BF2S Forums State of the Union

There were no corroborated sources, there were sources known to be dubious.

Anyway, so Obama stated an opinion some people don't like - Boo hoo.
So when is he supposed to criticise SCOTUS?
If the SCOTUS is FOS I would have though SOTU would be the ideal moment for POTUS to criticise them.

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

This.

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.

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".

The you lie guy just made the GOP look bad... He probably took some shit from his own party for that one.

But if you want a difference... in both cases PBO had the floor. So in that case, calling out "you lie" was a breach of protocol whereas PBO had the floor when he scolded SCOTUS. It was PBO's show and in the end SCOTUS is just another branch of govt worthy of criticism. Its nothing more and nothing less. If the best critcism you have is that PBO has bad manners Bad PBO BAD BAD, now you mind you manners /sarcasm In the end, whether it was proper or not is a matter of opinion... I kind of liked it.

Face it, you don't like PBO and you don't like Dems... everyone knows what side of the fence that you sit on, no use trying to hide your partisanship

And BTW, This SCOTUS is very activist and they are planning to rewrite laws every chance they get... but then again I thought that creating judge made law wasn't supposed to be a part of their job, that it was supposed to be something bad. I keep hearing that chant "activist judges" "activist judges".... oh but I guess its different when conservatives agree with the laws that the court creates. /sarcasm

FYI there is an ebb and flow to everything, its how we find the middle ground, the average or the normal. You can complain about the pendulum swinging, but its still going to swing so that means its a little like screaming at a brick wall.

LividBovine wrote:

He used his plaform of the SOTU to make a political statement.

like every president...ever?

right, but WHEN has it ever? I mean, expecting a president to NOT make a political statement is bonkers. It's always going to be a political statement, right? What should it be then?

maybe maybe, but from that wiki link:

"The State of the Union is an annual address presented by the President of the United States to the United States Congress. The address not only reports on the condition of the nation but also allows the president to outline his legislative agenda and national priorities to Congress."

So outlining his agenda is partly the point of the SOTU innit? Don't see what the problem is really. Except he said 'I' when you'd rather he said 'we'. At least he's made up his own mind lol.

But whateva...

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The you lie guy just made the GOP look bad... He probably took some shit from his own party for that one.

Yes. He did.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But if you want a difference... in both cases PBO had the floor. So in that case, calling out "you lie" was a breach of protocol whereas PBO had the floor when he scolded SCOTUS. It was PBO's show and in the end SCOTUS is just another branch of govt worthy of criticism. Its nothing more and nothing less. If the best critcism you have is that PBO has bad manners Bad PBO BAD BAD, now you mind you manners /sarcasm In the end, whether it was proper or not is a matter of opinion... I kind of liked it.

I suppose if GWB had scolded a left-leaning SCOTUS for one of their decisions during a SOTU speech, you would've liked that, too? Would've been sassy?

Didn't think so.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Face it, you don't like PBO and you don't like Dems... everyone knows what side of the fence that you sit on, no use trying to hide your partisanship

Unlike you, I've never tried to hide my partisanship. I don't like either side. I just dislike one side less than the other.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

And BTW, This SCOTUS is very activist and they are planning to rewrite laws every chance they get... but then again I thought that creating judge made law wasn't supposed to be a part of their job, that it was supposed to be something bad. I keep hearing that chant "activist judges" "activist judges".... oh but I guess its different when conservatives agree with the laws that the court creates. /sarcasm

Probably explains why the court ruled against GWB's agenda right after Roberts got confirmed.

Oh damn...facts are inconvenient.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FYI there is an ebb and flow to everything, its how we find the middle ground, the average or the normal. You can complain about the pendulum swinging, but its still going to swing so that means its a little like screaming at a brick wall.

I'm talking about the pendulum swinging WRT one party having absolute control of two of the three branches of government. That has never been a good thing as it obviates checks and balances, particularly in the budgeting process.

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But if you want a difference... in both cases PBO had the floor. So in that case, calling out "you lie" was a breach of protocol whereas PBO had the floor when he scolded SCOTUS. It was PBO's show and in the end SCOTUS is just another branch of govt worthy of criticism. Its nothing more and nothing less. If the best critcism you have is that PBO has bad manners Bad PBO BAD BAD, now you mind you manners /sarcasm In the end, whether it was proper or not is a matter of opinion... I kind of liked it.

I suppose if GWB had scolded a left-leaning SCOTUS for one of their decisions during a SOTU speech, you would've liked that, too? Would've been sassy?

Didn't think so..

Who cares? both sides are going to whine like crazy. But much of the whining is directly related to the fact that SCOTUS appointments are extremely politcal and that leads to deterministic decision making based on party politics.

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

And BTW, This SCOTUS is very activist and they are planning to rewrite laws every chance they get... but then again I thought that creating judge made law wasn't supposed to be a part of their job, that it was supposed to be something bad. I keep hearing that chant "activist judges" "activist judges".... oh but I guess its different when conservatives agree with the laws that the court creates. /sarcasm

Probably explains why the court ruled against GWB's agenda right after Roberts got confirmed.


Oh damn...facts are inconvenient.

What inconvenient facts? I looked at the case... on a scale of hot political topics, that one is pretty far down the scale... I'm not sure that notice requirements for taking property for taxes was exactly crucial to Bush's agenda... Me I'm waiting to hear about the next interstate commerce clause case  which is the where the real federal power resides... the Scalia/Thomas crew are itching to hack at the federal govt powers. Now if a case like that goes against states rights, then that would be a real blow to the conservative/states rights agenda of the people who put those conservative judges on the bench. I seriously doubt that the court will not take the opportunity to hack at federal powers, but time will tell on that one.

FEOS wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

FYI there is an ebb and flow to everything, its how we find the middle ground, the average or the normal. You can complain about the pendulum swinging, but its still going to swing so that means its a little like screaming at a brick wall.

I'm talking about the pendulum swinging WRT one party having absolute control of two of the three branches of government. That has never been a good thing as it obviates checks and balances, particularly in the budgeting process.

As opposed to the GOP having 6 years of control? The GOP spending like drink sailors? etc etc etc.... Fact is that I agree that the govt works at its best when there is gridlock because that is when checks and balances are strongest. I look back on the Clinton presidency with the Gringrich congress as about as good as it gets. But after 6 years of the pendulum swinging far right, it has to swing hard left just to get back to the middle where the majority of us are. You're kidding yourself if the GOP found the middle during those six years, or the last 25 years for that matter. The problem is that now the dems are now going spend like crazy with sweet heart back door deals and ear marks. ITs really too bad that the GOP didn't act with reason during its tenure, then the public might not have gotten so angry as to simply replace a one party dictatorship with another.

90's Economy skyrocketed due to increase in IT (lower costs for many many business').