It was Justice Alito that mouthed the words "That's not true", not Justice Scalia.

In regards to the seating, that Repubs should stick to their side of the aisle. The Dems want to make it lokk like everyone is cheering for Jug-Ears.

I completely agree. When I heard the white house wanted congress to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, that's the first thing I thought, too. This is all about appearances and politics and what the TV camera captures during the SOTU address.

Re: #1 - look not lokk.
Even with a nice preview feature, I still manage to screw it up.

Actually, it was Alito who said "That's not true". And I cannot fathom why any of the justices would attend (except for the two that owe him their jobs).

Anyway, I have two concerns and that is that 1)they are setting up for any disapproval during the speech to be an act of sedition. and 2) they want to create the illusion that obama has the backing of the whole congress by interspersing the dems throughout the assembly they can make it look like the whole room rises in applause.

obama will make some rude, petty, partisan gesture. He cannot help himself. That's who he is.

I sent an email yesterday to speaker Boehner expressing the wish that this Democrat request be ignored without public comment. After their behavior the last two years they are owed no such consideration. As I mentioned in a previous post the Dems have this curious passive-aggressive behavior about them.

When Murkowski, Mccain, Snowe and the other RINOs sit with the GOP they are sitting with the "other side."

The left's strategy: punch and when they're mad enough to punch back, ask for a kiss...wait...punch again and then pucker up again and ....

I'll try that agian: when the GOp sits with McCain, Murkowski, Snowe etc. They are already sitting with the other side.

The GOP needs to tell the dems the same thing the gov of Maine told the NAACP.

This is all just part of the ridiculous meme that conservative rhetoric is causing violence around the nation. obama will almost certainly say something along those lines at the SOU. The dems will cite the GOP mixing with them as a tacit agreement on that point. If they refuse then the dems will say that they are inciting more hate speech. Since the public has already repudiated this meme there is little to be lost by telling the dems to take a hike, but there is more to lose by taking them up on their empty offer.

The current wonderful idea up on Capitol Hill -- mainly among Democrats -- is that during the upcoming State of the Union address. Congress should abandon the partisan division and the two parties should sit, intermingled, Democrats and Republicans, as a show of solidarity.

No more trenchant indication of the Democrats' desperation and panic could possibly exist.

It is a trap, and a damn good one.

If the GOP refuses they look like they're being evilly hyper-partisan.

If they agree they help the Dems look good.

Maybe if the GOP stipulates no applause until the end of the speech. So as not to interrupt the brilliant oratory of the Great Obama, of course.

It is a trap, and a damn good one.

Disagree. It's painfully obvious, even to liberal voters. It's like suggesting to Bill Gates that you and he each put all your resources into an investment and split the profits 50/50.

Nice try.

Jay has the measure of it right. We don't need to play their games and help them get their message out. The public is seeing them for what they are. Let them accuse the GOP of being hyperpartisan. The dems have already spent what little credit they had left on trying to "Deftly pin" the Tucson shootings on the right.

I agree with Jim M. The line should be, "You work your side of the street, we'll work ours. Btw, how's that 'hope' and 'change' thing working out for you? We told you your policies would lead to pain for the American people. Americans, are you better off now than you were when Bush was President? Yes, or no?"

We are a two party system. The differences between the parties is not always clear to some people on a daily basis, but for the State of the Union address, many non political junkies do watch.

When specific ideas are talked about in this address, it should be made plain to the people who is supporting a particular idea and who is not. If all are sitting together, the average veiwer will be denied that moment of clarity.

Seat separately - it is the only fair way to make this speech truly educational.

I'm thinking y'all are not thinking this through.

Picture it (you will have to, CSPAN won't be allowed to broadcast it as soon as the controllers see what I'm talking about)....

Picture it--a sea of faces, broken only by an occasional seat belonging to somebody recuperating in a hospital from the monstrous attack of a murderous leftist loon in current contact with no part of this universe.

Or perhaps the vacant seat will be that of a Supreme Court Justice who decided not to be belittled by and lectured-at by somebody who hates the Constitution.

Then, as the TelePrompter reading proceeds, and the cues for applause come up, the vision of occasional puppets bouncing from their strings for the "standing ovation" (which now has less meaning than "nobel prize" (case selection deliberate).

Around each bobble-head--people sitting respectfully, watching the clock.

Sorry, differences are - should have done a grammar check.

This is a typical Dem ploy. Seating the parties separately serves a purpose - it allows viewers to get a sense of how Congress shakes on a given issue. Does it have bipartisan support, support only from one party, or support from one contingent of one party?

But if we're going to mix the parties together, the intellectually honest (and therefore non-Dem) way to do this would be to propose to do it after the next Presidential election.

That way neither side would know (at least for sure) who it would favor. It's kind of like drawing up schedules for sports teams several years in advance.

"Would that the rest of the Court would stand with their colleague."

Yes, would certainly be a slap in Barry's face - a well deserved on - if those 9 reserved seats were VACANT.

"Its a trap"

Well, let them spring it.

Halfway thru the teleprompter's address, stand up, say, "YOU LIE" and walk out of the chamber.

What a showing that would be.

I agree with Jay. It's a terrible idea. Why are the Repubs always ready to compromise? The Dems will stand up to applaud Barry Hussein. The Repubs will feel too embarrassed to stay seated and so everyone will see a sea of support for the abominable Barry Hussein.

We need to call/write our GOP congressmen and DEMAND that they not sit together.

The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political

*gasp* The President addressing Congress is political?! No way!

The president will begin a sentence with an invocation of the country's greatness, Alito said. If justices don't jump up and applaud, "you look very unpatriotic," he said.

As opposed to, say, reading the Constitution out loud.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/16/supreme-court-justice-alito-plans-skip-state-union-address/

Alito's a rube.

Never trust a democrat especially the extreme left dem's that are in the minority. They are unable to suggest anything that does not embolden them.

I remember GHW Bush making a deal with the dem's as long as Bush raised the tax rate some. He did and then the dem's started running the "read my lips" soundbite from the last cycle. The dem's can NEVER be trusted. ww

Were I advising the Republicans in Congress, I would tell the Democrats that they'd go along with the integrated seating, under one condition -- Obama refrains from any more grossly inappropriate shots during the speech. If he agrees,then fine -- but should he go ahead (and I'm fully confident he would), then the Republicans would stand and turn their backs on Obama for the remainder of his speech.

This is a terrible idea. The optics on this would go completely against the GOP. It assumes that people would know why the Republicans just turned their backs on the President and sympathize because HE broke a deal. That's just stupid. This would be played out by the media and the Democrats as further proof of how disagreeable, disrespectful etc. The GOP is.

Nothing good would come from that stunt. Come on Jay Tea you are smarter than this.

#23 and you think the media is NOT going to slant this regardless?

BECAUSE obama has made this political, and not an address on the state of the union, and BECAUSE he has circumvented the Constitution and caused to pass illegal legislation, the republicans (as well as those Supreme Court Justices who understand this) should gather outside the Chamber. Speaker Boehner and the Senate Minority leader should issue strong statements enumerating the violations of the (p)otus and congressional democrats, emphasizing the democrats lack of support to their constituency. Who would garner more media attention and be able to provide TRANSPARENCY to the the American public?

Yeah, I know it won't happen, you can't have balls and be a politician.

heh John ...

if Alito is a rube then Obama is a moron ... he could even get the case right that he was try to criticize ...

#23 and you think the media is NOT going to slant this regardless?

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that Jay's suggestion would not be viewed by the American people the way he imagines. The GOP would be viewed as petty and impolite. Look at what happened last year with Joe Wilson. It didn't matter that what he said was accurate, the media wasn't interested in that. They were more interested in that he was "impolite" to the President.

All Alito did was mutter to himself "that's not true", did it matter that he was correct and the President wasn't? No, all the focus was not on substance the focus was on the image of a Supreme Court Justice being impolite to the President.

Do you really think if Jay's suggestion were carried out that there would be any accurate discussion about the reason the GOP turned their backs on Obama?

They would be walking into a Trap of their own making.

Eric, you are probably right considering the media slant. They will find something to hammer the right with regardless. But heck, a guy can dream can't he?

Nut jobs unite. Did the Birthers meeting end early?

Of course they are going to hammer the Right regardless. But we shouldn't do something foolish that will just be spun to confirm their existing narrative.

Its all about the narrative. The Left and the Media never metanarrative that it didn't like. The metanarrative is that we are evil, vicious, violent, rude, racist, ... yadda yadda yadda.

"Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected." -Sun Tzu

Don't do things that confirm their expectations.

"If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. " - Sun Tzu

Look up arrogant in the Dictionary, next to it are the pictures of people like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Paul Krugman. Arrogant people make make stupid mistakes. Look at Paul Krugman, I'd say he came off the week looking like a total douchebag and he did it all on his own. Nancy Pelosi is now the ex-Speaker of the House. And soon enough President Obama will be Former President Obama.

We don't need to do stupid stunts that only confirm their ignorant view of us. We need to stay on our game. We've been on a steady roll and the Mo is on our side. It is the Left that keeps tripping itself up with stupid stunts and petty behavior.

Did the Birthers meeting end early?

It was cancelled do to lack of attendance. That made the 9/11 Truthers happy, they were able to use the extra meeting space.

NOTE TO MY CONGRESSMAN

CONTACT YOURS: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

CONTACT MR BOEHNER: http://speaker.gov/

Dear Mr. Reichert, I implore you and ask that you implore the GOP delegation, to NOT fall for the Democrat scheme of mixed seating at the State of the Union.

Congress is not the 535 Musketeers (All for one, one for all). It is a body that represents TWO distinct ideologies and TWO distinct sets of ideas to implement their ideas for the country. There absolutely are times when all of Congress should stand together such as on the Capital steps after 9/11. But the State of the Union is not one of them. The State of the Union is where the country SEES the differences and sees its government working as it has in history: the party of the President putting forth its vision and the other party reacting to that vision.

The State of the Union is horrible. It is horrible as a result of unchecked and unfettered Democrat control. Now they want to hide from it. They don't want to be easily seen standing/cheering (or NOT standing) for Obama's government expanding programs. They want to confuse what the viewer is seeing, making Democrats undistinguishable from Republicans. They just came through a tough shellacking and are very worried about the next one coming, especially since there are far more Democrat senate seats to defend. They don't want their actions visible to their constituents, to the country. Further, hiding amongst the Republicans dilutes the effect of the GOP majority; it allows the press to speculate that yes even the GOP is wildly cheering the presidents every word. This idea of their is all about imagery - imagery to benefit THEM as they raise funds for the next election; imagery that allows them to say they believed the GOP agreed with them because it appeared the GOP was cheering the ideas too; imagery that they as a unified body will use against the Republicans.

Also, I believe they want to distract the viewing citizens from the fact that some Supreme Court Justices will not be present. The Democrats simply want to hide amongst the Republicans.

Please, M. Reichert, please GOP, do not give them cover. Stand as a united body. Stand united for the reasons we the voters gave you the chance to lead with the majority you won. Please pass this message on to your fellow Republicans in the both houses of Congress.

Hey, Marco, I missed this comment of yours when you posted it last week:

hahahahaha, yeah, ban me.

Not Jay Tea's Bitch

You still mean that, Marco?

J.