But he's still Obama's bitch.JohnG@lt wrote:
Rahm gets a bad rap. He's way more centrist than Obama.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
He talked mostly about what is on everyone mind. The economy.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Okay, but his paddle is whackin' the wrong asses. The fact the Mass flipped the Senate seat is evidence. Does he see it that way? Heck no. Time to hunker down and figure out a way to Rham it through.Kmarion wrote:
Someone needs to be. Leaders (using the term loosely) need to beat some ass sometimes. I hear anger and lecturing from everyone. He also talked about coming together.. I wont hold my breathe.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Like he was angry and lecturing.
How about Iran? How about our borders? How about North Korea? Homeland Security? Trying terrorist in NYC? Come on. He's got a lawyer that represented gitmoers overseeing a high level position in the DOJ.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Personally, I like the fact that he called out the Supreme Court on such a bad decision.
More and more, we see blatant evidence everyday that the more rigidly the Constitution is interpreted, the worse off things become.
It's kind of the same thing that happens when people interpret a scripture the same way.
More and more, we see blatant evidence everyday that the more rigidly the Constitution is interpreted, the worse off things become.
It's kind of the same thing that happens when people interpret a scripture the same way.
Scalia and Scalia-lite (Alito) deserved to be called out publicly. And they would be right there on the list of who to fire right beside Bernanke and GeithnerDBBrinson1 wrote:
Barry does. I'm not surprised, the guy really hasn't acted like a president in the past. Why should he start now?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah. You don't fucking call out the SCOTUS like that.Spark wrote:
over the campaign funding thingo?
I rofl when he called them out, and they had to sit there and take it, IMO I was glad to see that Alito got the message. By Alito's reaction I guess he couldn't handle being called an activist judge. And make no mistake that these judges are actively trying to turn the clock back to a time before reconstruction when we were still a real republic.
If SCOTUS keeps in this general direction or attacks the interstate commerce clause, which I expect they will the first chance they get, then I think we might see an FDR court packing scheme or an old fashioned impeachment of a supreme.... that's "if" people in congress grow a pair over the next while. Anyway point is that calling out a supreme is no big deal in the grand history of SCOTUS and there have been other cases in the past where Congress goes back and overrules SCOTUS. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … ration_Act
And don't forget that PBO is Harvard law trained and that means he has pretty much the same or better training as those that sit on SCOTUS, with the exception that he is sits in an office where he is one-of-one and they are just one-of nine. Its all a part of the discourse between the branches of govt.
But then again if you don't like PBO then you won't like what he said... no surprise really.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2010-01-28 16:41:32)
Why exactly is a Republic worse than what we have now?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I wouldn't say worse. I'd say the Republic died after the civil war. We only have some vestige's of the Republic that are left.JohnG@lt wrote:
Why exactly is a Republic worse than what we have now?
The Civil War Amendments 13-15 which provided application of the bill of rights to state laws and provided equal protection along with the anti-slavery provisions and voting is a statement of national citizenship. After the civil, the US was no longer a Republic, but there are those that would like to ignore the impact of the civil war.
IMO the Reconstruction period saw a push for states rights to deflect the movement towards a federation, but all that did was delay the inevitable. To get back to a Republic you would have to undo the civil war amendments and that is beyond the control of SCOTUS.... Though this court is certainly going to try. And don't forget that states rights is often associated with fights against abolition of slavery and segregation.
To answer your question.. I guess the biggest knock against idea of the Republic is that national citizenship should mean something. Your rights should vary by geography, and I've never been a fan of things like "community" standards. IMO without the civil war amendments applying equal protection and the bill of rights to state law, the US would be a much uglier place to live. I for one would not want to go back to those times, no matter how a senile old judge might romanticise about it.
What? Look who PBO put on the bench... An activist judge. He's just pissed they didn't follow his agenda. Checks and Balances are a beautiful thing.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Scalia and Scalia-lite (Alito) deserved to be called out publicly. And they would be right there on the list of who to fire right beside Bernanke and GeithnerDBBrinson1 wrote:
Barry does. I'm not surprised, the guy really hasn't acted like a president in the past. Why should he start now?JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah. You don't fucking call out the SCOTUS like that.
I rofl when he called them out, and they had to sit there and take it, IMO I was glad to see that Alito got the message. By Alito's reaction I guess he couldn't handle being called an activist judge. And make no mistake that these judges are actively trying to turn the clock back to a time before reconstruction when we were still a real republic.
If SCOTUS keeps in this general direction or attacks the interstate commerce clause, which I expect they will the first chance they get, then I think we might see an FDR court packing scheme or an old fashioned impeachment of a supreme.... that's "if" people in congress grow a pair over the next while. Anyway point is that calling out a supreme is no big deal in the grand history of SCOTUS and there have been other cases in the past where Congress goes back and overrules SCOTUS. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ … ration_Act
And don't forget that PBO is Harvard law trained and that means he has pretty much the same or better training as those that sit on SCOTUS, with the exception that he is sits in an office where he is one-of-one and they are just one-of nine. Its all a part of the discourse between the branches of govt.
But then again if you don't like PBO then you won't like what he said... no surprise really.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Diesel sums it up pretty well, although I'd argue that either system will eventually be overtaken by special interests.
Democracy or republic, dictatorship or Communism, feudalism or police state.... there is always a ruling class....
Democracy or republic, dictatorship or Communism, feudalism or police state.... there is always a ruling class....
^^^^^^^^^trueTurquoise wrote:
Diesel sums it up pretty well, although I'd argue that either system will eventually be overtaken by special interests.
Democracy or republic, dictatorship or Communism, feudalism or police state.... there is always a ruling class....
I'm not going to claim utopia in anything where people are involved.
Its just that IMO I don't equate state's rights or community standards with the word "permissive" and to me that means less freedom, not more. Which of course means some special interest is dictating and controlling freedom. Not to say that that can't happen nationally either.
DBBrinson--> all the judges are activist, and they all use subjective ideas of what ought to be when they are deciding these cases. What I dislike is people like Scalia who are boors and who claim legal principle guides their decisions when in fact they are using that claim to hide naked prejudice based on traditional belief systems. And you get inconsistencies where traditional constitutional views mean that laws can't be overturned, but at the same time democratic processes that change those laws are themselves unconsitutional.
If you want ot see scalia at his worst read his dissent in ROMER v. EVANS in that case he incites the culture war and in his entitled and principled approach (/sacrasm) he says
"But though Coloradans are, as I say, entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct,"
And he all but lights the torches of the mob by calling on "moral heritage" in the protection of society from homosexual activity when he says
"Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries-old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers."
That's the ticket, of course, its traditional to hate gays because homosexual activity is like murder, polygamy and cruelty to animals.
And then he rails against democratic approaches being used to pass laws to protect homos from discrimination because....
"The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, ... and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 11] not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality."
Yea, "a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality" like Scalia.
Like I said they are all activists... and the judges I really dislike are the ones indulge their prejudices on the bench and incite the mob against individuals. Guys like this not only need to be called out... they need to be impeached.
Not all judges are activist.Diesel_dyk wrote:
^^^^^^^^^trueTurquoise wrote:
Diesel sums it up pretty well, although I'd argue that either system will eventually be overtaken by special interests.
Democracy or republic, dictatorship or Communism, feudalism or police state.... there is always a ruling class....
I'm not going to claim utopia in anything where people are involved.
Its just that IMO I don't equate state's rights or community standards with the word "permissive" and to me that means less freedom, not more. Which of course means some special interest is dictating and controlling freedom. Not to say that that can't happen nationally either.
DBBrinson--> all the judges are activist, and they all use subjective ideas of what ought to be when they are deciding these cases. What I dislike is people like Scalia who are boors and who claim legal principle guides their decisions when in fact they are using that claim to hide naked prejudice based on traditional belief systems. And you get inconsistencies where traditional constitutional views mean that laws can't be overturned, but at the same time democratic processes that change those laws are themselves unconsitutional.
If you want ot see scalia at his worst read his dissent in ROMER v. EVANS in that case he incites the culture war and in his entitled and principled approach (/sacrasm) he says
"But though Coloradans are, as I say, entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct,"
And he all but lights the torches of the mob by calling on "moral heritage" in the protection of society from homosexual activity when he says
"Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries-old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers."
That's the ticket, of course, its traditional to hate gays because homosexual activity is like murder, polygamy and cruelty to animals.
And then he rails against democratic approaches being used to pass laws to protect homos from discrimination because....
"The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, ... and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 11] not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality."
Yea, "a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality" like Scalia.
Like I said they are all activists... and the judges I really dislike are the ones indulge their prejudices on the bench and incite the mob against individuals. Guys like this not only need to be called out... they need to be impeached.
You set up a straw man/red-herring argument. Fact is Corporations/Businesses operating in the US should have a voice.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
like citgo
Tu Stultus Es
Actually, activist is properly defined as someone that fights for a cause. Constitutionalism is a cause in its own right. Therefore, technically, every judge is an activist, whether it's strict interpretation of law or a looser interpretation.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Not all judges are activist.
You set up a straw man/red-herring argument. Fact is Corporations/Businesses operating in the US should have a voice.
As for corporations.... you don't think they already have a voice? They already dominate the discussion enough as it is. At this point, we've just handed over the discussion altogether.
But hey, I can't complain too much. All this time, I had figured we'd suffer through a slow, miserable decline, but between this and recent economic troubles, I'd say we're headed for a good old fashioned collapse. If we get real lucky, we'll have a French Revolution of our own to put things right. I'm not holding my breath for that one though....
Hey, and I'm not the one rushing to defend SCOTUS by saying ohhhh the president shouldn't have said that. I found it funny. ROFL and John Stewart hit it on the head when he said that PBO basically told SCOTUS, GOP and Dems to F'off. and I ROFL when PBO said something like "USA #1" and everyone he told to f'off was compelled to get up and clap... its was like a "stalinistic kabuki theatre" routine.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Not all judges are activist.Diesel_dyk wrote:
^^^^^^^^^trueTurquoise wrote:
Diesel sums it up pretty well, although I'd argue that either system will eventually be overtaken by special interests.
Democracy or republic, dictatorship or Communism, feudalism or police state.... there is always a ruling class....
I'm not going to claim utopia in anything where people are involved.
Its just that IMO I don't equate state's rights or community standards with the word "permissive" and to me that means less freedom, not more. Which of course means some special interest is dictating and controlling freedom. Not to say that that can't happen nationally either.
DBBrinson--> all the judges are activist, and they all use subjective ideas of what ought to be when they are deciding these cases. What I dislike is people like Scalia who are boors and who claim legal principle guides their decisions when in fact they are using that claim to hide naked prejudice based on traditional belief systems. And you get inconsistencies where traditional constitutional views mean that laws can't be overturned, but at the same time democratic processes that change those laws are themselves unconsitutional.
If you want ot see scalia at his worst read his dissent in ROMER v. EVANS in that case he incites the culture war and in his entitled and principled approach (/sacrasm) he says
"But though Coloradans are, as I say, entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct,"
And he all but lights the torches of the mob by calling on "moral heritage" in the protection of society from homosexual activity when he says
"Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries-old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers."
That's the ticket, of course, its traditional to hate gays because homosexual activity is like murder, polygamy and cruelty to animals.
And then he rails against democratic approaches being used to pass laws to protect homos from discrimination because....
"The problem (a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality) is that, because those who engage in homosexual conduct tend to reside in disproportionate numbers in certain communities, ... and of course care about homosexual-rights issues much more ardently than the public at large, they possess political power much greater than their numbers, both locally and statewide. Quite understandably, they devote this political power to achieving [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 11] not merely a grudging social toleration, but full social acceptance, of homosexuality."
Yea, "a problem, that is, for those who wish to retain social disapprobation of homosexuality" like Scalia.
Like I said they are all activists... and the judges I really dislike are the ones indulge their prejudices on the bench and incite the mob against individuals. Guys like this not only need to be called out... they need to be impeached.
You set up a straw man/red-herring argument. Fact is Corporations/Businesses operating in the US should have a voice.
anyway
First, I don't think that Corporations should have full rights, they are not flesh and blood human beings... Rights belong to individuals.
Second, Sorry to disagree with you but all judges are activists. Saying that conservative judges are not activist and that all liberal judges are activists is just rhetorical spin.
What makes a court activist is that it is actively engaged in the creation and setting of policy. Every decision involves policy and the court gets to a decision because that is the policy that they want to implement... they certainly are not wizards who divine the meaning of the consitutional text outside of their own predlictions and prejudices.
Fact is that conservative literal interpretation activist judges flip sides just as conveniently as the liberal judges when it suits them. see Bush v Gore where the liberal judges argued for states rights and the conservative judges argued for federal supremacy. And trying to turn the clock back 100 years is just as activist as announcing that abortion is a right.
On your other point, you appear to not like Sotomayor, I don't like Scalia. You call her an activist, hey IMO Scalia is an activist too.... its not much of an argument to say that the judges you dislike are activist and the ones you agree with are divine wizards. I just think all judges are activist. And to be honest, when you disagree with a judge you are disagreeing with their positions on policy, whether the judge is on the left or the right. The whole, I'm entering into a debate about legal principles is disingenuous BS... its all about policy. The rhetoric of legal principles are just the magic words the court sprinkles on the judgment to try and hide the fact that they are blowing BS policy out their ass.
Take any case, look at the sides and distill out the policy arguments and then you will know what the case is really about. Then look at the party who appointed that judge and see if the decision doesn't align with the ideals or needs of that party. Its not a very romantic view of the courts, but its a lot closer to the truth. and so I really don't see anything wrong with PBO calling SCOTUS out for mirroring the partisanship we see in Congress.
As for my target tonight, Scalia, the self proclaimed seer of principle, he is no exception, despite how he points the activist finger at everyone else. There's no red herring/straw man argument. All I did was highlight Scalia's Romer decision which is the worst decision that I've ever read, and highlighted numerous ridiculous moments in the decision and show him with his activist predilection to set an homophobic policy where he sees nothing wrong with extrajudicial societal controls to keep the homo problem down. In Romer, Scalia called for mob rule outside of the rule of law and all I did was share that so that everyone else could laugh at his boorish stupidity. The policy in his decision is very clear... its ok to hate homos and to act on that hate because that's the way its always been and for some its a religious belief.
Go a head and read his dissent in Romer and you tell me if the language he used is becoming of his office, seems to be a might "inciteful."
Anyway like I said, they are all activist and what annoys me is when some boor tries to couch his prejudices in the language of principle.
And seriously if you have a bad decision from some other judge please share....
What he seemed to forget is that we have three co-equal branches of government in this country. Talking down to the SCOTUS like that is the equivalent of "you lie" being shouted at him during his speech last year.Turquoise wrote:
Personally, I like the fact that he called out the Supreme Court on such a bad decision.
More and more, we see blatant evidence everyday that the more rigidly the Constitution is interpreted, the worse off things become.
It's kind of the same thing that happens when people interpret a scripture the same way.
That was deemed unacceptable.
But his scolding of the SCOTUS doing their Constitutionally-mandated job--just because he didn't like their decision--is OK?
Fuck no.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This.FEOS wrote:
What he seemed to forget is that we have three co-equal branches of government in this country. Talking down to the SCOTUS like that is the equivalent of "you lie" being shouted at him during his speech last year.Turquoise wrote:
Personally, I like the fact that he called out the Supreme Court on such a bad decision.
More and more, we see blatant evidence everyday that the more rigidly the Constitution is interpreted, the worse off things become.
It's kind of the same thing that happens when people interpret a scripture the same way.
That was deemed unacceptable.
But his scolding of the SCOTUS doing their Constitutionally-mandated job--just because he didn't like their decision--is OK?
Fuck no.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.JohnG@lt wrote:
This.FEOS wrote:
What he seemed to forget is that we have three co-equal branches of government in this country. Talking down to the SCOTUS like that is the equivalent of "you lie" being shouted at him during his speech last year.Turquoise wrote:
Personally, I like the fact that he called out the Supreme Court on such a bad decision.
More and more, we see blatant evidence everyday that the more rigidly the Constitution is interpreted, the worse off things become.
It's kind of the same thing that happens when people interpret a scripture the same way.
That was deemed unacceptable.
But his scolding of the SCOTUS doing their Constitutionally-mandated job--just because he didn't like their decision--is OK?
Fuck no.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Anyway the state of the union was entertaining for once... PBO sounded like a strong leader, he scolded everyone and they all deserved it and yes PBO deserves to have an ear full too because the gridlock is really annoying to watch. PBO is too wrapped up in being professatorial and engaging in the process of making law instead of banging out the legislation. What PBO should do is push his agenda through congress, and if the GOP fillibusters, then stand those old POS up and make them talk till they piss their pants, and then pass the legislation. Bang that shit out. It would be a hell of lot quicker that this consensus crap and deal making that has been going on. He was elected with a strong mandate and he needs to be a doer and not a talker. If the situtation were reversed, the GOP would be using the electorial mandate like a bludgeon.
FEOS, I was going to respond to you, but Diesel pretty much said everything I was going to.
Good post. I'd also like if he took the lead over Pelosi/Reid more often.Diesel_dyk wrote:
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.JohnG@lt wrote:
This.FEOS wrote:
What he seemed to forget is that we have three co-equal branches of government in this country. Talking down to the SCOTUS like that is the equivalent of "you lie" being shouted at him during his speech last year.
That was deemed unacceptable.
But his scolding of the SCOTUS doing their Constitutionally-mandated job--just because he didn't like their decision--is OK?
Fuck no.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Anyway the state of the union was entertaining for once... PBO sounded like a strong leader, he scolded everyone and they all deserved it and yes PBO deserves to have an ear full too because the gridlock is really annoying to watch. PBO is too wrapped up in being professatorial and engaging in the process of making law instead of banging out the legislation. What PBO should do is push his agenda through congress, and if the GOP fillibusters, then stand those old POS up and make them talk till they piss their pants, and then pass the legislation. Bang that shit out. It would be a hell of lot quicker that this consensus crap and deal making that has been going on. He was elected with a strong mandate and he needs to be a doer and not a talker. If the situtation were reversed, the GOP would be using the electorial mandate like a bludgeon.
ps. i just saw the 1hr video of obama's q/a with the republican house reps. i would post it but hardly anyone here would be able to look at it objectively
Last edited by Spark (2010-01-29 20:59:51)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
So I guess having a Congressman call him out during a speech "is called discourse" and is perfectly acceptable?Diesel_dyk wrote:
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.JohnG@lt wrote:
This.FEOS wrote:
What he seemed to forget is that we have three co-equal branches of government in this country. Talking down to the SCOTUS like that is the equivalent of "you lie" being shouted at him during his speech last year.
That was deemed unacceptable.
But his scolding of the SCOTUS doing their Constitutionally-mandated job--just because he didn't like their decision--is OK?
Fuck no.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Didn't think so. It's not called discourse. It's called unacceptable behavior and that guy was forced to apologize--repeatedly. Obama scolded--fucking scolded--the SCOTUS for doing their jobs. Because he didn't agree with their decision.
During the State of the Union Address.
If he had mentioned it during the "town hall" the following day, it wouldn't have been an issue. That was not the venue. It was as inappropriate as that jackass yelling "you lie".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
They are completely different. For one thing, the guy calling out "you lie" was breaking some basic courtesy rules.FEOS wrote:
So I guess having a Congressman call him out during a speech "is called discourse" and is perfectly acceptable?Diesel_dyk wrote:
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.JohnG@lt wrote:
This.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Didn't think so. It's not called discourse. It's called unacceptable behavior and that guy was forced to apologize--repeatedly. Obama scolded--fucking scolded--the SCOTUS for doing their jobs. Because he didn't agree with their decision.
During the State of the Union Address.
If he had mentioned it during the "town hall" the following day, it wouldn't have been an issue. That was not the venue. It was as inappropriate as that jackass yelling "you lie".
Last edited by Spark (2010-01-29 22:21:44)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
So, the Dems get to ram their ideas down the legislative throat of the nation because they hold a slighly higher majority than happens most of the time?Diesel_dyk wrote:
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.JohnG@lt wrote:
This.FEOS wrote:
What he seemed to forget is that we have three co-equal branches of government in this country. Talking down to the SCOTUS like that is the equivalent of "you lie" being shouted at him during his speech last year.
That was deemed unacceptable.
But his scolding of the SCOTUS doing their Constitutionally-mandated job--just because he didn't like their decision--is OK?
Fuck no.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Anyway the state of the union was entertaining for once... PBO sounded like a strong leader, he scolded everyone and they all deserved it and yes PBO deserves to have an ear full too because the gridlock is really annoying to watch. PBO is too wrapped up in being professatorial and engaging in the process of making law instead of banging out the legislation. What PBO should do is push his agenda through congress, and if the GOP fillibusters, then stand those old POS up and make them talk till they piss their pants, and then pass the legislation. Bang that shit out. It would be a hell of lot quicker that this consensus crap and deal making that has been going on. He was elected with a strong mandate and he needs to be a doer and not a talker. If the situtation were reversed, the GOP would be using the electorial mandate like a bludgeon.
When only one side of the aisle can agree to the basic premise (and not even ALL of them), a closer examination of the idea is warranted!
Well, not "ramming down throats" but yeah, that's kinda what winning elections means.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, the Dems get to ram their ideas down the legislative throat of the nation because they hold a slighly higher majority than happens most of the time?Diesel_dyk wrote:
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.JohnG@lt wrote:
This.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Anyway the state of the union was entertaining for once... PBO sounded like a strong leader, he scolded everyone and they all deserved it and yes PBO deserves to have an ear full too because the gridlock is really annoying to watch. PBO is too wrapped up in being professatorial and engaging in the process of making law instead of banging out the legislation. What PBO should do is push his agenda through congress, and if the GOP fillibusters, then stand those old POS up and make them talk till they piss their pants, and then pass the legislation. Bang that shit out. It would be a hell of lot quicker that this consensus crap and deal making that has been going on. He was elected with a strong mandate and he needs to be a doer and not a talker. If the situtation were reversed, the GOP would be using the electorial mandate like a bludgeon.
When only one side of the aisle can agree to the basic premise (and not even ALL of them), a closer examination of the idea is warranted!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I disagree. What Joe Wilson did is fine by me. All these rules of decorum are just a way to dress up some system we pretend has dignity.FEOS wrote:
So I guess having a Congressman call him out during a speech "is called discourse" and is perfectly acceptable?"
Didn't think so. It's not called discourse. It's called unacceptable behavior and that guy was forced to apologize--repeatedly. Obama scolded--fucking scolded--the SCOTUS for doing their jobs. Because he didn't agree with their decision.
During the State of the Union Address.
If he had mentioned it during the "town hall" the following day, it wouldn't have been an issue. That was not the venue. It was as inappropriate as that jackass yelling "you lie".
One blowhard makes a national address and gets yelled at by another blowhard. That's entertaining shit in my book.
The same blowhard makes another national address and yells at a bunch of old judges.... still entertaining.
I like the way Parliament is less formal over in the U.K. They yell at each other all of the time, and that makes for much more interesting viewing.
You act like one side has different ideas from the other. They all have one idea in mind -- taking your money from you and using it for their own purposes.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, the Dems get to ram their ideas down the legislative throat of the nation because they hold a slighly higher majority than happens most of the time?
When only one side of the aisle can agree to the basic premise (and not even ALL of them), a closer examination of the idea is warranted!
It doesn't matter if it's the Dems doing it or the Repubs.
No, they're completely the same. About as unprofessional as you can possibly get. It scored him political brownie points among those who 'hate corporations' but it was the exact wrong thing to do during a SOTU address.Spark wrote:
They are completely different. For one thing, the guy calling out "you lie" was breaking some basic courtesy rules.FEOS wrote:
So I guess having a Congressman call him out during a speech "is called discourse" and is perfectly acceptable?Diesel_dyk wrote:
lol, its called discourse and sometimes judges need to know their decisions are activist, that they are not appreciated and that they go too far. At least that's what happens when its a liberal judge on the receiving end.
Calling out SCOTUS has happened before and it will happen again, no need to rush to the aid of these conservative judges I'm sure they have thick skin given the opinions that they hold.
Didn't think so. It's not called discourse. It's called unacceptable behavior and that guy was forced to apologize--repeatedly. Obama scolded--fucking scolded--the SCOTUS for doing their jobs. Because he didn't agree with their decision.
During the State of the Union Address.
If he had mentioned it during the "town hall" the following day, it wouldn't have been an issue. That was not the venue. It was as inappropriate as that jackass yelling "you lie".
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat