Alito, to Obama's Supreme Court Call-out: "No, that's not right"


According to CNN reporter John King, when President Barack Obama dressed down the Supreme Court tonight for its decision in Citizens United v. the FEC, prompting several hundred people to stand up in mutual derision for just nine, Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed the words "no, that's not right."

Anyway, consider this an open thread for the GOP response. Go!

NEXT: Reason Staff Liveblogs the State of the Union: Now!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Missed the GOP response, but I’m guessing they agreed that puppies and children are good.

    1. Yeah, that sounds about right. I just finished watching the Repub response.

  2. he looked like he was disagreeing with what obama said, not that he said it. con law nerd-to-nerd faceoff.

    1. What’s surprising to me is that everyone, even here, seems to miss the fact that the only reason this is being commented on is that it was on camera.

      Alito didn’t take the shot, folks, the director did. There could have been — probably were — dozens rolling their eyes or vomiting in their bourbon glasses but they go unremarked because they didn’t make the teevee.

      OK, maybe you have to assume that everything you do in public is going to be seen by millions, but really this was just an offhand tic that got snapped. Big fucking deal.

      1. Did you miss the fact that most the the Gallery, even those right behind Alito, stood and applauded.

        Yours is a typical misdirect

  3. Alito should have stood up and shouted it.

    1. “Oh,no you di-in’t!”

      1. You lie!

    2. Amen.

      1. He should have shouted it.

  4. Speaking of nerds, it looked like Geithner got the deliberate ignore from Obama

  5. Saw it and it was a huge breach of comity and protocol. Shame on Alito. It makes the Court look bad and undermines respect for the profession.

    1. No, shame on Obama for commenting on the SC decision, which makes the office of the president look bad and undermines what little respect is left for said office.

      1. I second the notion. Obama was an ass.

        1. We’re probably both guilty of sedition right now, John. Whoever gets to the reeducation camp first, save the other a seat. Deal?

          1. Deal.

            Brush up on your tapcode so we can continue to communicate until we are liberated.

            1. I will carry the Molotov cocktails over to you gulag until the liberation is secure.

              1. Thanks, guys. *sniff* You’re the best!

                1. Let’s just, er, hope that we don’t wind up in reeducation camps. Can you imagine how piss-poor they would be, by the way, being run by NEA bureaucrats?

                  We’d likely be bored to death before being physically harmed. Being strapped to a chair and forced to watch Michael Moore movies might be against Geneva Convention code, but that’s for the lawyers to decide.

                  At least we’d get three squares (of unsalted tofu) and a cot at the end of the day. And they can hide the lobotomy scars so well these days…

                  1. PBS does have some interesting stuff sometimes . . .

                    1. I rarely watch PBS these days, even though it would be a good way to recoup the money they get from my paycheck…

        2. I agree, another thuggish attempt to intimidate another branch of government. Obama is a narcissistic jackass who thinks he’s entitled to belittle others with his “Hillary” cackle.

      2. No shame on Alito. It is well within the scope of Separation of Powers principles for the TWO branches, legislative and executive, to serve as a check on the judicial. A corporation is made up of people, it is not a person. The gov’t is “of, by and for” the people, not business entities.

        Citizens Divided will be overturned by Legislative act.

        1. If someone like you can get a JD, we’re in even more trouble than I thought. Go eat a bag of desiccated cocks, fuckface.

        2. So, you want to give government the authority to decide when and where and how political dissent is practiced. Got it.

        3. The media an law firms are also business entities. Both are deep in the Liberal camp, and both had prior exemptions. So, as a business entity and not a person, do you want to gag the media too?

        4. If you had actually read the decision you would know that corporate personhood is irrelevant. Free speech in this context isn’t about what the corporations right to speak, but our right to hear what they have to say.

          Why do you hate freedom?

        5. ‘A corporation is made up of people…’

          ‘The gov’t is “of, by and for” the people’

          Anybody else see the irony here?

        6. Serving as a check to a branch of government doesn’t include berating a branch during the SotU address.

          The other branches should use the appropriate governmental devices to rectify problems of law.

          In this case it means passing an amendment, not berating the Supreme Court as if they are naughty children.

          It’s disappointing to see the PotUS act like a two year old in the middle of a temper tantrum. I’d like to see a lot less blaming and more proactive speech come from Obama.


      3. Try this on for size.
        Obama should have called for the Sergeant of Arms to come on down and take Alito and Roberts into custody for lieing when under oath during Senate Confirmation Hearings where both “Swore” to honor precedence. This is in the Official Congressional Record and even folks like you can go and read. I’ll save you some time here by saying that there is nothing but their own word and honor to keep them following precedence so any Justice can act with out regard of precedence, I’m just pointing out the lie under oath.

        1. And to help out the Libertian slow learners, go to the questions posed by then Senator Biden during the hearing about Alito’s view on “stare decisis”

        2. They swore to “honor” precedence, not to enslave themselves to it.

          According to your rules, they should arrest every elected official in the chamber who “swore” to uphold the constitution.

      4. I guess it was not alright for Reagan and Bush to do it…….and they both did!

    2. Anytime someone begins a phrase “with all due respect/deference/etc,” you can guarantee what follows will show no respect/deference/etc. Obama clearly overstepped his bounds where seperation of powers is concerned, and such disrespect is far more loathesome than a SCOTUS decision, whether right or wrong.

      1. First of many such stories:…..oment.html

        1. Another one, from another of the usual suspects:


          1. The HuffPo article says Thomas and Scalia weren’t there, but I didnt see Stevens either. Did I miss him (in one sense of the word, but definitely not in the other)?

            1. Protocol probably only allows so many SC judges to attend. You know, just in case Pelosi’s head implodes, creating a black hole.

            2. huge breach of comity and protocol.

              Agreed that Alito’s response wasn’t too classy, but that pales in comparison to what prompted it. A Harvard law grad should realize the importance of an independent judiciary. Excoriating the high court in front of both houses of Congress and millions of viewers is hardly showing comity, to say the least. That kind of performance is more befitting of a Hugo Chavez-type than an American president.

              1. That flew over Dustin’s noggin, for sure…

              2. You’re right … an independent judiciary is what we need. Not a Supreme Court that continually interjects its politics into its decisions. And now Justice Alito is interjecting his own brand of politics into the State of the Union Address. It’s shameful.

                1. Right, I get your point. When you say “independent judiciary,” you mean a “judiciary that does what the executive branch and legislative majority think is a good idea.” Gotcha.

                  1. Only if it is Progressive, of course.

                2. That’s your POV, Dustin. I, however, believe Alito was justified and, being an American citizen, has the right to publicly disagree with this administration, or ANY administration.

                  Which, by the way, was cribbed from a speech given by Hillary Clinton. Which means even she can be right once in a while.

              3. And if Maobama doesn’t like it he can toss it back to the Supreme Court to enforce, just like several before him have.

                Oops! If he runs around fining people willy-nilly for the exercise of free political speech they will get overturned and his persicutors may get tossed in the pokey and/or fined for frivolity. Darn! (I hope that is about right)

            3. stevens is 117 years old, so no surprise he was not there

          2. Surprisingly good responses to this story:


    3. Comity and protocal can go to hell. Nothing scares me, or our founding fathers for that matter, more than relentless executive ambition and expansion. Obama was tactless and juvenille there, and Alito’s response wasn’t directed at his disagreement with the ruling as much as it was with the gall of him intervening in matters he has no business to.

      1. I really don’t think our founding fathers are scared of anything any more. But I do agree with what you are saying.

        1. Though I am not a religious person, I hope that Alexander Hamilton still feels the grip of fear everytime Satan goes at him with the trident pitchfork of his.

          1. Wa’? Hamilton wasn’t really a libertarian role model, but he was pretty damn useful.

          2. Thanks for the reminder. The next cigar I smoke will be wrapped with the image of Hamilton fresh from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

    4. Native American (so am I, BTW) How biased of you. One of your decisions gets attacked by the guy with the microphone and you should just sit there and take it? Not! What does that say about respect for the Presidency that Obama had the poor judgement to attack during State of the Union?

  6. Alito should be thankful for that experience. He’s getting to see the birth of a new fascist movement right before his own eyes.

  7. Geithner actually got a nice dude-hug and something like “thanks for today” on Obama’s way into the chamber…

  8. The Alito moment was a disgrace. Alito’s conduct was inappropriate for a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.

    1. Even though Alito was 100% correct in his assessment?

      1. Alito’s conduct was unbecoming of a Supreme Court justice. He should have showed a little more poise than to shake his head in disagreement like a child.

        1. Bullshit.

          Which, coincidentally, is what Alito should have mouthed.

        2. “Like a child”?

          Utter horseshit. Do you believe any sitting president should get the walking-on-eggshells treatment? Fuck that.

          There was nothing wrong with what Alito did. Obama is in the wrong here.

          1. Obama’s conduct was unbecoming of a president. He should have showed a little more poise than to use the bully pulpit to reprimand Supreme Court justices on live television.

            Fixed it for ya, Dustin. That’ll be ten bucks. Money order or PayPal, please.

            1. If Alito had rushed the podium and cained that little Chicago jerk into a week in the hospital, now THAT would be unbecoming.

              Biden would have been worse with his prospects of a new staff and office.

              1. Didn’t some college students do that to the guy who started the Minutemen?

                1. Anyway, the left is going to spin this as if Alito had bum-rushed the podium and smacked the POTUS mightily with his shilelagh.

                  Oops, wrong culture. But that would still make a cool snapshot.

          2. Next SOTU he should bring tomatoes.

        3. Technically his actions violate the Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1 and 5. I hope he is admonished by his state bar and by C.J. Roberts for conduct unbecoming.

          $10 an apology is already being drafted by his clerk.

          1. *yawn* Policy wonks are so tiresome.

            1. Apparently, upon appointment to the Supreme Court, said appointee loses their First Amendment protections when in an audience in front of the president.

              1. Win

          2. God, Native, you are really full of shit. You know that right?

          3. And if you have to ask, MCJ doesn’t mean dick when Separation of Powers are concerned. A Supreme Court Justice can’t be held to it.

          4. for silently murmuring to himself outside of the courtroom? i don’t think so

        4. Fuck you, Dustin, for lying.

        5. All hail the KING! Are you related to President Adams?

        6. Disagreeing openly and vocally to a political idea isn’t the usual trademark of a child.

          It’s just as appropriate to show Alito’s response to Obama’s assertion as it is to show people yelling and clapping in response.

          Remember the booing from the Democrat’s side of the aisle during Bush’s last SotU?

          1. Dustin won’t understand your argument. His idea of maturity is to sit obediently while the boss tells lies about you.
            Either he’s a liberal troll or he’s a guy who likes submission to authority and putting up with bullshit.

    2. Obama’s conduct was Fascistic.

      I’ll take a breach of SOPs of etiquitte before I permit a breach of Seperation of Powers.

      1. By the first SOPs, I meant standards of protocal. I didn’t realize until just now that seperation of powers had the same acronym.

        1. I figured you’d meant “standard operating procedure”….

  9. Alito was just trying to publicly defend a BAD scotus decision. Obama was right… US corporations have no US citizenship requirements: now foreign govts and individuals, partnered with US corporations can pour billions of dollars into US campaigns… China, Russia, Venezuela… c’mon GOP where is your outrage? …are you THAT committed to disagreeing with EVERYTHING Obama says?

    1. And the GOP stood up and applauded with vigor too. Congratulations, you reds can now get along with the brownshirts.

      As for “foreign corporations” being allowed to pour countless dollars into elections: I’m sure when the electorate is notified that Hugo Chavez is running campaign commercials for or against this or that candidate, it will engender tons of support from the American electorate. Why is it that those that think the people are sooo incredibly dumb happen to possess the intellectual capacity and reasoning ability of styrofoam?

      1. Funnily enough, I remember hearing not long ago radio commercials from Citgo advertising their below-cost home heating fuel, as a gift from the “Venezuelan people” (i.e. Chavez) to the huddled masses in America. McCain-Feingold didn’t seem to stop that piece of propaganda. But I don’t think most people gave a shit anyway.

        1. Yeah, the TV commercials were great too. Senior Citizen townies talking about how wonderful Citgo/Venezuela was for giving them cheap home heating oil in winter.

    2. a. This isn’t a GOP website.
      b. Do you not think that maybe, just maybe, there is a good faith constitutional interpretation that Congress can’t pass laws stopping groups of people from commenting on political issues?

      1. So I saw this “Congress shall make no law” rubbish and I crafted an executive order instead.

    3. It’s a bad decision because it waters down all that soft money. Is that what yer trying to say?

    4. Thank you, frank, for demonstrating what would be produced by the unholy union of Lonewacko and Chony.

    5. Frank, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. The Supreme Court didn’t do anything with section 441e of the law, which banned (and continues to ban after the ruling) any Foreign contributions to campaigns or money spent on electioneering communications.

      I expect a moron troll on the intertubes to be so clueless. What scares me is that the “Super Smart Harvard Lawyer” inhabiting the White House either can’t or won’t understand this.

      What Obama said was untrue. There is nothing wrong with a person singled out by a mob leader to shake his had and point out that basic fact.

      1. The ruling opens up company treasuries and has eliminated any regulation with regards to their use for campaign contributions.

        Most companies in the US have some or a substantial ownership by foreign entities (through stock mainly).

        With no limit on the use of these treasuries – there is at present no mechanism to limit foreign interest through these contributions.

        I have to say, to be honest though, there was very little regulation on the use of these company treasuries before the ruling, so not much has changed with regard to potential foreign influence.

        1. Joe-

          There are very clear definitions of foreign companies. If those rules are not sufficient to ban foreign tampering (though I don’t understand why foreigners are not allowed to engage in political speech, but oh well) then additional laws to limit foreign influence can be considered. Silencing the majority of domestic companies to get at some foreigners is not only a waste of resources, its as stupid as shutting down cable tv to fet rid of Fox News.

          Further, I’m interested in this belief that foreign stockholders can cause a company to choose specific electioneering contributions. How does that square with all the liberal handwringers that wail about how domestic liberals may find the money they paid in stock being used for the purposes of some CEOs? If Foreign stock holders can influence the company so dramatically, why can’t the domestic counterparts?

          1. I agree. It’s almost impossible to eliminate foreign influence on this issue – our markets are the most open and regulation-free in the world, and there is no way there would be any attempt to limit foreign ownership as a safeguard to protect our elections. It’s not practical and would never happen.

            Your second point about stock holders influencing companies. I think it is more of a little guy vs big guy scenario. The little guy feels he has no power over his money invested in a big company, and is therefore at the mercy of the company directors.

            Most of the high ranking officials in the company own very large %tages of the stock. So there could be, and i’m sure there are some, who have foreigners who occupy those positions. And it gets more complicated because of companies that have foreign subsidiaries etc. – the company hierarchy can get complex.

            I suppose it’s on account of those subsidiary relationships that one could suspect a company may seek to influence a politician in a manner that is against US interest.

            1. our markets are the most open and regulation-free in the world


              1. our markets are the most open and regulation-free in the world

    6. Dipshit doesn’t even understand that this isn’t a GOP friendly blog.

      We don’t agree with Obama, we must be dirty Republicans, blind party shills with no sense of principles!

      1. Oh, this is a very GOP friendly site. Amazing how quickly it drifted to the right one Obama was elected. Made me realize that true libertarians are exceedingly rare.

        1. This site isn’t GOP friendly – it’s just opposing the party currently assaulting our rights. The only reason no one is complaining about the GOP is because their is nothing to complain about. They aren’t doing anything – it’s not like they are out there making counter proposals (a.k.a. doing their jobs).

          Bushbama II and the Dems are currently taking us in the wrong direction, just as Bushbama I and GOP did during the previous 8 years.

          Reason will always oppose the Demopublicans in power.

  10. If Obama were indeed a fascist, he would definitely have an easier time pushing through his agenda with such overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress.

    1. And if anyone disagrees with him on camera, they’re just acting like a child… right?

      1. the HuffPo comments are a treat. The same people who defended the Dixie Chicks and worried about ripping up the Bill of Rights a few years ago now seem to support impeaching justices who disagree with the president on eviscerating the First Amendment. Now the shoe is on the other foot, I suppose.

        It is all about Team Red/Team Blue.

        1. But they were wearing purple! They’re bridging the divides!!!

        2. Excellent comparison. Dixie Chicks = free speech; movie against Hillary Clinton = a crime if advertised X number of days before an election.

          1. I know. Whaddya think would’ve happened if the FEC tried to ban a Michael Moore movie before the 2004 election?

            1. We at Reason H & R would be defending Michael Moore’s freedom of speech while the ‘Pub trolls called us unpatriotic instead of the Dem trolls.

              1. Lessee now, they…

                -Are starting to own the means of production and finance
                -Attempt to silence dissent
                -Slander political opponents with unprecedented malice
                -Beat up opponents at rallies
                -Seek authoritarian control of the economy, culture and society
                -Seek to weaken other arms of govt

                Nah, that doesn’t sound like fascism at all.

                1. Um, the car manufacturers, banks and so on went to the gov’t for help. You think the Obama administration planned a takeover? That’s silly.

                  As are most of your claims. And who is this “they” anyway?

                  Read up on the Patriot Act II that the last administration wanted to pass, and see what a real threat to the Constitution looks like. Heck, Chenney tried to make the argument that he was literally above the law.

                  If you’re scared by Obama making a comment, might want to take a sedative.

          2. Exactly! Consumers not wanting to hear the DCs on the radio is obstruction free speech. A group paying for their own movie and to have ot played wherever is a threat to the republic.

            I think you are getting it now!

    2. Fortunately for us, we possess a reasonable degree of seperation of powers, codified into law and buttressed by centuries of functioning precedence. I have little doubt that any of the tyrants that have controlled the office of the presidency in my lifetime would gladly circumvent such had the opportunity arisen. All of that is precisely why Obama’s comment strikes such a chord of fear, because he fired the opening shot… the slope is not pretty from here.

      Furthermore, our economy has sadly been run in a corporatist manner that bears increasing resemblence to fascistic economies and it has been perpetuated by both parties over extended periods of time, so my point is already fairly relevent.

    3. “If”?

  11. I would have grinned widely and flipped the president a double-bird myself.

    1. Hey, looks like Dustbin is our new troll, here to defend his messiah. Fun!

      1. Whoops, that was not meant to be threaded.

  12. Very unfortunate all the way around.

    When the court acts in an activist and reckless manner by disregarding long standing precedent, it damages all branches of the government and has the potential to undermine democracy.

    It is sad and a terrible sign that our court seems to have become greatly influenced by the destructive polarized rhetoric that characterizes our executive and legislative branch.

    1. are the trolls out in force tonight or what? Methinks there was a preemptive effort on the part of the Hope Brigades to police the Intertubes for signs of dissent on this special night.

      1. I could go for some pie. Strawberry-rhubarb, with lots of Cool Whip.

        1. Pie? I want some!

      2. We shall call it HopeyChangeyNacht

      3. Nonsense. I’m a completely independent thinker who supports Obama and not a member of his cabinet.

      4. Well, they won’t publish Ellie Light’s letters to the editor any more, so she decided to hang out here.

    2. Precedent matters not when it blatantly violates the Constitution.

      As the First Amendment is worded, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” It does not say “of individuals” or “citizens” or “mammals” or anything of the sort. It does not grant a right, but rather protects speech, regardless of source, from being curtailed by Congress.

    3. Can someone fucking explain to me how the Supreme Court actually siding with the Constitution is being “activist”??

      1. iT’s the Progressive definition of “activist”: The supreme Court overturning progressive legislation.

    4. Plessy V. Ferguson was a goddamn precedent you ignorant fuck.

  13. Alito can take the comment.

    We won’t be able to take the corporate flogging and spending come election time.

    I’m so looking forward to that nonsense hitting from any side that can cough it up to drown any opposition out with $$$$$$$$$$

    1. Really? Because last time I checked, there weren’t any laws determining how much money a corporation could spend on advertising, and yet I don’t feel the urge to run out and buy everything I see on TV…….I wonder why that is?

  14. So… maybe the Supreme Court should take a look at one of those birth certificate cases as a response to this little jab…

  15. Actually, what really pisses off slimy politicians like Obama is that the soft money ban remains in place, which disarmed them, while the regulations on independent expenditures which was essentially an effort to guarantee their jobs was lifted.

  16. BoyBama, dressing down the SC in public like that. Decorum be damned–they should have all walked out in protest at a president’s unmitigated gall.

  17. Well, apparently Dustin and joeshmo are holding down the lefty fort until Chony Morris shows up to tell us why Obama is The Best Thing Ever.

  18. the past illuminates the future. if scotus had decided otherwise in brown v. board of education, wouldn’t a principled president have been right to stand against the court, especially in a public forum?

    1. That’s not a good comparison. Neither was comparing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to Dred Scot… but then, Keith Olbermann IS an idiot.

      1. that only avoids the question. is obama thefirst to express dissent?

        1. I don’t know, I’m not a presidential history buff.

          But the bigger question – or non-question – is Alito’s reaction, which IMO was spot-on and entirely justified.

        2. The comparison lacks in one key regard: In Citizens United the SCOTUS struck a law down on constitutional grounds. Had they decided Brown v. Board of Education differently, the SCOTUS would have been upholding a law. You are among genuine libertarians here. None of us will cry seeing a law struck down.

          But yes, the central point remains. The POTUS should not lecture the SCOTUS on its decisions or operations, most especially in a decidedly political forum. He has the ability to pursue laws that he feels will honor the codes set forth in the SCOTUS decision while achieving the desired policy ends, should those ends be ultimately constitutional themselves.

          1. Ultimately, none of the Constitution is safe when seperation of powers is threatened. The structure of gov’t is as important, if not more important, than the Bill of Rights itself, because it is precisely that division of powers and specifically an independent judiciary that provides the contraints on legislative and executive overreach and infringements of basic liberties (in theory, recognizing that decisions like Dred Scott in practice have not secured basic liberties). An unconstrained singular authority (whether it be executive, legislative, or even judicial) is bound to no document other than its own ambition… and that my friend is the most frightening prospect of all. I don’t legitimately think Obama has any sort of tyrannical, megalomaniac aspirations, but his rebuke of a SCOTUS decision represented a first shot fired in what can become a wider war of attrition between branches of govt….. and that should raise the fear of hell in you because when the shit hits the fan, this country leans right and you’re the one whose ass will be quick to the firing squad…. and I’ll defend your right to speech until my dying breath is expended, whether I agree with your speech or not.

            1. An unconstrained singular authority (whether it be executive, legislative, or even judicial) is bound to no document other than its own ambition… and that my friend is the most frightening prospect of all. I don’t legitimately think Obama has any sort of tyrannical, megalomaniac aspirations, but his rebuke of a SCOTUS decision represented a first shot fired in what can become a wider war of attrition between branches of govt…..

              And what of the rebuke of 100 years of state and federal legislation by the SC? Does that frighten you?

              Or is your tunnel vision that narrow?

              1. So, it’s okay for our government to regulate political speech. Right?

                Because that is what you are arguing, joe. You’re dressing it up in flowery legalese, but it still smells of cat droppings.

              2. And what of the rebuke of 100 years of state and federal legislation by the SC? Does that frighten you?

                Definitely not. You must have us confused with Republicans who scream ‘judicial activism’ and you seem to also believe it to be clever to throw judicial activism in their face, but can’t adjust your argument towards those of whom it doesn’t apply.

                While this is not a case of judicial activism, but one of reaffirming the First Amendment (after all, if it were popular speech would it need protection?), we are all for judicial activism were it to be applied to further liberty (over turning the War on Drugs, prohibitions on gar marriage, etc.).

                1. While this is not a case of judicial activism, but one of reaffirming the First Amendment (after all, if it were popular speech would it need protection?), we are all for judicial activism were it to be applied to further liberty (over turning the War on Drugs, prohibitions on gar marriage, etc.).

                  As long as the liberty in question is actually protected by the constitution the court is sworn to uphold.

                  Thus, federal courts should not overturn California’s laws against heroin possession (unless a constitutional amendment protecting such a right is ratified).

              3. Does Roe v. Wade’s rebuke of a century of legislation frighten you as well?

                I guess Brown v. Board’s rebuke of Plessy v. Ferguson was ok because it was only about 60 years of precedent?

                1. Or is your tunnel vision that narrow?

                  Accusing us of being dogmatic, absolutist about the First Amendment? It goes to show how far down the rabbit hole liberals have gone that they consider that a bad thing.

    2. If Brown v Board had been decided otherwise it would have been decided correctly, so no.

      1. I ain’t no big city lawyer with lots of ivy league larnin’, so I’m having a hard time getting where the fuck you’re coming from on this.

  19. Alito and anyone else on the Supreme Court who still respects the rule of law and the Constitution should have stood up and walked out at the point where Obama began hectoring them for their temerity in protecting First Amendment free speech.

    That would have gotten all of the protocol nazis’ panties in a bunch now, wouldn’t it?

    1. It depends on what you consider respecting the rule of law and the Constitution, doesn’t it? It is logically possible that enabling unlimited amounts of corporate money can drown out the speech of individual citizens. The effort to protect the First Amendment can therefore have the paradoxical effect of damaging it.

      1. It is logically possible that enabling unlimited amounts of corporate money can drown out the speech of individual citizens.

        The corporations that own the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and MSNBC already have that power.

        1. I really am perplexed by the assumption that all corporations have some kind of unified political goals. Corporations have all kinds of different political aims – so the idea the there would be some monolithic imposition of “corporate” view points on the American public is already disproven by the fact that all the corporations who do have unrestricted speech like the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN don’t occupy the same ideological space.

          And the funny thing is that all those corporations belong to one industry, so they actually do have a lot of similar goals, and even then it’s not identical. If all manner of corporations were competing for media space, the idea that any one of them could crowd out all other ideas is ludicrous.

          That is, of course, without mentioning that the internet exists, and most people actually have friends who have their own ideas so it’s pretty hard to totally crowd out alternative ideas about things.

  20. What Leftardian blog is this post linked to or is Chad/MNG/etc. just changing her handle more than usual?

  21. The Supreme Court decision was terrible. Just imagine what this country will look like in 20 years when powerful corporations have undue influence on our leaders. Why we will be bailing out Wall St. every time they lose big on their bets and we will have health care lobbyists meeting in secret with the President to help draft health care reform legislation.

    1. Don’t forget about Big Tobacco putting cigarette machines in kindergarden classrooms, Big Alcohol having wetbars in grade school cafeterias . . .

    2. Well just cut the power of our leaders way back to the minimalist level the founding fathers intended for the federal government.

      There won’t be anyting to gain influence about.

      Problem solved.

      1. Let me explain to you how this works. You see the corporations finance these documentaries. And then the documentaries go out, and the corporations sit there in their corporation buildings and see they’re all corporationy and they make money.

        1. PROFIT!!!!111!!one!1

    3. You guys need to check your sarcasm detectors.

      1. when faced with an inferior position, resort to sarcasm.

        1. Joeshmo, I think I have offered some fairly cogent points myself to address some of the points raised by “unsure” and I respect unsure’s question above as it seems to be a genuinely well-posed devil’s advocacy position. He applies a similar set of thinking to a differently decided case in order to guage if the position would be different had the case been decided differently. I thought that was an argument worthy of address myself. I feel I’ve submitted a legitimate response. If we feel free to also utilize a little sarcasm throughout the thread, while still addressing the merits of the case, I feel that is entirely acceptable and helps lighten the mood for us regulars and keep eachother entertained.

          1. Give up, Sudden… “unsure” has just crossed over into “you guys are Nazis” territory. He’s pretty much soiled his nest now.

            1. I can’t help but retain the “hope” that perhaps addressing arguments of new and unproven trolls will lead to a conversion like the Road to Damascus. Fuck, I obviously didnt drink enough during the SOTU if I am still writing such elaborate soliliquies…

              1. Good point, Sudden, though the heavy drinking is probably why I chose to engage them when I usually ignore them with the greatest of contempt. Drambuie is making me feel friendly and all.

        2. When you run out of ideas, feign indignation.

      2. You guys need to check your sarcasm detectors.

        Mine was a continuation of sarcism.

  22. oh, so, in this blog, only those with absolutist views to the right are supposed to participate? and i’m sure i alone am not a con law expert, right? i didn’t know we’re all supposed to think the same.

    1. We may not agree on everything here, unsure, but we’re all in favor of the First Amendment here (except for a few nutcases, all of whom are decidedly anti-free speech unless it’s reserved for Democrats only).

      The SC took a first step in the right direction. Barry’s just trying to gin up support to overturn that hard work.

    2. Also, you might want to check out where you put libertarians on the political spectrum… We’re definitely not “to the right”. To paraphrase Cato from the other day; is it our pro-gay views, our anti-war stance or our support for reproductive choice that makes us “right wing”?

  23. Chris Matthews: “I forgot he was black tonight for an hour”

    Nothing about a tingling sensation, though.

    1. His Eminence’s blackness is what gives Chris Matthews said tingling sensation. The forgetting he was black thing was kinda like an insult.

  24. Are you kidding me? I can understand disapproval of Joe Wilson’s vocal outburst during Obama’s previous speech (though frankly I don’t think the punishment for saying “you lie” in the House chamber should be greater than the punishment for lying in the House chamber, as Obama has done repeatedly with impunity).

    But now shaking your head and mouthing a few choice words is verboten? Let me pull up some videos of Democrats’ reactions to Bush speeches in Congress.

    1. Word. Where was Joe Wilson when he was needed?

      I’d like to have seen Daniel Hannan give the response….to Obama, from the floor.

    2. The difference as I see it the expected level of decorum based on the branch of gov’t… and ordinarily I would agree with that insofar as members of the Court are expected to not react to political points, as such would be considered an example of bias that might lead them to decide future legal cases based on political preference. However, in the instant case, Mssr. Obama specifically challanged their legal rationale and the impact/effects of a decision that was based on law (an unprecedented event to my knowledge and one that lacks the same tact and decorum that the trolls are accusing Alito of). Mssr. Alito’s (silent) defense at that point seems entirely justified because he is simply responding to accusations made by a seperate branch of government, which should not have any business calling the SCOTUS out in the first place, regardless of the merits of their legal rationale.

      1. Well I don’t see a “decorum” problem with Obama’s statement questioning a court decision; many, many politicians have criticized SCOTUS decisions explicitly and publicly in the past. But my contention is that if Obama wants to dish, he’s going to have to take as well — especially when the dishing is typed up in the insta-script and broadcast around the world, while the taking was done silently and would not have even been noticed had TV cameras not cut to see the Supreme reaction.

        1. Apparently, it’s wrong for a SC justice to dis The One.

        2. I believe you right here. I would have to go back in verify but more than one Republican president has likely spoken of over turning Row v. Wade, so the precedent for this sort of thing set, if I’m not mistaken in my assumption.

          However, like you, I think there is nothing wrong with Alito’s silent protest and it is insane for the trolls to be trying to make an issue out of it.

          I mean some nutter brought up Conduct rules, as if they mean shit for the Supreme Court!

      2. “…. in the instant case, Mssr. Obama specifically challanged their legal rationale and the impact/effects of a decision that was based on law (an unprecedented event to my knowledge and one that lacks the same tact and decorum that the trolls are accusing Alito of). ”

        Obama questioned the validity of their interpretation of the law. He is within his rights and it is not unusual for presidents to do so.

        You know nothing about our history if you think that is unusual.

        You need only go back one election cycle to find examples of Bush questioning the legitimacy of several court rulings.


        1. Can you imagine if only groups that supported Obama, Pelosi and Reid could make large campaign donations?

          Obama can. And he loves the thought.

    3. I’m reminded of an old video I saw of a Baath party meeting where the audience applauded Saddam Hussein for over an hour, with no break, because everybody knew that the first person to stop clapping would die. I think such scenes were common under Stalin as well.

      And so I went looking for the video on youtube and found this gem. Enjoy.

      1. Stalin’s people eventually started ringing bells to let the crowd know when it was ok to stop clapping.

      2. Did you read the comments to that youtube video? Geez, what a bunch of stupid shits. These are what our troops risked life and limb for over there?

      3. thanks, warty, i suppose i’m on the watch list now.

        1. Wonder where that video would be NSFW…

  25. hey, this seems a good group to ask a different kind of question of. anyone know where i can pick up some nice swaztika patches?

    1. Wow, he’s been here what, half an hour… and he’s resorted to Godwinism.

      Definitely a liberal troll.

    2. You do me proud son. You do me proud.

    3. Check down at the house at 1600 Penn Ave. I hear they have a special on them tonight.

      1. DNC HQ is another good bet. Go to the back door, they pretend not to advertise their true colors.

    4. That’s our Hitler!!

    5. Yeah, I hear if you wear one you get your student loan debt forgiven in 4 years and as a bonus you get to run the nekkid-scan machines at the airport.

    6. heard Michelle’s working on a knot garden in the shape of…

  26. Did a particularly retarded liberal blog link here? There’s some magnificently retarded fucknuts around these parts tonight. DURRR HURRR HURRR YOR NASIZ DURRR

  27. how ’bout that republican response, eh? anyone else feel like they were watching an infomercial?

    1. If Billy Mays were still around, I would definitely have chosen him to do the response.

      1. Gotta find the one guy whose snorted more blow than Barackstar himself?

        1. I doubt it, after you take into account that Mays cut his powder with OxiClean.

        2. I doubted if Urkel in Chief actually snorted anything.

          1. Kool-Aid. Straight out of the package. No messy mixing with water and sugar for Barry!

  28. I’d like to see that little dude, Rachel Maddow, wear a grey Obama Team hooded sweatshirt with cut off sleeves from now on. Holy shit, the whole fucking programming on MSNBC is about Republican obstructionism.


    1. It’s funny, I flipped between the MSNBC and FoxNews feeds immediately following the SOTU, and the Foxnews one had Brett Baier just kinda repeating the actual statements Obama made in his speech, while not offering any commentary on it himself. Meanwhile, MSNBC has Olbermann crafting this wonderfully trite image of Barack vs. Health Insurance Cos., Barack vs. Banks, Barack vs. Terrorists, sounded like I was listening to a fairy tale about the night in shining armor saving America from the evil fire breathing corporate dragon….

      and yet the lefties will insist that Fox is this organ of propoganda while MSNBC is some sacrosanct exemplar of journalistic integrity.

      1. Organs of propoganda refuse to carry The Progressive Message of Truth, Hope and Change.

        Where have you been all year?

  29. on the republican response, was that “frame” of the governor awesome or what? let’s see — black woman, white male soldier, asian guy, white woman. did the latter step in for the hispanic gal with the flu?

    1. I would think that a wise Latina with her experience, would be able to avoid the flu better than a white male.

  30. hank,

    little dude? hank, your denial shows. someone that angry is typically upset this way because he’s actually and privately attracted to other men. keep it up, dudette!

  31. Want to make a “Team BLue” head explode? Point out to them that the ACLU agreed with the petitioners (and a majority of the Court) that the law was unconstitutional.

    1. Isn’t the ACLU a corporation of some type?

      Wait — aren’t both the Democratic and Republican Parties political corporations?

  32. Obama criticized the Citizens United decision at the SOTU? What an egregious abuse of the concept of free speech Obama perpetrated!

    1. Tony, if you are indeed The Tony… for once, you and I are in complete agreement. Bravo.

      1. It’s a trick. Don’t shoot him, shoot the one behind the curtain.

        1. Is this similar to the “good Cartman/evil Cartman” episode of South Park? Because I can’t tell if Tony has a goatee or not…

          1. I was thinking Bond vs. Spectre Diamonds Are Forever

            1. A mirror-universe version of Tony would be a guy who loves his capitalisms and has a deep-seated mistrust of men and women with titles like “Senator”.

              But which one would have the Spock goatee?

      2. I think he (Tony) was pointing out that the Prez was excercizing his free speech by calling out the court. Fair enough. He can do that but that doesn’t mean that he has to escape criticism for it.

    2. I take it you supported Joe Wilson shouting “you lie” during Obama’s previous speech then, as an exercise of free speech.

      1. What could possibly give you that impression?

        SOTU decorum requires members to be basically respectful of the president (as a guest of their house), and for the SCOTUS to sit there and be quiet. Wilson and Alito violated that decorum. Obama didn’t. He’s allowed to criticize the supreme court in his own speech.

        Free speech is another matter. Alito helped bastardize the concept so I don’t see how he can bitch when the president uses speech to call him out for it.

        1. Alito did not say this out loud, and we might not even know it happened at all if the camera hadn’t swung over at just the right moment.

          No harm, no foul. Unless you’re a sycophant for Obama.

        2. I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration. – Hillary Clinton

          Do you agree with that, Tony, or is it dependent on which party is in power at the moment?

          1. I see Tony’s not gonna man up and admit his mistake here. Par for the course.

            And with that wizard Hillary quote, to boot. Man, is Tony missing out on prime mea culpa turf here!

  33. And Tony arrives, missing the point by even more than usual. If that point were a cock, you would make sure not to miss it, right Tony?

    1. Hmm… did I misread Tony’s post above? Because it seems to make sense…

      1. Something in you is mis-calibrated if you think Tony is being serious.

        1. I think you’re right. Upon further reflection, there is something fishy going on which I did not detect.

          1. Tony is false fish. Look past the drag makeup, 6″ spike heels and giant wig for once.

            1. Ew. That’s gonna put me off my lunch for a while.

          2. see above warty comment. tony is so lame i can see why you missed it

            1. It sounded sensible, which is what threw me off. But he did miss the point – Alito had the right and the duty to call out Obama for his use of tonight’s bully-pulpit broadcast as a beat-up-on-the-SC moment.

              Too bad it will be Alito who will bear the brunt of the derision, when it is Obama who deserves it.

              Then again, Obama deserves it every time he opens his yap.

              1. Alito who will bear the brunt of the derision.

                Agreed. Not that Alito doesn’t deserve any for some of his past votes, but certainly not for this one. It’ll be interesting how this plays out.

  34. This was the best part of the speech. When the POTUS dissed the Supreme Court Jesters for letting foreign terrorists spend unlimited money influencing our elections.

    Did I see Alito mouth the N word?
    I thought so, and I don’t hear Alito denying it on the Fox News Channel?
    Why doesn’t the MSM cover this?

    1. “not true” is two words, Marco.

    2. Did I see Alito mouth the N word?

      Of course he did. Anyone who would disagree with Obama’s opinion on law and politics has to be a racists and the first thing to come out of their mouth when disagreeing with him would have to be a racist slur.

      America is a deeply racist county that elected president Obama and we should expect Supreme Court Justices to express their vile racism inherent in all Americans during the first state of the Union address of our first black president.

  35. Good for Alito. Obama was attacking the SC for protecting the First Amendment. It doesn’t get much more ridiculous than that.

  36. If Obama wishes to be treated with respect by members of the other branches of government on occasions of state, he shouldn’t use occasions of state to take potshots at members of other branches of government.

  37. “not true” may be two words, but each word is one syllable.

    the N word may be one word,but that word has two syllables.

    2 times 1 equals 1 times 2 because multiplication is commutative.

    Instead of hating America, you should learn math. Maybe if you supported Obama’s agenda, you would have gotten better schooling and you would be better at math.

    1. That is some convoluted bullshit you’re slinging, Marco. Hang out with Farrakhan much?

      By the way, I’m 46. Obama isn’t old enough to have taught me math.

      1. You’re off your game tonight, dude. Either that, or you’re doing a magnificent job of playing the straight man and I’m fucking everything up.

        1. Either “Marco” is someone convinced Alito uttered “the N-word”… or he’s someone pretending to be as such.

          Either way, it’s a disturbing idea.

          1. Somehow I think this whole thing is getting into one of my books. Marco sounds like he is on the same stupid train as character Patricia was in the first book.

    2. Kenneth, what is the frequency?

      1. Someone stole Marcos’ string, which along with a wrapped slice of Kraft cheese have been his only friends since childhood. Or so he shouts as he pushes his shopping cart full of treasures down the alleyways.

  38. 2 times 1 equals 1 times 2 because multiplication is commutative.

    Your thinking is overly convoluted. Transform it into the frequency domain, and you’ll see that things are much simpler.

    1. The King of Norway uses my penis as a radio transmitter to broadcast anti-Semitic lesbian meatloaf recipes to Soupy Sales and Marvin Hamlisch.

      1. Mmmmmmm . . . lesbian meatloaf . . .

  39. Marco is pretending.

  40. Three hits from Google news search under “alito state of the union”:

    Video: Justice Grimaces As Obama Criticizes Court

    Alito Winces as Obama Duns Supreme Court Ruling CBS News (blog)

    Reading Justice Alito’s Lips ABC News (blog)

    More to come. The leftys are gonna have a field day with this tomorrow.

  41. reductio ad nigrorum

      1. I knew I fucked it up the second I pressed submit. Thanks for the help.

  42. Did you see the Republican response?
    Did he even listen to the Obama’s speech? Can’t they get anybody better to nail him?

  43. Did you see the Republican response?
    Did he even listen to the Obama’s speech? Can’t they get anybody better to nail him?

  44. I believe what Alito actually mouthed was:

    “Oh no you didn’t.”

  45. you know i really like how the British do this…different branches of government yelling at each other in what seems like a weekly basis.

    All we get is mouthing of words and someone breaking into a speech to say “you lie” then apologizing for it the next day.

    Really fucking lame when it is the British who outdo us in democratic debate.

    I say more pot shots from the president at the supreme court. I say more Law makers calling the president a liar to his face. I say no more mouthing of words…i say speak them!

    1. I believe that

              “Hear! Hear!”

      is the correct colloquialism in this instance.

  46. you know i really like how the British do this…different branches of government yelling at each other in what seems like a weekly basis.

    Screw that, let’s go back to the good olde days when congressmen would throw down.

  47. Damn you to hell server squirrels!!

    linky fixy

  48. Gone are the days when we debate whether a ruling sticks to what is actually written into the Constitution. The Founders’ intent counts for nothing. We just cry about what we think the effects will be because the Constitution is blocking the State from stopping others from taking an action we don’t like.

    If somehow our leaders had to design a new constitution today, I can’t imagine what piece of shit they would come up with that the public would accept. The club of government would be so fucking big no one would escape the head-bashing.

    1. Exactly where I differ with Jefferson. I cannot trust in the people’s well-reasoned intent enough to destroy and create a new Constitution for every generation.

  49. Raise your hand if you actually think that this entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Frankly, I think we as a nation have reached the point where we’re just looking to be outraged at this shit, and working ourselves into a lather. The President used what has for better or worse become a once-a-year 60-90 minute bully pulpit to touch for a few seconds on one thing he wanted to see changed because he disagreed with the way it came to be. Right or wrong, he exercised the right to voice an opinion. The Justice then exercised his right to disagree, silently, *in a way that did not prevent the President from speaking, or prevent people from hearing him*.

    Despite what people are going to say, this was not an attempt by the first man to raise populist sentiment into a pitchfork-wielding army. Nor an attempt by the second man to imitate the great disruptive and bully politios of the past, even a little; Alito is not Bully Brooks, or even Joe ‘You Lie’ Wilson.

    This is nothing, and less than nothing, and folks who waste more than 30 to 60 seconds of time on this are contributing to what is wrong with this country — making the nuances of bickering and arguing over ‘oo killed ‘oo more important than debating the actual merits of any given position.

    Fuck this noise.

    1. And exactly how many seconds did it take u to write this ?

    2. Ben – well said my man.



    CALL SUPREME COURT 202-479-3000


      1. If only the NY Times actually *published* articles critical of the administration….

    CALL 202-479-3000

    1. Apparently Organizing for Amerika borrowed the CH3MTR@IL bots for the day.



  54. I’m glad the President commented on it because it is an issue that will affect every citizen in this country. Alito breached protocol, not the President. This activist (theocratic, republican) court is going to destroy this country if something isn’t done in congress to stop them. — All foreigners have to do is buy into American companies and wal-la they can buy elections.

    1. What protocol was breached? Did Alito say this out loud?

      If the camera hadn’t panned over at that precise moment, we might not even know it had happened. But it did, and it’s a good thing.

      1. I agree. No PROTOCOL has been violated.

        1. I’ll see that and raise you a “nothing Alito did last night, in that moment of silent dissent, violated anything”, Alice.

    2. Nothing in Citizen’s United changes anything you stated.

      All Citizens United did was allow corporations to spend money endorsing a candidate 30 days prior to the election.

      Currently, these corporations can spend money freely up to 30 days prior. Now they can spend that money in those last 30 days.

      You will not see a money bomb from this, becuase corporations already spend that money. Its not like they weren’t.

      Foreigners haven’t been given any rights/powers they didn’t already have. And if foreigners can influence corporations so easily just by buying into them, then shame on us for not doing it sooner, since we are immesurably richer than most foreigners.

  55. In arguing the meaning of human speech, “What, where, and when” matter. So, State of the Union comments by a POTUS are different than comments — even if the words were exactly the same — uttered in another setting. Different in a meaningful way. Last night, Obama directly challenged another, equal, branch of government — outside of the constitutional process. No, Obama shouldn’t be arrested or impeached for the particular act, but, how is not another disturbing brush stroke he’s painting of our future without government restraint. It’s worth noting, he seemed to hint at a more active role in the legislative process; I will be interested to see what Reid and Pelossi think of this. As someone alluded to earlier in this blog, a conflict may develop between the branches of government, rather than between the polical parties.

  56. So, the President can bald-face lie on national TV, insult My intelligence (sorry, I can’t speak for you)and rip the SCOTUS for upholding the Constitution (you know, that silly little historical document that Obama considers to be “restrictive,”) and everyone’s supposed to just sit, smile, and take it up the tailpipe? Justice Alito is a Hero! It’s people like him who keep this country from being destroyed by Cloward & Piven disciples like Obama and his band of Communist Croonies! (Try doing a little historical research and thinking for yourselves!)

  57. Justice Alito is a Hero!

    While he is clearly right on this, I just can’t put Strip Search Sammy into the space in my head marked “Hero”. He just doesn’t fit.

  58. So many people here are convinced they are right. I am a normal, everyday guy and i know its not right to gag the media just as much as i know it’s not right to buy elected offices. You keep fucking adding your little side notes to make a side look wrong. in the end i lose. While we sit here bitching in this forum the rest of the world aims to pass us by. America is failing America. We should all feel bad

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.