[2ndDivisionVet]

Not only that, but start deciding more cases in ways he won't like. Then what's he going to do?

[FlingWingFlyer]

SCOTUS should not have to sit there and take a bunch of BS from a cheap, Chicago thug.

[SevenofNine]

If I was Supreme court justice I be going okay I won’t attend next time

He is Chicago Thug in my opinion not only that very rude I never hear other US president totally dissing US Supremes like that in my lifetime

Maybe among Older Freepers maybe you hear it not in my lifetime

[bvw]

Obama will not be there, the Justices will be.

[La Lydia]

Our president is a arrogant, vulgar bore. And he is not a gentleman.

[Earthdweller]

Really...this had to be one of the worst abuses of power that I have seen in my lifetime. He is infringing on every last living authority in a reckless, destructive path, way overstepping his bounds.

[RetiredArmy]

I think all the republicans should refuse to go to the Marxist’s Party meeting also. I did not watch it. I have never listened to the thug say more than three words, as quick as my trigger finger can change the channel, he’s off. He has nothing I want too hear. Oh, except, “I quit,” “I conceed that Mrs. Palin has kicked my sorry tan ass and I have lost the White House.” Those two I would listen too, over and over and over again!

[KrisKrinkle]

I was thinking they should have walked out, but then sometimes something startles you so much that you don’t think of the right response till it’s too late.

[skeeter]

Its the SCOTUS’s fault for expecting the president to behave like something besides an unusually articulate street punk.

[TigersEye]

President Wrong on Citizens United Case [Bradley A. Smith]

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

[ThePatriotsFlag]

One does wonder, if the court has “equal power” to the executive branch, what, if anything, they could do. They couldn’t “bias” a case to get him ‘back’. What recourse would they have for such vulgarity?

[Nateman]

I don’t think Scalia or Thomas was there. Good for them!

[Question Liberal Authority]

Obama has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.

[arthurus]

I believe FDR had a lot of harsh words for the Court of his day and made his “court packing” threats to mitigate the reactionary influence of the “Nine Old Men.” President Soetoro isn’t the first.

[BigLittle]

[caseinpoint]

When his healthcare reform bill, if it passes, (not to mention his entire agenda) goes before the court and loses, he will claim it was personal animus against him. He will claim the SCOTUS is institutionally racist and goad his remaining supporters to find ways to gut the SCOTUS power, maybe even burn down the Reichstag, er, Supreme Court building. I don’t underestimate his prospective defensive moves against SCOTUS.

[Allegra]

I’m glad the six of them attended this one, though. Alito’s quite justifiable reaction brought attention to the fact that Oboingo was either outright lying or has no clue as to what exactly was overturned and what the rules are regarding campaign contributions from foreign entities.

[Charlemagne on the Fox]

The article's final paragraph reads: After his second inaugural, FDR recalled to an aide, when “the Chief Justice read me the oath and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States’ I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy—not the kind of Constitution your Court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.’”

FDR and Obama are two peas in a pod.

[DJ MacWoW]

I looked this up online and it fits.

Define punk: offensive term: an offensive term for a young man regarded as worthless, lazy, or arrogant

In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

2 nonsense, foolishness
3 a : a young inexperienced person : beginner, novice; especially : a young man b : a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian

Farlex Online Dictionary
1. Slang
a. A young person, especially a member of a rebellious counterculture group.
b. An inexperienced young man.

[Jane Long]

SCOTUS don’t get mad, just offer to hear the birth certificate cases.

[Cvengr]

Bottom line is the attack upon “special interests” means Obama supports Taxation WITHOUT Representation.

Fictitious named persons, i.e. corporations and businesses who pay income tax, do not vote, but are allowed to address Congressmen because the taxation of those businesses are a direct interest of those businesses. Passing legislation which prohibits corporations from addressing issues Congress is taxing is nothing more than a socialist agenda to destroy the US economy and legislate against capitalism.

It promotes power and authority without justice to those being controlled, i.e. tyranny.