Mike-1535210 is exactly correct. This was a classic example of "judicial activism" by the SCOTUS -- and had the shoe been on the other foot, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder. Bottom line is that the GOP and the Democrats have become so acrimonious toward one another that the general public can't take criticism of one party by or against the other party at face value any more. Both parties and their talking heads are so self-serving and disengenuous that all one can do is research the issues independently. Unfortunately, too few have the time for that.

The sad part is that GWB's appointees are such obvious, transparent partisan hacks. Roberts was smirking through a lot of the speech as well, but Scalito's snide little comment was beneath even the tattered dignity of this Court. It's a sad day when the blind and hateful partisan polarization fostered by the right wing is apparent on the Supreme Court.

President Obama had a duty to identify this decision in his address. The "Union" includes all 3 branches of its government, and the President is bound to comment honestly on the state of the Union when the appointed time comes. Just because they wear robes does not immunize them from comment when their actions affect the Union.

Mike is correct on all points. I'd add that we have now returned to an era where we must rely on data derived from experiences within our own local sphere. When it comes to media driven information...believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Reengage in fact finding and fact checking activities among your family and closest friends.

Mike, Skiddy,

Guys let us not miss the real point here. There are no liberals or conservatives, no reds or blues...there is only we the American Voter. Do not allow the politrixters and their media bedfellows to turn us against one another without first using our own power of reasoning.

In the final analysis there are only the haves and the havenots. Some of us consider ourselves haves when in fact we are literally 3-6 months removed from financial ruin.

Lifetime appointments to our highest courts should be abolished so the judicial members who make such decisions are allowed to be personally impacted by their decisions. As it stands...you and I are the only ones either blessed or condemned by their decisions.

When it comes to Corporate America, you must understand that an LLC is worlds apart from a Multinational Corporation and the damage that may be done is exponential given free reign to buy our lawmakers.

If this goes unchallenged by Congress. Foreign governments with the money will be controlling our elections. Remember that our corporations are now multi-national

Wasn't one of the factors that got this to SCOTUS the Hillary movie? So essentially President Obama is advocating that the campaigning afforded Hillary through Hollywood means should not be allowed?

Unfortunately, roughly 5i% of all Americans are congenitally cognitively challenged (stupid) and as a consequence easily manipulated and as a whole down right ignorant! By the time the corporations, multinationals (many off shore or foreign based) and monopolies have their way with now unfettered influence in our elections - most of these people will think it is both healthy and natural to live above a smoke stack and pay hundreds of dollars a month to privatized water utilities. God help us - the ascent of FOX news has only just begun!

What evidence? The law had been in effect for 100 years and the court said it did not agree with Congress. Obama did not have anything to do with the courts decision he was just expressing the thoughts of Millions and Milions of American citizens.

The court decision will get changed by a new LAW because the American people want to be protected from Corporate Greed. Corporations will spend an obcene amount of money to get someone defeated in the next election.

We need to take back our Representive form of Government.

Just because Supreme Court Justices feel something is right does not make it so. The Supreme Court for many years believed that slavery was okay and made many rulings according to that belief. They also didn't think women should vote. They are not infallible and obviously can be very, very wrong.

The court decision will get changed by a new LAW because the American people want to be protected from Corporate Greed. Corporations will spend an obcene amount of money to get someone defeated in the next election.

I certainly hope so, but I also hope the same parameters apply to Hollywood moguls, news anchors, etc. President Obama had better be careful of what he wishes for because HE is the one with the huge surplus left over in his campaign fund.

Tank,

The actual percentage of Americans who are congenitally cognitively compromised is 14.3% based upon epidemiological studies conducted by the ASCP, 2003. The actual culprits are a combination of immoral media outlets like FOX News and our outdated primary education system.

Your assessment of Multinational Corporations and their intentions is solid and should serve as a warning to all freedom loving citizens who care about their economic and biological wellbeing.

When we combine the numbers, the net result is very near your extrapolation of 51%. That remains a large number of gullible citizens who may act and vote against their own best interests. God help us...we truly need a viable third party.

Fortunately many of the aforementioned citizens don't exervise their voting rights.

Then he should return back to being a simple citizen. Then he can say whatever he wants. But when he seizes the public airwaves to voice his opinion instead of the State of the Nation

Wow. Are you new? The President has a duty to address the nation about the state of the Union - it's not "seizing the airwaves" (bet you didn't call it that when Dubya did it). And are you seriously saying that a ruling granting unlimited campaign spending power to corporations is irrelevant to the state of the nation? Wow. I'd love to see your reasoning for that, but I'm guessing Rush hasn't told you what your reasoning is, yet.

I keep reading about corporate greed and the court decision...blah, blah, blaH!

People have been complaining for decades about corporate influence on elections. Obama had Warren Buffet...corporate influence doesn't get any bigger than that.

Oh and Skiddy, I already pointed out that when Bush, upon starting his second term, realized the economy was in trouble and he attempted to create a new social security bill to protect or lessen the damage to the US economy, Pelosi claimed "there is no crisis" and got all the Dems to shoot it down. Once again, for Skiddy...

...Well here we are Nancy and you and BO can stand there talking about all the money you are going to spend...money America doesn't have, because you chose nearly 5 years ago to do nothing and let the Bush administration take the fall, guaranteeing a Democrat gets voted in. But not just any Democrat, one with ZERO qualifications and questionable relationships with radical African Americans. Just what America needed! What's next, you import Chavez and make it legal for a non-US citizen to run for President? I wouldn't put it past the Democrats.

hikerbiker75

Just because Supreme Court Justices feel something is right does not make it so. The Supreme Court for many years believed that slavery was okay and made many rulings according to that belief. They also didn't think women should vote. They are not infallible and obviously can be very, very wrong.

So we get to pick what decisions we think the SCOTUS is wrong about? How about abortion? How about the death penalty? etc. etc. You're assuming the SCOTUS doesn't think its wrong, but fail to see they are ruling on how they interpret the law as it is currently written. Decisions made by the SCOTUS simply allow Congress/Senate to fine tune or adjust laws that need to be readdressed. Ultimately common sense does prevail.

As for the comment above somewhere about foreign corporations getting a say, that would only be fitting in an ironic way seeing as President Obama did spend a decent amount of time campaigning overseas did he not?

I agree that this was indeed 'judicial activism' as has been much decried by the conservatives before the W appointees. Roberts seems to be taking the court into the realm of politics and idealogy. Some of the Associates have already been there. But, Rehnquist always tried to keep the court based on established judicial approaches. The conservatives have always had their "constitution in exile" perspective. That there should be strict interpretations of the constitution and if the populace doesn't think that the constitution doesn't apply in the modern world it should be amended. To me that simply isn't practical. However, in this recent "Free Speech" decision it seemed like this was the rationale. It seemed more idealogical or poltical. And, that opens them up to taking political shots by my book.

boy what planet do you live on- a little research will tell you about dubyas intentions. im not a bill clinton fan but the budget was not only balanced but the country had a surplus which dubya quickly spent. two trumped up wars with third world countries and a lot of unnecessary deaths later our economy was garbage.these wars were a deliberate attempt to allow the corporations to grab oil that did not belong to them- reference hamid karzai as vp of unocal now as president of a shepherds paradise he has allowed opium to flow freely into this country. did you miss the news conference bush gave where the lady from the toronto evening star surprised him by asking why he did not allow the army rangers to burn the opium fields? dubya responded with his stupid look by saying well they are farmers and they have to grow something. for 30 yrs we were told to teach our kids to just say no to drugs and heres our fearless leader saying that its ok to grow opium. i remember when your hero was still a candidate and publicly said that he would rather be the baseball commissioner than the president. when asked he admitted to having been an alchoholic for 37yrs and that he was washed out of the air national guard as an f4 pilot because of his drinking. in 8 yrs he bankrupted this country and caused more damage to the middle class working man than the great depression. our jobs have been sent to mexico, india and china and the homeless families have increased 100 fold at least. i think that the supreme court should be told that their wages now are slashed by 40% and that only three judges are needed so the others are laid off. republican old boys in the congress should be replaced by chinese and indian legislators because they will work for 30,000.00 a year and no benefits. How long before the american people say enough- take a hike. the constitution should read we the sheeple. next election everyone should remember that obama wanted to help americans 1st, as for 1 time president i doubt it. the republicans offer no solutions to the mess they created only rhetoric as was evidenced by their mouthpiece in their reply. they chose a govenor who proposed no solutions or answers, stated no long term goals whatsoever- they proably could not find a senator willing to embarass himself.

tom judd:

You know this "dubya" crap is for preteens. I despise this socialistic lying individual's policies. You're bringing up former President Bush while living - and hopefully surviving the absolute abject lies and duplicity of an administration that has gone farther to anger the American people than any president in my lifetime. While I despise the man's policy, his appointment of highly controversial individuals as czars - one is the adoring subject of a now dead pedophile who wore a dress; his abject lies about "transparency", he is still President Obama.

The fact that the office deserves respect makes me ashamed that I have been derelict in addressing the president as such, but this "Dubya" crap is ridiculous. President Bush will be blamed for the next however long President Obama is in office. He has never accepted responsibility for anything:

Healthcare, Gitmo, losing Poland as an ally after numerous years of being our friend, the czars, healthcare meetings in secrecy, taxing previously untaxed "cafeteria plan" monies, etc.

When you talk about "sheeple" go look in the mirror. I challenge you to explain how and where these "Transparent" meetings regarding healthcare were held - and when they were aired on C-SPAN. I will eagerly await your reply about the healthcare

[Dubya] will be blamed for the next however long President Obama is in office. He has never accepted responsibility for anything

That is true. Dubya, unlike President Obama, has never accepted responsibility for anything.

Had Dubya been duly elected, he would be due the honor of a title.

No Birth Certificate on BO............is he a US citizen????

If you applaud President Obama's actions, then you are a fool. In essence, you are enabling one branch of the government, the Executive-(President) to berate the actions of another branch publically. This undermines the very foundation of our nation. If President Obama disagreed with the ruling, there were legitimate avenues for him ot address the issue. The State of the Union Address was not the forum for voicing personal opinions. Period!

What President Obama needs to understand is he is not above the law or Constitution. He is not our dictator and doesn't get to call all the shots.

Most of all, he is NOT Jesus Christ, he is not our savior, he cannot walk on water. Our Demi-God, President Barack Obama needs to come down off the cross, others in his party need the wood!

tom judd - a little research will tell you about dubyas intentions. im not a bill clinton fan but the budget was not only balanced but the country had a surplus which dubya quickly spent.

It appears you forgot to do a little research about the Clinton / Republican Congress surplus myth. Clinton / Republican Congress did not have a surplus any year. The National Debt went up every year Clinton was in office, therefore there was no surplus.

Check out http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np The government's fiscal year ends at the end of September. Clinton's last budget started October 2000 and ended September 2001. National Debt end of September 2000 was $5.67 trillion; end of September 2001 was $5.80 trillion. This $130billion difference is called a deficit. If the difference was $ zero, that would be called a balanced budget and if the National Debt was less at the end of September 2001, Clinton / Republicans could claim a surplus.

"Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

However, there was one year that the budget was almost balanced...Clinton / Republican Congress next to last budget year only had a deficit of $17.9 billion...the closest budget to being balanced since Ford.

Totally Inappropriate for Obama to make such a remark considering it is obvious that his opinion is not that of the majority of the taxpayers. It is also not appropriate for the news media to emphasis Alito's expression when there were others on the Supreme Court who also reacted if not quite as obviously. His own appointment had an odd expression on her face as well and at least 2 others.

Bill - I would like to make one comment about HOW Clinton closed his budget that one year with "almost balanced" and that would be that he closed 14 military bases in the US to do it and denies it to this day! Those bases stand empty even now.

Does anyone think if a big corporation offers Obama or his cronies a tidy sum to support them, they won't take it? HA! They'll take it so fast th guy handing them the check will have to be fast taking his hand back before they break it off snatching the chek!

The SOTU is not the place to chastise and run Congress/Senate down in any way, shape or form. It is also highly disrespectful to treat the Supreme Court members as if they were children that he was scolding...such disrespect will not go un-noticed by we, the voting audience! He was way out of line as he usually is.

For some reason he seems to think that Americans, including the above, need to always be ran down in some manner. He is an embarrassment to us nationally and internationally. He never was a full prof from what you read, nevertheless, whether he is or isn't, he was not on the campaign trail (although this is how he came to be thought of), nor are we in a classroom forced to listen to him insincere and dishonest rhetoric. More and more, I do believe he bought his grades...dissect this speech and you will see the sham for what it is....trying to appease the voters while he knows we Americans can and will see right through this piece of garbage that he delivered.

He cannot take criticism...that is immature; with his personality and lack of experience in any field other than Chicago thuggery as an organizer, he should not be holding this job..he is not qualified for it in the whole circle of what we need.

He is narcissistic and a very capable liar; it is our duty as Americans to stay one step ahead of him to take our nation back.

On another note kind of...Rosie and her negative view...perhaps she should have checked her facts, consulted You Tube or whatever before she condemned the Bush administration on Katrina.....she lies too!

President Obama's remarks were absolutely appropriate and timely.

When the Justices hand down a ruling that is far outside the scope of the case they were asked to hear, and that ruling threatens our democratic process, then who else is going to speak up to the Court and bring light to the fact that they made a politically driven activist decision?

This is a perfect example of why the Supreme Court should NOT be a lifelong appointment.

There are legal provisions that say, Corporations cannot donate to a candidate; like most laws, there are ways around to do so; if you have not figured that out, then take time and think it out.

Mom said I would be a good criminal for they are always one step ahead of the law until caught....thus, this plays out here too.

Actually our Harvard Law Professor/POTUS needs a refresher course in the Constitution. He is head of the "Executive" branch of the Government. It is not his place to pass judgment on nor attempt to control the "Judicial" branch of the government. His words much like his presidency, are empty as he has no authority over the U.S. Supreme Court anymore than he has authority over the "Legislative" branch of the government, Congress.

His commission to study ways to cut spending form the federal budget was nothing more than a play to the people because he knew that is what people want to hear now. His fact finding committee can find all the ways to cut spending they want and Congress can ignore him and his committee and there is nothing he can do but talk.

Ford is a prime example of what a private company can do without unnecessary government intervention. Ford showed a profit and did it without help from the federal government. Chrysler and especially GM lost money and will need yet another bailout to stay solvent. Here we have Obama and his pay Czar telling them who they can hire as executives to run the respective companies and what they can and can not pay them. So far that experiment is a complete failure. Good old American Free Enterprise is once again coming back from the verge of failure just like it has so many times in the past and in Ford's case without intervention from the Obama Administration. Back in the 1980s Chrysler was in financial trouble and borrowed money from the federal government. They hired Lee Iaccoca at and he lead the company to profit and paid the loan back and all without anyone in the federal government telling Chrysler what they could pay him or for that matter if they could even hire him. Once again good old American Free Enterprise allowed to work as it has for many, many years and will once again work if we can get the Obama Administration's hands off of it.

I'm not sure he has ever provided his real birth certificate. I believe he is of some form of arab descent. Sorry, just my opinion.

You must believe everything you hear. Yes, he is American and a great one! If your that interested why don't you Google it, I'm sure it's posted.

President Bush will be blamed for the next however long President Obama is in office. He has never accepted responsibility for anything:

Neither has Bush or the people in his administration. Remember when the reason for invading Iraq switched in one of his State of the Union speeches from finding WMDs to "We have liberated the Iraqi people"? Remember Coni saying they had no clue anything resembling 9/11 could happen while acknowledging the memo they didn't read mentioned AlQuaeda planning an imminent attack? They went so far as to ignore the content of their own statements, sometimes in the same session of congressional hearings!

Its interesting how Bill Clinton balanced the defecit, how much military information he sold to the china and india. how did the china's people get the rocket into the space and how about spy satellites. took american,s people lots of year for engineer on trail and mistake,china did it two years and with no error. He was the best body to the China up to this date.

How can so many commentors have NO clue about the role of the Supreme Court? The interpret application of the Constitution. Their feelings are irrelevant to that process. Obama can have his opinions, but to so blatantly mislead the American public with his statement about that Court decision is beyond the pale. Just because Obama said it, doesn't make it factually correct. POTUS is supposed to lead the entire country, not just those who have a similar philosophy to his own. Where was his bi-partisanship? Where was any leadership displayed? Obama's inexperience, especially lack of executive experience, is not helping this country one iota. "Sticking to his guns" on his sinking ship isn't politically astute either. The American people have made it quite clear they do not agree with the direction he is trying to take the country. So, in his naivete, he is now trying to strike out at "Washington" as though he's not a part of it. Clueless, utterly clueless is he.

The issue with Justice Alito is that Obama made a statement as fact that the ruling would allow (more) influence by foreign corporations and that is not true. That law has not changed and Obama should have known it before quoting from the teleprompter. Justice Alito was simply stating fact, Obama either miss spoke, lied or was simply ignorant of the facts in the case.

Hey idiots" a over seas corporation still cannot donate directly to a candidate's election and has been law and is law by the constitution. The justices decision affirms that a corporation can buy air time to promote a condidate or view! That is part of the first amendment freedom of speach. The one that Obama and the progressives try getting around constantly to silence the truth! Why don't you idiots quit watching the Obama spin media and find out the real truth on FOXnews!

Note to self....the next time I try to intimidate the Supreme Court, don't do it in front of millions of people on TV.......Barry

ohiogran

try this

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Unfortunate for you that your assertions dont match up with the facts. The President is indeed a lawfully born US citizen. If fact, he was the only that was born in the country. John McCain, while a US citizen, was born in a foreign country, ie. Panama. Guess you missed that one huh?

And where was the outcry when GWB, Reagan, GHW Bush, critized SCOTUS for ROE V. WADE?

Dave

Unfortunately Obama basically lied about the effect the overturn would have. The other Presidents didn't have to lie.

Once upon a time the court rendered opinions according to the law/constitution. Partisan politics changed not only the make up of the court, but replaced law with political ideology. The court now renders opinions according to political philosophy; not constitutional philosophy! The republicans want to buy Congress and the White House so the court appeases the ideology of the republicans! If President Obama manages to appoint enough JUSTICES then the ideology will move away from republican to democratic! No longer look for justice; look for either republican or democratic ideology opinions!

Could it be that is their job...interpreting the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, By-Laws and Amendments..that is their job and that is what they did.

Andee,

Interpreting the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights is exactly what they did not do.

The Bill Of Rights expressly states that corporations are not granted the rights of the individual.

IMWatching,

Your Words: "The Bill Of Rights expressly states that corporations are not granted the rights of the individual."

PLEASE point out where the Bill of Rights states anything regarding the difference between corporations or individuals. While I may not agree with corporations being granted rights as individuals, there is plenty of case law that backs them up. Providing false statements, like the one you did above, isn't the way to fix this situation. Being responsible citizens, electing responsible politicians, and being above such fradulant tactics is how we get there.

First Supreme Court case of a Corporation getting Bill of Rights protection. 5th amendment. There have been plenty of cases since.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=147&invol=165

THANKS.

* First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [5][6]

* Third Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

IMWatching... ARE YOU SERIOUS? You said, "The Bill Of Rights expressly states that corporations are not granted the rights of the individual." WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? Are you sure you're reading the UNITED STATES' BILL OF RIGHTS? It;s not there! Corporations are groups of people, and the owners of corporations are allowed to spend money to promote their ideas, whether they are political or not! . Here is what it DOES say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Maybe you ought to actually read the constitution and not listen to liberal talking points. I thought you liberals were the sacred keepers of free speech. Did you know that the govt lawyer tried to argue that they could ban books that say "vote for _____." Banning books! Are you serious?! What kind of liberal are you?!

Ditto!

So do you want corporations which have no heart, no soul, no conscience to have the same rights as a sentient being? They are not even equal to an insect. They are true Frankenstein monsters if we give them this status.

No heart, no soul?! HA! HA! HA! I guess Unions do have a heart and soul, then?!

Oldnewgrad, it's not about "giving corporations rights." The government does not grant rights, they protect them. What was overturned here was the idea that government could LIMIT where you get your information from, and that speech can be controlled by the government as long as it has a "paid for by a corporation" label. That's ridiculous. Most constitutional scholars saw this coming for a long time. It just took someone bringing the suit, and it was inevitable. Why would anyone think it's okay to say, this group of americans can participate in the poltical discussion, but this group can't because they make money?!

Corporations did not even exist when the Bill of Rights was written. The Founders had great vision but not that much.

Jerry.S, you are a idiot" get informed before you spread the brain dead liberal media babble put out by the White House! Obama was plain wrong and the Justices were right. I see it as Obama being a good little socialist dictator trying to silence the truth!

Overseas corporations still cannot donate directly or by proxy to a candidate and that has been law for well over 100 years! The justices decision only affirms that they can buy air time to promote but not finance a candidate!

I can incorporate myself" does that mean my opinion should be silenced being a American? I hardly think so" and anyone that disagrees on that merit with the Justices are ignorant or a socialist!!

Give Me;

In case you've forgotten, your "opinion" was "silenced" by the same institution (SCOTUS) in 2000 when they "decided" that GWB should be your president. As I remember, they didn't have too many people defending them for THAT decision! Turned out to be the beginning of the end for us all.

Steve

What was there 4 recounts and GWB still won every one. The court arguement was that the Libs were trying to supress votes.

So with that argument, when Joe Wilson yelled "you lie", it was the appropriate time...they should do this every time he speaks if they feel that way.

I suppose you thought that Joe Wilson of SC was wrong to shout out "liar" at BHO last speech to a joint session of Congress? What's good for the goose ...........

You can't have it both ways - nor can BHO.

BHO is an embarassment to the office and the American people.

Ben: Wilson was procedurally out of line (and he was also a Reservist addressing his Commander-in-Chief). It was not his turn to talk, and he owed a duty of respect for the President and the forum, which he shirked like the cheap partisan hack he is. Last night was President Obama's turn to talk, and Justice Alito's turn to sit and listen, period. President Obama was making a legitimate and warranted comment bearing directly on the state of the Union, at a time when he was called upon to do so.

President Obama is a good man, doing a good job, and he deserves all of our respect. Alito and Wilson, not so much. I'll keep my comments about you to myself.

Ahhh...Dave in NM,

I and many others proved that BO was not a good man before he even got voted in. But ignorance prevailed and I see you did zero homework on this guy.

I and many others proved that BO was not a good man

No, you didn't.

If divisionists and hate-mongers aren't necessarily a bad thing to you, I can see why you'd have no problem with Wright, Farrakhan, etc.

If rackeeting slumlords are ok with you, I can see why you'd have no problem with the now imprisoned Rezko; the guy that sold President Obama the land next to his house for far below market value.

If you have no problem with a domestic terrorist that bombs the Pentagon, a police station, etc. I can see why you'd have no problem with his associations with Ayers. Ayers launched his senate campaign by having a dinner at his home; the home he shares with the lovely Bernardine Dohrn, who laughed when she found out that Charles Manson's minions murdered Sharon Tate, ate dinner at her table with her body lying there; then stuck a fork in her. Lovely people......

If you have no problem with a senator who was in office for 3 years - and had a whopping voting record in the upper 20 percentages, then it must be fine with you at his inexperience.

If you have no problem with a president who stands on the platform of "Transparency", then has a hotline set up in the White House for people that spread "misinformation" about the healthcare bill (HR3200 - now defunct; and it was HORRIBLE), then you're ok with neighbor tattling on neighbor - over healthcare discussion.

If you have no problem with a president who says the healthcare meetings will be aired on CSPAN, and they are NOT - which makes him liar) then perhaps lying is fine with you.

If you have no problems with the tax money bribing of Mary Landrieu of LA ($300,000,000) for her vote....If you have no problems with the "gifting" of an Agricultural seat for Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (we won't forget come November, Blanche 0: ).....If you have no problems with the extortion of Nelson in Nebraska, then I guess the behavior which would have landed anyone else in the private sector of business in jail, but not the president, then I guess morals must just not mean very much to you. OK.

There was every evidence before the election; and there's been more evidence since the election.

An inexperienced thug holds the highest office in this nation. You chose not to see.

Actually, he is pissed off because it put all those under-the-table donations right out in the open so that the Taxpayers know where that money came from. These big corporations and entities have always given that money but they have done it in a secretive way which the candidates like as the taxpayers don't know that those are the people backing the candidate.

UAW gave 97% of its donation to Obama as did AT&T. Yet a lot of people don't know that.

Thugs, pimps and murderers have run this country since it's beginning. It's funny how everyone has an opinion now. This is supposed to be a country of equal opportunity. It's time for someone of a different flavor to be a thug. It's a funny feeling when someone of a different persuasion makes decisions for you. Just think it's only been a year, not two or three hundred. Lord, lord. lord. Help us!

Tyler,

Please take some action to stop the bigoted lies of people like arslp, unless you wish to see your website slide even further into complete disrespect. Legitimate arguing is being replace on this site by abject distortion and hate mongering! If this doesn't change you will lose the interest of all reasonable web users. I can't help wondering why MSN allows this to go on.

arslp,

YOU LIE!

BTW, how long did it take you to make all of that up?

What did he say that was not factual?

Nymkosis, Obama had no place calling out the Justices like that. Obama was totaly wrong unless you view things through his Socialist eyes or a brain dead koolaid drinkers eyes! When are you idiot left' going to see Obama for what he really is? Just amazing the ignorance!

Demlefty" wake up you idiot" everything "arslp" stated is the truth! But that is only the tip of the Man Made Global Warming Lie Iceberg! Get off the koolaid and smell the coffee fool" Obama's damn lies don't defend the constitution or the bill of rights or freedom and this country! I fail to see how anyone can put so much faith in a government that lies and purposely passes laws to kill jobs and grow's government? Some day you Lib's will be full of shame and regret if Obama succeeds with the socialist transformation of this country! fool's!!!!

IMWatching:

Yours is not a very compelling and well-thought out response....So, how about you take my statements apart, and tell me what is a lie?

Rezko:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8

Wright:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk3LXvVlsI4

Obama's transparency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6iyqpo36c

Now, IMWatching, perhaps you should LISTEN as well as watch. So, what is there in my post above that is a lie?

The balance of power written in the constitution doesn't exist? I guess you just misspelled BUSH. For eight years he not only ignored that balance of power, he did an end around to make sure King Dubya wasn't affected by it at all. Republicans have the shortest memories of all the political liars.

The balance of power in the Constitution does exist. It is not practiced.

Whos ControllingYou --- For the record I didn't give a rat's a$$ about Bush either. And keep drinking the kool-aid its its doing wonders for the country

There we go with the use of socialist as if it's a dirty word. It isn't in and of itself and it isn't the political philosophy that Obama practices. He is a centrist by nature and a political pragmatist. He is in a position of balancing a broad coalition of interests. Both, within his own party and with others who he needs to get anything done. The use of socialist in this context is inaccurate at best. It seems to be used a lot in here as a method of saying. 'it doesn't really much matter what this guy does, I still won't like it'. I'll refrain from bringing up Fox News standard talking points... If you want to use the word socialist, please look it up.

David: By definition the POTUS can use the Bully Pulpit as defined at anytime to make a comment (popular or not) during meetings of congress, and by the way Teddy Roosevelt was the President (a Republican) that started the use of commenting or making his opinion known as the President almost 100 years ago. The President was commenting on the decision of the court, not any individual and the actions that do and will have consequences on the State of our Union. Unpopular, perhaps, however well within his rights!

Why shouldn't Obama criticize the Court? Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were not at all shy about how much they disliked Chief Justice John Marshall. I guess it's not okay for a librul to make an opinion public? Yeah right.

Mr. Tetrapoda: Please explain your reason for dubbing the President a socialist. By any definition he is not a socialist. People on the extreme, unthinking right have taken to using the term as as an epithet against anyone they disagree with . This is a clear demonstration of the need for both civility and accuracy in our civil discourse on important issues. Obama is an intelligent, patriotic, sincere young American, who deserves our respect. He has a vision of hope through change in the way we conduct our government. His goal is to serve the American people, by his own frequent testimony.

Snoey, don't get overly upset at those who use the 'S' word as any form of insult. First of all, they don't have a clue what it means. In reality, when they say "socialist", they mean "democratic". And their hatred of democracy is just displayed through their own vocabulary. Secondly, you can see their relative out-of-this-universe political position in their ridiculous use of the word "liberal". They are about the only people on this planet (along with the American corporate-owned media -- can we get the POTUS or SCOTUS to make THEM unconstitutional?) who fail to understand that "liberal" is a centrist, middle-of-the-road political ideology -- dominated by adherence to 18th/19th Century so-called "free-market" economic dogma.

Perhaps the real problem is that Americans don't understand politics in any true global sense, because they are victims of a political system that has only half a spectrum. The US has one political party stretching from center-right to far right, and another party stretching from center-right to (in a few Progressive Caucus hands) center-left. The USA completely lacks a real democratic Left, such as all the more highly developed nations in the world have. I mean even Canada has the NDP for Pete's sake.

Marxist/Socialist is almost the opposite of democratic. The democratic model involves everyone having a say and equal participation. The socialist model is based on control by the elite "for the good of everyone". There are some of us that think we know what we need more than some idiots in Washington. And yes, left wing Democrats seem to prefer the socialist model and seem themselves as members of the elite class who know more than the unwashed but the moderate democrats value their freedom as much as everyone else.

So if a President does not agree with Roe v Wade he should scold the justices? Are we becoming a banana republic? Obama claims to have been a Constitutional Law professor - he knows that the decision was based on law where corporations are treated as individuals. That is why they can be sued along with the offices of the corporartion. The SCOTUS is consistant. Unions cannot directly give money to candidates - but they do provide volunteers, pamphlets to hand out to their members, ads endorsing a candidate - now corps can do the same. So when Obama misrepresents his facts in his State of the Union speech - is it appropriate for a Senator or Congressman to stand up and scold him? There is a place, venue and time. His action was rude and should contempt for the dignity of the court. He has the right to offer his thoughts and comments - but not in a constitutionally required joint session of Congress.

Good thought.

Readbetweenthelines, that was my thought exactly. What if Nixon had scolded the court in 1973 over Roe vs Wade in his state of the union address? The left would have called for his head on a silver platter!

It has been argued that since the POTUS appoints the Justices, then he has the right to "scold" them. First of all, let me say that the POTUS is elected by the people and acts on our behalf. Secondly, would it be appropriate for your boss or HR director to scold you in front of the entire staff or board of directors of your company? Is it acceptable for President Obama to voice his disagreement with the decision? Absolutely! Is it appropriate in this forum? I think NOT! A forum where the Justices would have the televised opportunity for rebuttal and to address the President's statement rather than the American people getting spoon fed half truths & outright propaganda would be much more appropriate. Unfortunately, many Americans will take what they heard last night as "truth" rather than researching the decision for themselves as I've done to uncover the REAL truth.

The President and anyone else has the right to disagree with the Supreme Court. He cannot change their decision, but he can rally Congress to express the will of the people if they absolutely reject the change in law.

It is totally appropriate for the President to speak up. He has the floor on State of the Union nights. Yes - the Left would have yelled if Nixon had spoken against Roe v. Wade, but so what - it's a democracy, where he and we have the right to speak when we have the floor.

The big laugher is that Americans are so rude now - they have no respect for the appropriateness of time and place, and try to yell over the top or upstage whenever a view is expressed they don't like.

People have so little class any more. We look more and more like the Roman rabble, ill-informed, yelling our undisciplined comments, and easily swayed with free food and wild emotional outbursts.

Consideration and respect are what is and was lacking with this Anointed One, and, as usual, he created a very embarrassing moment for himself and for the Courts. This activity will come back to haunt him big time....it slurs the high court of the land and it also shows his disfavor for business at any level. Too, was it not the UAW that gave him how many millions for his campaign? It was o.k. then, right? Hyporicisy at its finest I would say...corruption, as usual, at the Capital when the shoe is put onthe other foot or did I miss something important and legit?

"Readbetweenthelines, no you have the 'Banana Republic thats in power' and then the rest!

Also "ANDEE" you are so right with your statement and i don't know how anyone can not see right through the Anointed One? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLD SAYING ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THEN WORDS?

After only one year you are predicting one term? You might recall that BushII got absolutely nothing done in his first year (he took many, many vacations) and then started a war with a country that didn't attack us - he ended up serving two terms.

Granted, Obama won't use the terror/scare tactics to win a second term as Bush did, but I believe it is a bit too early to count your chickens, so to speak.

Unless my fellow Republican's come up with someone better than the current crop, we're in for 2 terms.

No correlation between the two, if anything Alito silently mimicked joe wilson and if wilson had only mouthed his incorrect words no one would know who he was, and I'm also guessing you would like everyone to agree with you, too . . .

He did not mimick Joe Wilson. What he mouthed was "Not true". Both men were correct.

This is the best news we will get in less than three years now...if we last that long under this pathological liar and not fit to lead Mulatto!

Ernie,

I have read a couple of articles that say the so called Prof was not a full Prof at all, it is a title he bestowed upon himself; however, with that said, you did a wonderful job of writing this article! Thanks. I hope the libs read it and hopefully, after they read it, they can understand it!

Your pathetic comments are indicative of someone who has lived a life of failure. You have to put the blame on anyone that happens to be different and more intelligent than you. I know, you identify with Bush II; low intellects tend to agree with each other on most things. Luckily for the country the majority of the voters will never put back into power the likes of you and yours.

R.Scalzo, one term maybe less" anything can happen and has?

jlw-374353, Read the bill of rights idiot" Obama's wrong and made himself look like the fool he is again!

Thank you for pointing out the obvious fact - missed in most of this discussion - that money is not speech. There was no restraint on content at issue here - it was strictly about campaign finance, and it was yet another bad 5-4 decision forced through by right-wing activist justices over the protests of a minority unable to stop it. The conservatives on the Court should be ashamed of themselves, but conservatives have no shame.

Two thoughtless argumentsL 1) "Corporations are jointly owned property, the creation of which is governed by Congress. Congress should have the power to regulate them as they see fit." This is pure socialism talk. Corporations are jointly owned BY INDIVIDUALS and not subject to every whim and fancy of congress. Show me in the constitution where it grants congress the right to regulate business "as they see fit." I'm pretty sure the constitution exists to LIMIT the amount of governmental control.

2)"Money is not speech" HA! HA! HA! Show me the TV station that airs ads for free! CNN/MSNBC are corporations. I guess they should have to go off the air ninety days prior to every election, or become pro-bono organizations?! It just doesn't make any sense!

What are you talking about, not being about content?! It was ONLY about content! The government tried to argue that it had the right to ban books,movies, and TV ads that were political simply because they said, "vote for _______" That was Obama's lawyer's argument! Read the decision!

Hey" all you Liberal Koolaid drinking idiots! "blaineymac" hit the nail on the head! Read his posts, It's the truth and there is no reason anyone thats for freedom of speach and freedom period would disagree, unless you a socialist!

The time and place was exactly right, so many people in America are without a clue of what this really means to all of us, this was the perfect opportunity to let Americans know what the Supreme Court has done to all of us.

Toni I agree, the President utilized his position and essentially the Bully Pulpit to make a point ot comment on a matter that will have consequences on the State of the Union from here out. If not last night, exactly when would it have been okay? Probably never, perhaps people need to read a bit about Teddy Roosevelt whom utilized the Bully Pulpit to make his thoughts about an issue clear.

What we have here is a President so in love with himself, he sets himself above the Constitution. There are three branches of government, Executive (Presidential); Legislative (Congress); and Judicial (Supreme Court). Our Constitution is very clear one branch shall not impede into another, this is what keeps our country free and allows Democracy to flourish. Congress makes the laws, the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality and legality of the laws; and the Executive Branch signs the laws into force or veto's them. If President Obama doesn't like a court ruling there are legitimate avenues to address the issue, or veto the bill when it crosses his desk.

What we have here is a President, who voices his opinion on Judicial rulings in a State of the Union Address. Not only was this rude, inexcusable, but, as the President, he set improper precedence. That forum was not the time or place to voice his opinion on a Supreme Court decision. President Obama is not our dictator, he is a Servant of the People.

Additionally, President Obama showed very weak character berating the Republicans and not the Democrats. What is going on in Congress is not all one sided. The only difference is, the Republicans refuse to give the President Carte Blanche to spending and refuse to pass poorly written health care legislation without financial accountability in place. Who is paying for the coverage? Why do funds have to be allocated away from seniors via Medicare to help foot the Health Care Initiative Bill? How can the President believe unemployment won't increase, if this bill passes? Business's forced to carry it will lay off workers to keep costs down. These are the kind of questions, the Democrats in Congress don't want answered. With a national debt now in the Trillions, somebody had better put the spending brakes on!

No, President Obama used the same exuberant rhetoric voiced during his campaign to gain popular support via more empty promises. Instead of jumping from one new crusade to another; perhaps he should just focus on keeping a few campaign promises... Or is that asking too much from this Demi-God?!

The way I saw it, he berated both parties in the chamber several times. His first, was to the democrats for abdicating leadership, in spite of their majority status and "running for the hills". The second was to the republicans for not being true participants in the legislative process. The big difference was that the democrats cheered their agreement that he was calling it correctly.

100% correct Snoey... did anyone else make note of that?

You're exactly right. It is a State of the Union address . He should say whats going on, what went on, and what he hopes to accomplish in regards to the United States. His opinion is his opinion and there are appropriate times. Criticising only breeds negativity. There are more pressing issues that he should have focused on.

had he not utilized that stage to expose this, i wouldn't have heard about it till 60 minutes wrote a story on it. i don't watch 60 minutes!!! typical people wouldn't be debating this topic right now if it weren't exposed so greatly.

Isn't that what this so called leader is all about? Stages to perform on regardless of the issue, the audience, the circumstance, etc? Ninety eight times it was " I" or "Me" in the SOTU! A bit many do you not think? He dribbled alot of rhetoric that was both contradictory and lies - perhaps he should check out what he going to be saying before he says it.. writer should be fired; he also dribbled alot of rhetoric that was not appropriate for the SOTU..again, as usual, he knows not what he is doing or should be doing. He is too busy putting on the smug and arrogant look, thinking of the next photo op even if it is at the expense of our dead heroes returning home.

One term and that term is 3.5 years too long! Well, at least, we do not have long to go before we well might get rid of one of his cohorts and perhaps quite a few more but definitely the one.............

I can't believe some of the horrible comments I have just read. I was thaught by my wonderful parents that even though you might disagree with who becomes President, once he/she takes Office, it is the duty of all American citizens to work with our congress both Democrat, Republican and Independent for the good of the United States of America. We are to give our President the utmost respect as he holds the highest post of honor in our country. I think his speech was well delivered and to the point. As he said, it can't be I win you lose. That would only mean that our country would lose. I always try to ask myself, if I were gone tomorrow what would I want people's thoughts to be about me? How many votes could I sabotage for my party; how many smears could I accomplish, and how many hurtful feeling could I cause? I hope that I will be remembered for my kindness in moments of adversity, words that uplift others in a time of need, and especially known for a heart filled with the love of my fellow man. I love the United States of America and pray each and every day for President Barrack Obama and his family that they will continue to be strong when they see and hear the hurtful things some Americans hurl at them. I believe that they will continue to seek and do what is best for our country. May God bless our President and his family; and may God bless our people -- the United States of America.

McBarker, you're right, but Mr. Obama does not have the right regardless whether he's the President to criticize the Supreme Court decision. The Liberals don't want this to happen because they know they'll lose their power. It's going to happen anyway as the American people spoke in MA with electing Brown. The Democrats are now backpeddling and are now promoting that they now want to work with the Republicans. This is what they're saying to the press, but it's going to continue to be one sided until their power is gone. Reid and Pelosi will not win another election.

To:"Liberals suck"

Nor will Obama win another election!

Duchess get a clue. If your policies are different than Obama you need to shut up and sit down. Sorry but this country was founded on different opinions, something Mr. Obama doesn't understand. By the way why did he not mention that Unions shouldn't be able to put on Campaign commercials. Or how about when scolding the banks his pals that give him lots of campaign contributions at Fannie and Freddie weren't mentioned, after all they received bail out money.

The SOTU is not to "scold" anyone! It is to deal with issues at hand and what lies ahead, goals, how to reach those goals to settle the issues.

Term limits, yep, many of us want that! Think this out...why would Congress/Senate ever pass this into law? It means their jobs end say after four years in the House instead of 26 years, Senate, say 12 years instead of 36...

The only way term limits can happen is: Americans will become cognizant of each and every legislator in office, whether in their state or not, they will follow the voting records and then when it is time to vote, they will support each other in finding a good, solid candidate to replace the one they are going to vote out. If you think Americans are ever going to come together, in enough numbers, I doubt it but I surely would welcome the change in our attitudes to welcome the chance to ride herd on what is being done Federal and State and make the adjustment when and if necessary. This nation, moreso now than ever, has become divided and divided you only hurt each other and weaken the entire nation.

Sharon,

You need to sit down, shut up" and read the Bill Of Rights and the U.S. Constitution before you open your clueless pie hole!!!

Agreed. What is totally unbelieveable is that there is actually diagreement over the FACT that the Supreme Court passed something that would essentially ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO BUY POLITICAL OFFICES THROUGH CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS!!!!! Isn't campaign finance reform something that we've been fighting to get a handle on for years? Why would ANYONE want to argue the point????

Every person that serves in DC from the House on up are millionaires even if they only serve one term. None pay SS but they get a huge retirement check; none pay for Healthcare but we pay it for them and it goes with them...need I say more?

The media and news broadcasters are all owned by corporations (ABC is owned by Disney just as one example) and nobody is crying about how they are able to buy elections with all of the influence they hold. They get free speech and can say whatever they want about elections and candidates whenever they want to and somehow other corporations shouldn't be allowed to have any say at all? Liberals are mad about the Supreme Courts decision because almost all major media is liberal and therefore gives them support. Now that these other corporations (not all of which are liberal) have the same right to support candidates then Republicans will likely receive some added support which they lack from the media.

It's completely constitutional, and President Obama is showing his lack of knowledge of the constitution by voicing his disagreement, as well as clearing trying to weasel his way into the judicial branch of the government, which he doesn't belong in.

Hey Benet & Randy,

The Justices passed nothing you two idiots" they only affirmed what was already law for over 100 years! Get a clue you two liberal puppets and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!!!

Give me Break...ok sunshine...let's start ready shall we.

Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This first paragraph seems to promise a country for persons far more atomic than corporations. It appears to this simple liberal to make a contract with individual Americans. By allowing corporations to influcence our political process without any restraint violates that contract. This nullifies "we the people" and restates it as "we the privileged".

Conservatives seem hell bent on allowing corporations to act with impunity, let the market remain the wild west, and have no problem serving under corporate flags instead of old glory. And in the same breath you say "we" are not real Americans. I would find the irony amusing, if it were not so dangerous.

Nana2five is 100% correct. This shouldn't even be a discussion (at least not for anyone who understands the concept of "checks and balances" -- i.e., anyone who took and passed 9th grade Social Studies). The American form of government has endured as long as it has precisely because of the three federal branches and their relative independence from each other.

Except now the Anointed One thinks he is God, Commander in Chief, NWO head, what other title does he want..oh, I know...some title within the UN...

Andee, based on this comment and others by you I have just read, you are either cynically trying to provoke trouble, stubbornly ignorant ("Don't confuse me with the facts"), a rabid racist, or mentally ill. I think you should see a psychiatrist as soon as possible. Anyone with that much hate in them is sick. God help you.

To "whatabuncha" and "D2-686590". If what you say is correct, then Justice Alito's right to disagree is no different than Pres. Obama's. If it's OK for the branches to disagree (which of course it is), then it's not appropriate that only one branch gets to do the disagreeing while the other branch has to sit and take it - especially when what Pres. Obama said was an inaccurate "sound-bite" driven misrepresentation of the decision. The SOU address is not intended to be an exercise in sound bites.

The Legislative and Executive Branches can debate their differences in the public forum, the press, etc. The Justices can't go on Meet the Press and disagree with the decisions of the other two branches, or correct the misinformation handed out during the SOU address, so Pres. Obama should have been particularly careful to get it right, which he didn't.

Justice Alito was likely not that upset about the criticism, but about the misrepresentation of the decision without any way to respond. This isn't the first time Pres. Obama has followed the "Ready - Fire - Aim" philosophy. Maybe he should invite Justice Alito over for a beer to clear the air.

Hi D2. Obama was right and within his rights. Alito's reaction was probably involuntary - body language is SO revealing - sometimes we don't even know the signals we're sending. The congressman who shouted "you lie" went beyond involuntary body language and was wrong to do so. Regardless, I don't like Alito's track record on the bench, and believe he was a really poor choice. C'est la vie.

Peace

So POTUS can call anyone out in TSOTU address and the individual(s)/group(s) must just sit quietly (because in a SOTU address they are suppose to show some decorum) like little children who are being scolded?

Obama ambushed SCOTUS and there was a reaction.......awww to bad Mr. President

replytoj001

Reply: As I mentioned in a previous post, yes the President of the US can use his position, known as the Bully Pulpit to voice his opinion, disagreement, or dissent. This first became common practice by Teddy Roosevelt a Republican over 100 years ago. Furthermore, the SCOTUS are seated guests at the STOU address and are to show neutrality at all times, the President is not required to remain neutral on positions taken by the court.

This decision will affect the future of voting in this country and how Americans will lose individual power due to a "collective voice" that will be allowed to exist. The President did not ambush the SCOTUS, Alito just did not like what he had to say. Hopefully 3/4 of Congress will get it's collective act together and seriously look at this very bad decision.

Reply" Presidents have called out the USSC many times in our history. But this is the first time in my 45 years of watching politics that Ive EVER seen a USSC Justice basically call the President a liar! Justices are supposed to be non-political. This seems like it's becomg a habit to publically insult the President of the United States! Given the GOP's history since Reagan's election, Im not truely surprised!

Hey guys, slow down for a minute

Obama was incorrect in his comment. It is still illegal for foreign entities (corporate or otherwise) to make political contributions or do any electioneering. So BO was wrong and Alito pointed that out.

You guys are screaming activist judges. Activism is when judges make rulings (or law) which is in disregard of the Constitution. That clearly is not the case here.

Plus, Anthony Kennedy is one of your boys. Although he was appointed by Reagan and was confirmed unanimously, his decisions have always leaned towards the left. He voted to give the terrorists in Gitmo the same rights as US citizens, he also voted down the execution of child molestors.

Alito was a damned good choice if you have contempt for the constitution.

Well, then the Anointed One and he should be Best Friends for the so called leader has only contempt for the Constitution and has violated it how many times? Once, before he even became the Anointed One, which by the way, for you that think he is so called, Nope, he is not...............funny, the Anointed One chastised McCain for his criticism on "freezing," yet, he voted for it as a Senator...........something wrong with this pix?

Connecticut / Gregory

You guys need to pay attention. Alito simply mouthed the words "that's not true." Which was absolutely correct. Obama was rambling on about foreign influence in elections. The decision had NOTHING to do with foreign entities. They are still banned from making any type of contributions.

And Obama knows that. It was simply a political trick to get the Liberals fired up.

and oh yeah, it was Justice Kennedy who was the swing vote and he's a liberal.

Carwin57, is 100% correct and so were the Justices in their decision! Get a clue you Left" idiots and read the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Stop believing the Obama spin media!

Yeah. Read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We have the right to free speech, bare arms and vote because of these great documents. These princibles should totally be applied towards business too. Duh. It makes total sense. Idiots. And since business have the right to free speech as it is shown by the justices that our human rights can be personified to an inanimate enitity like a business/corporation. They should be able to vote too. You give it free speech, you then have to entitle it a right to a vote in our elections. A direct ballot with the companys name on it. Why dont people get this. Give Me Break has such a great point.

This is what it has come to: IDEOCRACY.

Of course you have the right to BARE ARMS. No one would think of forcing you to wear your PRINCIBLES on your sleeves -- Especially if it would cover up your swastika tattoos!

Irma - the executive branch appoints the supreme court members,I would hardly call that autonomous. Presidents have disagreed with the supreme court all throught history - you may remember one president even saying something to the extent of, "They made the ruling, let's see them enforce it."
How about term limits on these people - when the constitution was written, the average life span for an american was only 40ish, now these people stay on until they are 80. Appointment for life? Come on.

A mandatory retirement age of 65 or 70 would be an interesting idea. It would help keep the court's decisions current and more relevant. Unfortunately, the GOP and the Democrats no longer play nice when it comes to appointing justices. In the recent past, it used to be that if a justice was qualified he or she would get the support of the Senate irrespective of political leanings. That's simply no longer true -- on both sides of the aisle.

irma, get your facts correct before you post and make a fool of yourself !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court's majority "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

So you know more about this than Justice Stevens ? ? ? ? ? ?

Irma: You apparently do not understand what a corporation is or how it works. It is not unusual for a foreign corporation to set up a US subsidiary. Here's one example: Cities Service, Inc (Citgo gas and oil) is incorporated as an American corporation, and thus is now able to spend anything it wants on US elections. However, it is also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Venezuelan national oil syndicate. Which means that if Hugo Chavez wants to, there is now nothing to stop him from spending 10 billion dollars (funnelled through Cities Service) on the next election. How does that make you feel? This should not be a right-left issue; every American citizen should be equally outraged at this.

You are wrong, I listened to John McCain last night and he said he was concerned about this happening as well. Overseas corporations could very well be able to contribute.... think how many of our US corporations have moved overseas leaving so many unemployed. You are dead wrong on this!

Irma there is a problem with your thesis, most corporations in the US are now at least partly owned by foreign entities. As such he was correct in saying they would be able to deliver foreign derived resources into the American political process.

It would be no more right for the UAW to spend Canadian Dues on a political candidate in the US than it would for Ford or GM or Toyota to spend there multinational derived monies on one.

Corporations are constructs, a legal paper entity, not a real flesh and blood one. The PEOPLE who work for a Corproation are free to donate where they wish so too with a Unions Membership. But for EITHER to be able to donate DIRECTLY to a Candidate is just wrong.

Support an IDEA, sure run all the add's they want but to support one Candidate or one Party? No thank you.

Hi Irma,

Check your source.

If you recall, the ruling was made as a part of 1st amendment rights as interpreted by the SCOTUS, ALL US Laws are required to pass this particular litmus test.

The ruling was a result of the SCOTUS determining that Corporations have the same rights as individuals.

This is an opinion that has overturned a Century of bipartisan efforts to keep corporations out of politics.

Now as a result, any corporation foreign or domestic can via a wholly owned subsidiary, finance the campaign of their choice to whatever extent they choose.

If you think this only hurts democrats, think again. Jihadists, and any other well financed foreign enemy's now have the means to finance whatever group of extremists they choose on BOTH sides to continue a splintering of the union of this republic.

This is bad for every American and endangers our security more than the Shallow thinking sheep could ever possibly imagine.

So Irma, please show us in the SCOTUS ruling where it specifically excludes US corporations owned by foreign entities.

If, as you claim, it does not allow foreign corporations to make donations, does that mean corporations with 49% foreign ownership can, but those with 51% can't? Where does it say this in the ruling?

Sorry people, this ruling did not overturn the no foreign corporations precedent. Stevens said he was worried taht it "might" be read that way by some people. Not that this was the natural result of this decision. You are using a lot of ridiculous examoles of how foreign corporations MIGHT be be able to channel money into our politics via corporations now, as if that was so much harder to do under the current system, the one that let Unions and billionaires like Soros buy elections. Completely disingenuous.

You can make the assertion all you want Blainey, but until you give some evidence, it's just hot air.

From my reading, the ruling for the majority simply states 'corporations'. By definition, the set of 'corporations' includes those of US, foreign, and mixed ownership.

It's as if SCOTUS ruling used the term "people", and somehow you've magically interpreted "people" to only mean "<insert race here> people".

As JJ said, "In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court's majority "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.""

So unless you give some evidence otherwise, I'm going to trust the words in ruling.

Read ss441E people. Foriegn donations of ANY type are ILLEGAL. Would you conspiracy cracks write that down, you seem to forget it every 5 minutes.

Typical response for a Maryland Socialist. Democrats are against free speech especiallly if if goes against thier "we know what's best for you" philosophy.

No, we love free speech. We just found it odd that unions, Soros (moveon.org) Hollywood and ACORN were allowed to donate tons of money to democrats as well as threaten them if they disagreed with the standard democrat line but conservatives were excoriated for campaign donations.

Terry,

I too want to know how this works and why?

You want answers? Well your not going to get them on MSNBC/CNN/ABC

or any of the Obama spin media outlets! The only place to get the real and complete news is Fox-News!