                    politicalcenter

                                                                                                    Immaturity is a place where we all retreat from time to time. Currently, immaturity is at the Republicans feet because they have failed to compromise, and are still doing so. They may lose it all in the next election. If so, the end result will be one of the few times in history that Democrats have control of everything. If a Republican wins, they may also win a majority everywhere, but still have no control.

                                                                                                    Republicans claim Obama had control of the Senate at the beginning of his term. With the 60 vote requirement, which is likely unconstitutional, the Senate has managed to become largely meaningless apart from blocking legislation depending on who has the majority there.

                                                                                                    If you want to place blame, you can put it squarely on the Senate. This silly rule has stalemated Congress for years, and will continue to do so until and unless either a case is brought challenging the rule or a party has the sense to get rid of it.

                                                                                                    Until then, you can have your cake and eat it to. A curse on both houses.

                                                                                                      #24.1 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:52 AM EST
                                                                                                      Reply
                                                                                                      hugh b

                                                                                                      uh,correction, they are not Justices

                                                                                                      the are Supreme Court Just Us-es, they aren't for Justice, they are for the 1% Justus

                                                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                                                      Reply#25 - Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:44 PM EST
                                                                                                      Leave a Comment:
                                                                                                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                                      FUN STUFF:
                                                                                                      • Leaderboard |
                                                                                                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                                      • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                                      • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                                      • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                                      • The Greenhouse |
                                                                                                      COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                                      • Code of Honor |
                                                                                                      • Company Info |
                                                                                                      • Contact Us |
                                                                                                      • Jobs |
                                                                                                      • User Agreement |
                                                                                                      • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                                      • About our ads
                                                                                                      LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com