This morning, the Boston Globe scolded three justices of the United States Supreme Court for skipping the State of the Union address. They found it troubling that they would "politicize" the event by their absence, and said that they should have demonstrated their non-partisan nature by attending.
What was most remarkable was what the Globe chose to downplay -- what happened last year that prompted them to find somewhere else to go.
Obama didn't just "scold" the court. He took the opportunity to lambaste them over a decision in a venue where he knew that not only would they not be able to speak back to him, but no one else, could on their behalf. And, worse, he did so by lying. His attack on the Citizens United decision was utterly false.
And yes, I said "lie." I will not give Obama the benefit of the doubt and let him plead ignorance. Not only was he an alleged Constitutional scholar, but his own campaign had gotten considerable grief about accepting foreign donations -- including five figures worth from three Palestinian brothers living in the Gaza Strip. And quite a few other donations raised red flags, as they were for very odd amounts -- usually in random cents -- which strongly indicated they had been converted from foreign currency. So if anyone ought to know the law regarding foreign campaign contributions, it ought to be the guy who apparently benefited from schemes to subvert the law to accept them.
So last year the Court had to not only sit there and take Obama lying about them to their faces, but be pilloried by Obama's lackeys and loyalists for actually being surprised and reacting with disbelief. With no guarantees that it wouldn't happen again this year (and no reason to believe any they might have been given), the surprising thing isn't that three Justices -- the three most likely to be singled out for special criticism from Obama -- chose not to attend.
What is surprising that the other four Justices (excluding the two who owe their jobs to Obama) did show up.
What was most remarkable was what the Globe chose to downplay -- what happened last year that prompted them to find somewhere else to go.
Obama is in no position to complain, because his scolding of the court last year over its campaign-finance decision was rude and self-serving. He, too, deserves some blame for politicizing the court. But he's a politician.
Obama didn't just "scold" the court. He took the opportunity to lambaste them over a decision in a venue where he knew that not only would they not be able to speak back to him, but no one else, could on their behalf. And, worse, he did so by lying. His attack on the Citizens United decision was utterly false.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. 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 I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.As Justice Alito muttered at the time (and was roundly criticized for doing even that), "that's not true." Foreign donations have always been illegal, and the Citizens United case did nothing to change that.
And yes, I said "lie." I will not give Obama the benefit of the doubt and let him plead ignorance. Not only was he an alleged Constitutional scholar, but his own campaign had gotten considerable grief about accepting foreign donations -- including five figures worth from three Palestinian brothers living in the Gaza Strip. And quite a few other donations raised red flags, as they were for very odd amounts -- usually in random cents -- which strongly indicated they had been converted from foreign currency. So if anyone ought to know the law regarding foreign campaign contributions, it ought to be the guy who apparently benefited from schemes to subvert the law to accept them.
So last year the Court had to not only sit there and take Obama lying about them to their faces, but be pilloried by Obama's lackeys and loyalists for actually being surprised and reacting with disbelief. With no guarantees that it wouldn't happen again this year (and no reason to believe any they might have been given), the surprising thing isn't that three Justices -- the three most likely to be singled out for special criticism from Obama -- chose not to attend.
What is surprising that the other four Justices (excluding the two who owe their jobs to Obama) did show up.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Justice, Mass. Insanity, Media
Comments (14)
I will not give O... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Eric | January 27, 2011 11:12 AM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Not only that but the State of the Union Adress is not some little speech jotted out the night before. Administrations take months to write the speech and it goes through a thorough review process.
1. Posted by Eric | January 27, 2011 11:12 AM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 11:12
2. Posted by Roy | January 27, 2011 11:45 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
But Eric, those reviewers still left in the Sputnik thing. Hard to get good help these days, I guess.
2. Posted by Roy | January 27, 2011 11:45 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 11:45
3. Posted by Sabba Hillel | January 27, 2011 11:50 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
There is a typo here. The above should have been
3. Posted by Sabba Hillel | January 27, 2011 11:50 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 11:50
4. Posted by Don L | January 27, 2011 12:09 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Ah, the voice of the NYT down east division is calling for conservative scalps. In other important news, studies have now proven that men who drink a lot of beer tend to pee more than their tea-totaling peers.
4. Posted by Don L | January 27, 2011 12:09 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 12:09
5. Posted by LiberalNitemare | January 27, 2011 12:18 PM | Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
>Obama didn't just "scold" the court. He took the opportunity to lambaste them over a decision in a venue where he knew that not only would they not be able to speak back to him, but no one else, could on their behalf.
Thats our man Obama, you cant spell 'bully pulpit' without 'bully'.
5. Posted by LiberalNitemare | January 27, 2011 12:18 PM |
Score: 8 (8 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 12:18
6. Posted by Jay Tea
| January 27, 2011 12:42 PM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Correction made, Sabba. Thanks.
J.
6. Posted by Jay Tea
| January 27, 2011 12:42 PM |
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 12:42
7. Posted by GarandFan | January 27, 2011 12:43 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
"He, too, deserves some blame for politicizing the court. But he's a politician."
THAT is an excuse?
7. Posted by GarandFan | January 27, 2011 12:43 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 12:43
8. Posted by Jay Guevara | January 27, 2011 1:24 PM | Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
“It is inexplicable that God would endure all this, with lightning so cheap.” – Mark Twain
8. Posted by Jay Guevara | January 27, 2011 1:24 PM |
Score: 10 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 13:24
9. Posted by WildWillie | January 27, 2011 1:44 PM | Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
I laughed the night before the "speech". The press were allowed to show the president through an outside window looking in at Bama supposedly "working" on the speech. The left still treat americans like they are idiots. No wonder they don't think we can handle life on our own.
Obama has lowered drastically, the decorum of the office. He is shameless and prideful. ww
9. Posted by WildWillie | January 27, 2011 1:44 PM |
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 13:44
10. Posted by Moochell My Belle | January 27, 2011 4:09 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
If Obama pleads ignorant it will be the first time He is being truthful since.....?
Well, it will be a first.
10. Posted by Moochell My Belle | January 27, 2011 4:09 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 16:09
11. Posted by RScott | January 27, 2011 9:35 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
We may hope that one day he will rise to the lofty stature of Jimmy Carter. Some day. Maybe.
11. Posted by RScott | January 27, 2011 9:35 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 21:35
12. Posted by Jay Guevara | January 27, 2011 10:56 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
We may hope that one day he will rise to the lofty stature of Jimmy Carter. Some day. Maybe.
Nah. Carter was an American. Obama will always be behind him for that reason, if no other.
12. Posted by Jay Guevara | January 27, 2011 10:56 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 22:56
13. Posted by JDL | January 27, 2011 11:50 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
What really pisses me off is Obama did not have to have an audit of his campaign contributions. Even after it was proven that they were taking in illegal cotributions.
What I want to know is why is it not MANDITORY to disclose/prove where ALL contributions come from in the first place? There should be an automatic audit to insure that no one can manipulate our elections.
13. Posted by JDL | January 27, 2011 11:50 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2011 23:50
14. Posted by Olsoljer | January 28, 2011 8:51 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Boston Globe - what else did you expect?
14. Posted by Olsoljer | January 28, 2011 8:51 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 28, 2011 08:51