Why Obama Hates the Recent SCOTUS Decision

Big Jouranlism ^ | Feb 5th 2010 | James Hudnall

[opentalk]

A major provision of the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002″, aka McCain-Feingold, was largely dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010. President Obama’s reaction was swift and almost comically over the top.

-... We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

Uh-oh! Whenever they use the term “bipartisan” you know they’re trying to sucker us. It’s become as transparent as their disingenuous names for bills like the so called “Stimulus” which was supposed to fund “shovel ready jobs” and instead went to non-existent zip codes. Our unemployment rate went up dramatically.

But why is Obama so upset about the decision? He’s upset by unions and special interests donating large sums of money to candidates? This is the president who took $60 million from SEIU members and was visited by its head, Andy Stern, more than any other person last year. Obama’s “outrage” deserves a closer look.

..The administration had big plans for limiting free speech on talk radio, the internet, Fox News and any other conservative outlets they don’t like. This decision took the wind out of their sails. If the law had stayed they could have used it as a weapon against candidates in elections. Scalia noted that books, TV shows, movies could all be banned as a result.

Notice which party likes to ban such things. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 could have been banned under the law, but it wasn’t. Despite the fact it was not only false on so many fronts, it was critical of a sitting president during wartime. But Bush let it go. But the FEC, which had Democrats in it at the time, banned the Citizens United Hillary documentary.

[Oldpuppymax]

Our White House “Constitutional Law professor” decided it was time to OVERTURN a Supreme Court ruling! Good God, even I know better than that! So can I expect a Haavahd diploma in the mail??!! Or do I have to be black too?

[Vaduz]

Your Haavahd diploma in the mail and your Nobel peace prize to ensue,you don’t have to be black for the awards hey you don’t even have to be an American.

[Condor51]

'Why Obama Hates the Recent SCOTUS Decision'

Uh... because it follows the U.S. Constitution?

I hate Snap Quizzes on Fridays ;-)

[gwilhelm56]

**Our White House “Constitutional Law professor” decided it was time to...**

EVERYONE who took that Professor’s courses, should have their DEGREES RECALLED... and be forced to retake them.

[EdReform]

Ping

[bamahead]

The administration had big plans for limiting free speech on talk radio, the internet, Fox News and any other conservative outlets they don’t like. This decision took the wind out of their sails.

Indeed a narrow victory for Lady Liberty.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[Still Thinking]

Why Obama Hates the Recent SCOTUS Decision

Cause he and everyone on his side of the aisle are lying cheaters, and he wants to keep cheating, and he's lying about that?

[EternalVigilance]

Notice which party likes to ban such things.

Uhmmm...it was called MCCAIN-Feingold, and last time I checked McCain has an R by his name.

In the House it was called SHAYS-Meehan if I remember correctly, and Christopher Shays also had an R by his name.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“**Our White House “Constitutional Law professor” decided it was time to...**”

This is just another one of Obama’s BARE-FACED LIES

He was NEVER a law Professor, he was an “instructor”

Instructor = water boy, bench warmer, also-ran, rookie

1)Asst. Professor newbie

2)Associate Professor = proven talent, usually published.

3) Full Professor(usually has tenure, so the university can hold onto him.)

[gwilhelm56]

**This is just another one of Obama’s BARE-FACED LIES**

Everything after that is Redundant..thus a waste of time..

WORTHLESS, LYING SCUMSUCKER.. anything past that is usually Overkill

[stephenjohnbanker]

Robert Reich went all over television, claiming to be a “professor” years ago, until Harvard threatened to fire him if he did it again. LOL!!

All pieces of $hit.

[Candor7]

'Why Obama Hates the Recent SCOTUS Decision'>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It prevents this:

[elkfersupper]

Dear President Motumbo (or whatever your name is):

You can take away the 1st Amendment, but the 2nd lives on in the minds and closets of the people.

[arderkrag]

My heart sang when I overheard the news announcer report this. It’s about time businesses could support candidates.

[supercat]

**Our White House “Constitutional Law professor” decided it was time to...**

EVERYONE who took that Professor’s courses, should have their DEGREES RECALLED... and be forced to retake them.

"Constitutional law" instructs students on how to pretend the Constitution doesn't says things other than what it clearly does, preferably in such a way that one can pretend all previous court decisions are legitimate.

This country would be much better off, and closer to the Constitution, if it were recognized that court precedent should only be used when the Constitution, statutes, and other laws are insufficient to reach a firm conclusion. Precedent should only be used to choose among equally-justifiable decisions, not to justify any decision which could not be justified without it.

If one accepts the notion that courts have, and will likely continue to, produce a substantial number of illegitimate decisions, the Constitution is really not that hard to understand. But if one assumes the Constitution bends and folds in such fashion as to make all the Court's decisions legitimate, one must believe it to be twistier than a Klein Bottle.