Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,619
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: alito

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Did Samuel Alito Throw Republicans An Obamacare Lifeline At The Supreme Court?

    03/09/2015 3:11:00 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 22 replies
    Forbes ^ | 03/08/2015 | Avik Roy
    As we await a decision in the big Obamacare Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, progressive pundits have continued to predict a health care apocalypse if the Court sides with challengers to the Obama administration. That’s a wild exaggeration. But there will be some disruption, and Republicans in Congress have been debating the best way to mitigate that disruption. That’s where Associate Justice Samuel Alito comes in. At oral arguments on Wednesday, Alito hinted at another way to overturn illegal subsidies while avoiding near-term problems for the newly insured. The Northern Pipeline precedent At the hearing, President Obama’s Solicitor General,...
  • Why 3 Supreme Court Justices Didn’t Attend the State of the Union

    01/21/2015 7:48:57 AM PST · by South40 · 35 replies
    MSN ^ | 20 JAN 2015 | Tessa Berenson
    The wording in the Constitution is simple and straightforward: the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” There's nothing in there about the Supreme Court justices and, accordingly, there's nothing simple and straightforward about their attendance. This year, six justices were in attendance, while three of the most conservative members of the court, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were noticeably absent. In the modern era, custom has held that the justices would show up in their official robes and sit impassively. But in recent years, they've become...
  • On Hobby Lobby: Where Ginsburg and Alito Go Astray

    07/07/2014 1:15:10 PM PDT · by NYer · 16 replies
    Crisis Magazine ^ | July 7, 2014 | JOSHUA SCHULZ
    As a faithful Catholic with moral objections to forced Christian complicity in both abortion and contraception, I had many reasons to rejoice in the Supreme CourtÂ’s majority decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby written by Justice Alito. Unfortunately, the CourtÂ’s reasoning was not one of them. Two premises in the majorityÂ’s argument were especially troubling: first, the CourtÂ’s assertion of the legal inscrutability of moral and religious beliefs, and second, its assumption of the GovernmentÂ’s claim that contraceptives and abortifacients are necessary for womenÂ’s health and well-being. Contrary to the first premise, I agree with dissenting Justice Ginsburg that...
  • The Hobby Lobby decision isn’t narrow

    06/30/2014 10:08:14 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 52 replies
    MSNBC ^ | June 30, 2014 | Irin Carmon
    The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is being called narrow by some analysts, but that’s true only in that Hobby Lobby got everything it wanted and nothing more. In her blistering dissent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg correctly called it “a decision of startling breadth.” The question before the Court was twofold: Do corporations enjoy the same protections for religious liberty as individuals do? And if so, does providing contraceptive coverage in an employee health plan – as required under the Affordable Care Act – violate that liberty? Justice Samuel Alito, writing for all of the Republican-appointed...
  • High Court Allows Disputed Home Search

    02/25/2014 4:59:06 PM PST · by Altariel · 128 replies
    AP ^ | February 25, 2014 | Mark Sherman
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police may search a home without a warrant when two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested. The justices declined to extend an earlier ruling denying entry to police when the occupants disagree and both are present. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's 6-3 decision holding that an occupant may not object to a search when he is not at home.

    06/26/2013 5:46:22 PM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 18 replies
    Powerline ^ | 06/26/2013 | BY PAUL MIRENGOFF
    Justice Alito’s dissent in the DOMA case contains an instant-classic footnote (number 7). I reproduce it below in its entirety, hoping that you will read the whole thing: The degree to which this question [the traditional view of marriage vs. the consent-based view] is intractable to typical judicial processes of decisionmaking was highlighted by the trial in Hollingsworth v. Perry. In that case, the trial judge, after receiving testimony from some expert witnesses, purported to make “findings of fact” on such questions as why marriage came to be, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 958 (ND Cal....
  • SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 17th, 2013

    06/17/2013 7:00:00 AM PDT · by Perdogg · 39 replies
    SCOTUS Live blog of orders and opinions June 17th, 2013
  • Vanity - SCOTUS Watch June 3rd - June 7th

    06/03/2013 6:27:06 AM PDT · by Perdogg · 7 replies
    It is that time of year where the SCOTUS makes its decisions for the term. Who knows what decisions will be handed down this week. I do not expect any gay marriage decisions until the final days of the term.
  • Justice Alito on DOMA: Replace Marriage in Federal Statute with ‘Certified Domestic Unit’

    03/27/2013 6:09:11 PM PDT · by Olog-hai · 41 replies
    Cybercast News Service ^ | March 27, 2013 | Penny Starr
    During oral arguments on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court on a case testing the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that Congress could have used a more “neutral” term than marriage in the law the defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. “Congress could have achieved exactly what it achieved under Section 3 by excising the term ‘married’ from the United States Code and replacing it with something more neutral,” Alito said. “It could have said ‘certified domestic units,’ and then defined this in exactly the way...
  • Three conservative justices absent themselves from SOTU

    02/13/2013 6:59:48 AM PST · by SeekAndFind · 82 replies
    American Thinker ^ | 02/13/2013 | Rick Moran
    I'm sure it's happened before, but I can't recall any previous State of the Union speech where justices refused to attend based on disagreements with the president. From Politico: "The conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court was absent from President Obama's Tuesday State of the Union address. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia declined to join their six other colleagues at the prime time address to Congress. During Obama's 2010 address, Alito was seen whispering the words "not true" during Obama's speech. Obama used his address to blast the court for their 2010 Citizens United case which...
  • Obama Incorporated: The president’s left-wing network continues to expand

    02/08/2013 7:41:19 PM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 4 replies
    The Washington Free Beacon ^ | February 8, 2013 | Matthew Continetti
    Three years ago, midway through his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama took on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. “With all due deference to the separation of powers,” the president said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. [Applause.] I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. [Applause.]” Justice Samuel Alito, by mouthing the words “not true” as Obama read these sentences off...
  • Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

    03/26/2012 11:44:58 AM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 95 replies · 100+ views
    Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.” The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy. The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the...
  • Alito to Verrilli: Is it a tax or isn't it?

    03/26/2012 11:03:27 AM PDT · by Sub-Driver · 19 replies · 27+ views
    Justice Samuel Alito was back in his skeptical mode today, chiding the Obama administration for — in his view — trying to have it both ways on whether the individual mandate penalty is a tax. The same justice who shook his head at President Barack Obama during the 2010 State of the Union address, appearing to mouth the words “not true” when Obama criticized the Citizens United decision, gave Solicitor General Donald Verrilli a hard time Monday about the administration’s views on the mandate penalty: JUSTICE ALITO: General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax....

    03/21/2012 6:42:49 PM PDT · by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny · 18 replies
    THE FREEDOM POST ^ | March 21, 2012 | Matthew Burke
    An Idaho couple, whose lives have been ruined the last several years by the tyrannical EPA, won a crucial "David and Goliath" case in the Supreme Court today, humiliating the overzealous out-of-control bureaucracy in a unanimous 9-0 decision. If you're not familiar with the case, the EPA egregiously violated Mike and Chantell Sackett's property rights by arbitrarily and without cause, declaring their property as "wetlands", threatening them with oppressive fines of $75,000 per day if they did not restore it to its original state. The EPA unconstitutionally acted as "judge and jury", violating the couple's right to due process by...
  • Justices criticize EPA’s dealings with Idaho homeowners

    01/09/2012 10:26:29 AM PST · by WilliamIII · 88 replies · 10+ views
    WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners. The justices were considering whether to let a North Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as “protected wetlands.” Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can’t challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines. Justice Samuel Alito called EPA’s actions “outrageous.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted the “high-handedness of the agency” in dealing with private property. Chief...
  • Missouri takes levee battle to U.S. Supreme Court

    05/01/2011 2:38:38 PM PDT · by Hawk720 · 45 replies
    CNN ^ | 05/01/2011 | Ashley Hayes
    Missouri on Sunday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a plan to intentionally breach a levee on the rain-swollen Mississippi River, flooding Missouri farmland in an effort to save an Illinois town. Earlier, Missouri filed a federal suit to block the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from following through on its plan to breach the Birds Point-New Madrid levee. A federal judge on Friday ruled against Missouri, saying a 1928 law permits the breach of the levee to ease pressure on the river. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster filed an application for an injunction to the high court on...
  • Roberts, Alito leave imprint on rulings--Each is conservative mainstay

    03/29/2011 7:56:06 PM PDT · by jazusamo · 5 replies
    The Washington Times ^ | March 29, 2011 | Ben Conery
    During their five-plus years on the bench, the Supreme Court nominees of President George W. Bush have begun making their marks in cases involving gun rights, freedom of speech and campaign finance. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. have settled into roles as mainstays of the high court’s conservative wing and frequently find themselves in agreement on legal issues, much to the delight of conservative commentators and observers and the chagrin of their liberal counterparts. “Justices Roberts and Alito favor an incremental approach to the development of the law,” said Robert Hume, a political...
  • The liberal campaign against SCOTUS conservatives

    03/07/2011 7:58:32 AM PST · by Sub-Driver · 16 replies
    The liberal campaign against SCOTUS conservatives By: Kenneth P. Vogel March 7, 2011 04:43 AM EST Still reeling from a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to an explosion of political ads from corporate interests, and fearful the court could overturn President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, liberal groups have launched an aggressive – and at times personal – attack on the court’s most conservative justices. The sharp questioning of the impartiality and ethics of Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and to a lesser extent Samuel Alito represents the most concerted attack on a bloc of justices since the...
  • Dissenting Justice: Westboro Ruling Goes Too Far

    03/02/2011 3:31:45 PM PST · by Eleutheria5 · 40 replies
    AOL News ^ | 2/3/11 | Joseph Schuman
    Where should the nation draw the line on free speech? For Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the defense of First Amendment rights expressed by today's majority ruling in the Westboro Baptist Church case goes too far. The 8-1 decision found that the fringe church's hate-filled picketing at the funeral of a Marine corporal killed in Iraq qualified as public discourse protected by the First Amendment. Church members claim soldiers' deaths are God's punishment for U.S. tolerance of homosexuality. Dissenting Justice Slams 'Brutalization of Innocent Victims' Kris Connor, Getty Images Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in...
  • High court rules for military funeral protesters (Westboro Nuts Win 8-1!?)

    03/02/2011 7:27:39 AM PST · by Pyro7480 · 148 replies
    AP ^ | 03/02/2011 | n/a
    <p>The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.</p>
  • Supreme Court watchers: Roberts, Alito no sure bets against health-care mandate

    02/14/2011 6:18:40 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 40 replies
    Washington Post ^ | 02/14/2011 | Robert Barnes
    If you are handicapping whether the Supreme Court is going to find the nation's health-care law constitutional, you have a few options. You can go old school, citing the great arc of decisions that began in 1819 in which the court has built upon one precedent after another to say the Constitution gives Congress great powers to conduct the nation's business. You can go modern era to cite the instances in the last two decades where the court put on the brakes. It said the Commerce Clause did not give federal lawmakers the power to regulate whatever they wanted. Or...
  • Justice Samuel Alito skips State of the Union [Six of nine will attend]

    01/25/2011 9:22:07 AM PST · by Hawk720 · 21 replies
    Politico ^ | January 25, 2011 | Meredith Shiner
    Six out of nine members of the Supreme Court will attend Tuesday night’s State of the Union, just one year after President Barack Obama openly chided the court for its Citizen’s United decision on campaign finance in the annual address. The court did not make available the names of the justices who will attend, but Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. has a speaking engagement at the University of Hawaii law school, whose website is currently running an “Aloha Alito” slide show on its homepage. Alito was at the center of the awkward and unusual 2010 exchange with the president during last...
  • Supreme Court Justice Alito Plans To Skip Next State of the Union Address (Note the Date)

    01/24/2011 9:41:04 AM PST · by truthkeeper · 30 replies
    Associated Press ^ | October 16, 2010 | Associated Press
    When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president's next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them. The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political and awkward for the justices, who he says are expected to sit "like the proverbial potted plant." Of course, Alito did not remain impassive at the most recent State of the Union speech by President Barack Obama. He reacted to Obama's unusual rebuke of the court for its decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his...
  • Roberts, Alito face tough choice on whether to attend State of the Union

    01/21/2011 1:00:19 PM PST · by markomalley · 46 replies
    The Hill ^ | 1/21/11 | Michael M Gleason
    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito face a difficult choice on whether to attend President Obama’s State of the Union address next week. Alito and Roberts, who were both nominated by former President George W. Bush in 2005, have never missed a State of the Union address since joining the high court. Alito found himself in headlines last year after cameras caught him disagreeing with one of Obama's assertions on campaign finance reform. After that flap, both justices last year strongly criticized the tradition of having members of the Supreme Court attend the politically charged address. Alito went as...
  • The Tucson Shooting: a Reminder to Arm Yourself

    01/12/2011 6:32:25 AM PST · by Kaslin · 59 replies
    Pajamas Media ^ | January 12, 2011 | AWR Hawkins
    When Jared Loughner opened fire in Tucson on January 8, six people were killed and fourteen injured. No matter where you were sitting, as the 24-hour news carried the details of the story, the world seemed almost to stop spinning. The raw evil of what Loughner had done was simply too great for decent, law abiding citizens to comprehend. Sadly, it didnÂ’t take long for various talking heads on the left to see the shooting as just another crisis that could be used to further their agenda: tightening gun control, besmearing the Tea Party, and destroying Sarah Palin. For instance,...
  • Alito and Ethics (Is it legal for a Justice to attend political fundraisers?)

    11/12/2010 6:33:45 AM PST · by Ready4Freddy · 13 replies
    Constitutional Law Prof Blog ^ | Nov 11, 2010 | Ruthann Robson
    Is it legal for a Justice of the United States Supreme Court to attend political fundraisers? That's the query posed by Lee Fang, a reporter at Think Progress, to Justice Samuel Alito at the American Spectator fundraiser, which Alito reportedly "headlined" in 2008. Fang at Think Progress describes The American Spectator as a "right wing magazine" that was behind the attempts to impeach Bill Clinton, that its publisher leads the “Conservative Action Project,” formed after President Obama’s election, to help lobby for conservative legislative priorities, elect Republicans and block President Obama’s judicial appointments. The keynote speaker at last evening's event...
  • Alito Has Had Enough Of The Obama Bully Pulpit!

    10/22/2010 6:24:14 AM PDT · by Brittany Pounders · 4 replies ^ | October 22, 2010 | Brittany Pounders
    If the latest news coming out of the Supreme Court is any indication, President Obama needs a quick lesson on how to win friends or it won’t be long before it is only him and his teleprompter at the next State of the Union address. This week, Justice Samuel Alito, a man that I will admit that I fell slightly in love with during the last State of the Union, declared that he would most likely not be attending the next State of the Union due to political awkwardness. If you are one of the few that didn’t tune in...
  • Justice Alito will be a no-show for Obama’s next State of Union

    10/18/2010 4:36:17 PM PDT · by kingattax · 25 replies
    The Salt Lake Tribune/AP ^ | 10-16-10 | MARK SHERMAN
    When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president’s next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them. The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political and awkward for the justices, who he says are expected to sit “like the proverbial potted plant.” Of course, Alito did not remain impassive at the most recent State of the Union speech by President Barack Obama. He reacted to Obama’s unusual rebuke of the court for its decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his...
  • Justice Alito will be a no-show for Obama’s next State of Union

    10/16/2010 8:48:12 PM PDT · by Nachum · 34 replies · 1+ views
    Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 10/16/10 | Mark Sherman
    When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president’s next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them. The justice said the annual speech to Congress has become very political and awkward for the justices, who he says are expected to sit “like the proverbial potted plant.”
  • Supreme Court Justice Alito Plans to Skip Next State of Union Address

    10/16/2010 10:47:00 AM PDT · by ColdOne · 41 replies ^ | October 16, 2010 | AP
    When Supreme Court justices enter the House of Representatives in their black robes for the president's next State of the Union address, Samuel Alito does not plan to be among them.
  • Alito Won’t Attend Next State of the Union

    10/14/2010 8:48:16 AM PDT · by maddog55 · 34 replies
    NewsMax ^ | Thursday, 14 Oct 2010 09:51 AM | By: Theodore Kettle
    Asked if he would attend the State of the Union address next year, after the TV cameras this year caught him objecting to President Obama’s denigration of the country’s highest court, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said, “I doubt that I will be there in January.” Delivering the Manhattan Institute’s prestigious Wriston Lecture on Wednesday evening, Alito noted that other justices, like the recently retired John Paul Stevens and current Justice Antonin Scalia “stopped the practice of attending State of the Union addresses, because they have become very political.” Attendees of the black tie event in New York City told...
  • A Bull's-Eye For The Supreme Court

    06/28/2010 5:16:43 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 26 replies · 1+ views
    IBD Editorials ^ | June 28, 2010 | Investors Business Daily staff
    Second Amendment: In the "living Constitution" era, the Supreme Court rediscovers original intent and rightly rules that the right to bear arms applies to all Americans just as the rest of the Bill of Rights does. It's hard to conceive how the justices could have decided otherwise. But by the narrowest of margins — 5-4 — they have reaffirmed that keeping and bearing arms is an inalienable and individual right like speech and religion, and that it applies to all individuals as the Founding Fathers intended. Why anyone thinks the Second Amendment does not apply to all Americans is a...
  • Kelo Court vs. 2010 Supremes: A Vast Improvement -- for now [vanity]

    04/24/2010 11:30:13 AM PDT · by Arthur Wildfire! March · 5 replies · 342+ views
    During 0-bama's State of Disunion, he used his congress-rats to help gang up on the Supreme Court. Alito was flailed for mouthing "not true". It was an ugly day for us conservatives, and it was also a confusing day for at least one former leftist, a friend of mine who had turned from being a Hillary supporter to a Ron Paul supporter. [A way yet to go, I admit -- but excellent headway for a 2nd generation yellow-dog.] But 0 did manage to confuse him. Our 'evil' supreme court now schemes to "allow funnelling of foreign money". He's now completely...
  • Supreme Court voids law aimed at banning animal cruelty videos

    04/20/2010 8:41:25 AM PDT · by JoeProBono · 13 replies · 573+ views
    washingtonpost ^ | April 20, 2010 | Robert Barnes
    The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech. Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.
  • Controversial Judicial Nominee Tells Committee He Will Work to Earn Its Trust

    04/16/2010 1:16:59 PM PDT · by Blood of Tyrants · 12 replies · 515+ views
    Foxnews ^ | 4/16/10 | Trish Turner
    A controversial nominee for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals apologized Friday for sending Senate Judiciary Committee members an incomplete portfolio about himself and said he'd do whatever he could to win the committee's trust. Republican senators called into question Goodwin Liu's temperament as a possible judge, blasting the controversial 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee during his confirmation hearing Friday over statements he made about Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito's "vision of America." At the time of Judge Alito's confirmation process Liu was quoted as saying that "in Judge Alito's America, the police may shoot unarmed Americans ... the...
  • Obama Supported Filibuster of Alito

    04/12/2010 4:47:05 PM PDT · by Nachum · 7 replies · 426+ views
    Human Events ^ | 4/12/10 | Connie Hair
    U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement last week providing President Obama with his second opportunity to put another liberal on the highest court in the land. When Obama says his nominee will be “someone who, like Justice Stevens, knows that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” don’t forget it was liberals Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer who decided against the property rights of “ordinary citizens” in Kelo vs. City of New London. The Court led by its liberal wing said the City of New...
  • Justice Alito Dissents

    02/06/2010 10:13:10 AM PST · by jazusamo · 16 replies · 827+ views
    The American Thinker ^ | February 6, 2010 | Jan LaRue
    It's a good bet that the conversation in the Supreme Court break room the morning after the president's State of the Union speech was about Obama's drive-by distortion of its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Predictably, the spin at The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune was "Alito Disparages Obama's Supreme Court Criticism." Where else but in the Bizarro World of Obama's branch offices at the Post, Trib, and MS-NBC could we find such a polar opposite version of "reality"? Like their champion, these media corporations are extremely vexed that the Court leveled the playing field for all corporations and...
  • WashPo's Dionne Indicts Alito For Shaking His Head As Obama Lies During SOTU Address

    02/03/2010 6:27:31 PM PST · by JLWORK · 10 replies · 602+ views
    David Horowitz's ^ | February 3, 2010 | John L. Work
    I have a bone to pick with E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. Dionne recently published an opinion column in the Washington Post, criticizing Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito’s reaction to President Obama’s State Of The Union rebuke. Alito shaking his head back and forth and mouthing the words “not true” showed, according to Dionne, an “inability to restrain himself.” Dionne claims that Alito’s reaction demonstrates that the Court is run by a “highly politicized conservative majority”. Further, he cites an anti-abortion editorial published and written in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan as a precedent that validates Obama coming down...
  • Wilson and Alito: Outcasts

    02/03/2010 11:59:22 AM PST · by csd · 11 replies · 619+ views
    Liberty and Pride ^ | February 3, 2010 | CSD
    I’m sure you all remember South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, and his infamous outburst during Obama’s health care address to congress. During the address Wilson loudly shouted “you lie,” after Obama denied that the proposed health care legislation would provide coverage to illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. Which was, in fact, a lie.
  • God Save the US and Our Courts

    02/01/2010 10:54:45 PM PST · by thedailyjabber · 2 replies · 468+ views
    The Daily Jabber ^ | 2-1-10 | Chuck Norris
    While the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts are preparing to go head-to-head in Super Bowl XLIV at Sun Life Stadium in Miami, U.S. justices and even our president are squaring off in arenas of jurisprudence from sea to shining sea. Here are just a few recent examples: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shook his head in dismay and mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama rebutted the entire Supreme Court in the justices’ presence and before the whole nation during his State of the Union speech. The president alleged that the court “reversed a century...
  • Judging Bam's Supreme slam

    02/01/2010 3:33:44 AM PST · by Scanian · 23 replies · 1,428+ views
    NY Post ^ | February 01, 2010 | Editorial
    Senate Democrats, taking a cue from President Obama, are ripping into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for his understandable (and understated) display of disagreement with the president's misrepresentation of a recent court decision. During last week's State of the Union Address, recall, Obama launched into an unpresidential attack on the court's upending of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act. Obama incorrectly claimed the ruling -- in which Alito joined the 5-4 majority -- would permit foreign corporate campaign contributions in US elections.
  • Senator Calls for Censure of Supreme Court Justice (Satire)

    01/31/2010 1:52:27 PM PST · by John Semmens · 37 replies · 1,555+ views
    A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 30 January 2010 | John Semmens
    Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called for a sharp rebuke of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s behavior at the “State of the Union” address given by President Barack Obama. During the President’s remarks characterizing a recent Supreme Court decision as a threat to democracy, Justice Alito was observed to be shaking his head and silently mouthing the words “not true.” “President Obama is the one who was elected by the people to rule this country,” Feingold said. “Obstructing the governance of this country through bad judicial decisions or by letting himself be seen publicly disagreeing with the president is the type...
  • Axelrod: No House outburst to Obama speech unusual

    01/31/2010 11:56:06 AM PST · by reaganaut1 · 30 replies · 1,642+ views
    Associated Press ^ | January 31, 2010
    A top White House adviser says it's gotten to the point where almost any unusual reaction or outburst to a speech by President Barack Obama in the House chamber isn't really that unusual. Obama aide David Axelrod was talking about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's reaction to Obama's State of the Union address last week. The justice made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true" when Obama criticized the high court over a campaign finance ruling. Axelrod says that "in this weird political season, we have become...
  • Axelrod: No House outburst to Obama speech unusual

    01/31/2010 11:40:14 AM PST · by reaganaut1 · 17 replies · 655+ views
    Washington Post-AP ^ | January 31, 2010 | Staff
    <p>A top White House adviser says it's gotten to the point where almost any unusual reaction or outburst to a speech by President Barack Obama in the House chamber isn't really that unusual.</p> <p>Obama aide David Axelrod was talking about Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's reaction to Obama's State of the Union address last week.</p>
  • CBS: You know, Alito was right

    01/29/2010 3:32:43 PM PST · by RobinMasters · 17 replies · 1,391+ views
    Hot Air ^ | January 27, 2010 | ED MORRISSEY
    CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford doesn’t go quite that far, but she gets pretty close when she admits at the end that Barack Obama “overstated” the impact of Citizens United v FEC. Well … yeah. Katie Couric and Crawford mull over the big takeaway moment from the State of the Union speech, focusing far more on the tradition of stoic non-response of Supreme Court justices during SOTU speeches than the tradition of refraining from attacking the justices in the speech itself. Even at that, Couric notes that this is the most brazen attack by a President against the Court since...
  • Judging Alito – Obama’s Ultimate Arrogance

    01/29/2010 8:52:32 AM PST · by usflagwaver · 13 replies · 977+ views ^ | 1/28/10 | Thomas G. Del Beccaro
    President Obama’s State of the Union obviously was a first in more than one way. Obama point blank, called out (to use the modern vernacular) our Supreme Court Justices on national TV. He did so because he politically disagreed with their legal decision. In doing so, Obama demonstrated his supreme arrogance – and let America know just how far he is willing to go to get his way.
  • B. Insane Obama!

    01/29/2010 6:59:26 AM PST · by Patriot1259 · 1 replies · 364+ views ^ | 01/29/2010 | Bill Turner
    The Liar in Chief showed his arrogance by chastising the Senate for defeating his bill to spend more money, to create a commission on government spending, that won’t even start until 2011 and has no teeth. Congress controls spending, taxing and the deficit. That whole “Constitution” thing just keeps getting in the way. The Tony Soprano moment of the speech came when he said he would issue an executive order to circumvent the legislative leg of the peoples government. Last night the man-child president showed his fangs multiple times and it was ugly. He insists on forcing health care on...
  • Supreme Court Gets a Rare Rebuke, in Front of a Nation (barf alert)

    01/29/2010 6:24:04 AM PST · by reaganaut1 · 39 replies · 1,057+ views
    New York Times ^ | January 28, 2010 | Adam Liptak
    It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces. President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer. President...
  • 'Not true' sums it up: Mis-statements of the Union

    01/29/2010 3:18:03 AM PST · by Scanian · 12 replies · 1,231+ views
    NY Post ^ | January 29, 2010 | Rich Lowry
    Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito let a pained expression cross his face and muttered, "Not true." He was reacting to President Obama's description of the high court's ruling in the Citizens United case, and he was entirely right. But the words aptly sum up the entire State of the Union Address. In a demogogic bid to score populist points, Obama claimed that the decision striking down restrictions on corporate spending opened "the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections." In fact, the justices explicitly left untouched a statute that bans election...
  • Obama Holds Supreme Court Up To World-Wide Ridicule

    01/28/2010 4:59:12 PM PST · by JLWORK · 47 replies · 1,756+ views
    David Horowitz's ^ | January 28, 2010 | John L. Work
    I popped off with a wise crack one day during a classroom lecture in seventh grade. The year was 1959. I don’t even remember what I said now, but several of my classmates laughed aloud. Instead of telling me to stop by his desk for a little chat following dismissal, the teacher had me stand and hold a stack of books in each hand, arms fully extended from my sides. When I was in what he thought was enough pain and embarrassment for my transgression I was allowed to sit down. I recall feeling shame beyond words as my classmates...