Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historian: After President’s “Insult,” Won’t Be Surprised SCOTUS Doesn’t Attend Next SOTU
ABC News ^ | January 28, 2010 | Jake Tapper

Posted on 01/28/2010 5:27:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

A noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.

“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”

Added Professor Powe, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the president.” His opinion has nothing to do with animus towards the President, for whom Powe said he voted enthusiastically.

President Obama took the apparently unprecedented step of assailing a Supreme Court decision in his speech last night, saying, “with all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open 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. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that corrects some of these problems."(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhosotu; firstamendment; freespeech; obama; rudedems; samuelalito; scotus; sotu; stateoftheunion; tapper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last
Not only that, but start deciding more cases in ways he won't like. Then what's he going to do?
1 posted on 01/28/2010 5:27:36 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


2 posted on 01/28/2010 5:30:15 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (J.D. Hayworth for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

All they have to do is accept one nativity case.


3 posted on 01/28/2010 5:31:45 PM PST by omega4179 (NOT TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


4 posted on 01/28/2010 5:32:32 PM PST by SevenofNine ("We are Freepers, all your media belong to us, resistence is futile")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Obama will not be there, the Justices will be.


5 posted on 01/28/2010 5:33:06 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


6 posted on 01/28/2010 5:33:13 PM PST by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
No one ever accused The Kenyan of having any class.
7 posted on 01/28/2010 5:33:45 PM PST by Churchillspirit (9/11/01...NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


8 posted on 01/28/2010 5:35:17 PM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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!


9 posted on 01/28/2010 5:35:38 PM PST by RetiredArmy (Stay armed. Buy bullets. Buy guns. Protect yourself - the government isn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
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.
10 posted on 01/28/2010 5:36:36 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


11 posted on 01/28/2010 5:37:44 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
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


12 posted on 01/28/2010 5:38:28 PM PST by TigersEye (It's the Marxism, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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?


13 posted on 01/28/2010 5:38:44 PM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com - The Patriot's Flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


14 posted on 01/28/2010 5:39:26 PM PST by Nateman (If liberals aren't screaming you're doing it wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Schumer was a disgrace
15 posted on 01/28/2010 5:39:34 PM PST by reefdiver ("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


16 posted on 01/28/2010 5:40:44 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority (Why buy health insurance at all if you can't be turned down for any pre-existing conditions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


17 posted on 01/28/2010 5:40:57 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

18 posted on 01/28/2010 5:41:17 PM PST by BigLittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag

Obama also announced an end run around congress by setting up a committee they rejected. He believes that he is the ultimate power and who’s to stop him?


19 posted on 01/28/2010 5:42:23 PM PST by jusduat (probably lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


20 posted on 01/28/2010 5:42:27 PM PST by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag

They might be inclined to look a little closer at the next birth certificate case.


21 posted on 01/28/2010 5:42:47 PM PST by slag (reelect nobody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 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?"

They are human: When someone defames, libels, slanders or insults you, what is your natural human reaction? That's right! Get back at them! And I guarantee you that they will.

22 posted on 01/28/2010 5:42:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2 million for Sarah Palin: What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ThePatriotsFlag

Yes and No. But they sure could hold up cases that he deemed important and move up cases he feared.


23 posted on 01/28/2010 5:43:10 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


24 posted on 01/28/2010 5:43:41 PM PST by Allegra (It doesn't matter what this tagline says...the liberals are going to call it "racist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Yup, I will be surprised if bambi is prez a year from now. He is beyond horrible.


25 posted on 01/28/2010 5:44:15 PM PST by HerrBlucher (Jail Al Gore and the Climate Frauds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
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.

26 posted on 01/28/2010 5:45:15 PM PST by Charlemagne on the Fox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller
Really...this had to be one of the worst abuses of power that I have seen in my lifetime. He is infringing...

He is not "infringing" with his words. That comes later. I am surprised he doesn't take a leaf out of FDR's book and threaten or try to "pack" the court. There is no Constitutional reason for the number of Justices to be nine. The Constitution just says one Chief Justice and "other" justices. So that is probably at least three up to however many get appointed and confirmed. That might be "infringing" but not unconstitutional.

27 posted on 01/28/2010 5:46:30 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
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.

28 posted on 01/28/2010 5:48:03 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


29 posted on 01/28/2010 5:48:57 PM PST by Jane Long (Clean out Congress...give 'em term limits and their own dose of "government" healthcare.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

I’ll bet some good judge initiates an full NBC action in a lower court, and they pick it up right out of appeal, that Sotomayor recuses herself and then most honorably resigns as the facts demonstrate the man is a fraud, then to be reupped by the real President at that point, and then she becomes a student of Justice Thomas.


30 posted on 01/28/2010 5:50:32 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


31 posted on 01/28/2010 5:51:09 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Lydia

Well put.


32 posted on 01/28/2010 5:51:37 PM PST by Obadiah (Ramirez, we're oscar mike! Stay frosty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Punk, joker, gunsel — all 1930’s prison terms for different types of homosexuals.


33 posted on 01/28/2010 5:51:41 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I kept watching Ginsburg and was wondering if she was dead or alive:


34 posted on 01/28/2010 5:51:46 PM PST by Michael.SF. (At least Hitler got the Olympics for Germany)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
"He is not "infringing" with his words. "

Didn't you hear him say he was going to issue executive orders to go around everyone? He really does not care about our laws.

35 posted on 01/28/2010 5:52:09 PM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

“Schumer was a disgrace”

Let me add to your post. Schumer is a disgrace.


36 posted on 01/28/2010 5:52:40 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

That is true and he has been doing that from the first day he assumed power. And no one tries to stop him.


37 posted on 01/28/2010 5:54:48 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I agree. Obama has no class or manners and he is one sick dude.


38 posted on 01/28/2010 5:55:45 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Or better yet, how about if they attend, but then walk out in the middle of his speech?


39 posted on 01/28/2010 5:55:48 PM PST by ChrisInAR (You gotta let it out, Captain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Yup. I found the homosexual reference in the definition but truly thought that “a young inexperienced person : beginner, novice” fit as Obama has no experience but does have a sense of being an achiever when he’s done nothing. Ever.


40 posted on 01/28/2010 5:56:00 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bookmark


41 posted on 01/28/2010 5:56:57 PM PST by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No simple insult.

He downright lied about the SC, in front of the SC, and directly to the American people.


42 posted on 01/28/2010 5:57:58 PM PST by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I don’t understand why no one is talking about the boatload of cash that O raised for his campaign. He had so much he couldn’t spend it fast enough. Are we to believe those huge donations came from the little people? And how much of his money was from foreign sources.

I don’t believe he has the audacity to make this a public issue when he set records with his obscene cash haul!


43 posted on 01/28/2010 5:58:24 PM PST by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

That whole debacle last night was behavior unfitting of a president. Obama was rude, classless, arrogant, psychotic and boring.

I am ashamed of him and ashamed of my country for the first time since Jimmy Carter.


44 posted on 01/28/2010 5:58:26 PM PST by dforest (Who is the real Jim Thompson? I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Do you think they’ll swing against him because of the insult?


45 posted on 01/28/2010 5:58:30 PM PST by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SevenofNine
I have never heard a president insult the USSC in a SOTU address before, going back to days of LBJ. But then Obama is not an American and has no respect for the American rule of law, so the Supremes are just a bunch of old fogies to him.
46 posted on 01/28/2010 5:58:48 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All

Does anybody know how far in 0bama castigates the Supreme Court? I cannot suffer that fool, didn’t watch it yesterday and am loath to do so today, but I have to know what he said to the SCOTUS. I’ve found a link, but his pedantic delivery is more than I can tolerate.


47 posted on 01/28/2010 5:59:33 PM PST by definitelynotaliberal (I am cynical because the audacity of 0bama's recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What has Mark Levin said about this?


48 posted on 01/28/2010 6:00:01 PM PST by ncpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

im sure Sonia the ‘wise’(and fat and UGLY) latina will show up and ruth if shes not dead by then


49 posted on 01/28/2010 6:00:09 PM PST by wheninthecourse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sport
The "elite" class is just now getting a taste of the monster that they have created with lopsided laws. Working class people have been subjected to this type of terrorism by militants using the favoritism laws for decades. Everyone fears the PC and taking on a costly lawsuit.

I hate to say this, but the only way to deal with these kinds of people legally is to tear the whole thing down and start over....shut the program down. Don't ask me how this can be done on a national scale.

50 posted on 01/28/2010 6:02:40 PM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson