State Of The Union

[Phil Hoover]

I can listen to my "brotha from the south side" for a few years.

Amazing Phil.. whom brings up RACE in this issues every time. This is irrelevant and unnecessary. But I bet I know whom will always gets blamed for it? Shameful.


I did listen to his speech. I thought the speech was excellent. Of course, Justice Alito is entitled to his opinion....and I do think the SCOTUS was VERY wrong on their ruling last week.

[MacUser]

Bravo on completely avoiding the bold part and clear point.

[MacUser]

Justice Alito is entitled to his opinion....and I do think the SCOTUS was VERY wrong on their ruling last week.

Justice Alito’s Reaction
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... urt&st=cse

This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books.

[oletimer]

With all the promises of tax relief for small business and jobs doesn't mean a thing untill we tool up and start making our own products, thus creating jobs that will aloud people to have money to pay for what we make, not China makes and and our money stays here. As I see it all this bunch in Washington is doing is serving their own self.

If this president wants to really do good and right he will work to cut us loose from China. Bring our jobs back.

NO didn't watch him as I figured that the news wolud tell it all.

2 cents

[dolfan]

Phil, a well orated speech is no substitute for good government. Obama has made his political fortune from public speaking ability that comes partly from a knack and partly from skills learned in any Toastmasters chapter. My question is simply what is he doing? Well, he's shown us what he does. He grows government. He takes over private corporations and has the federal government run them. He uses taxpayer money to bail out corrupt, self-dealing corporate directors and officers, no strings attached. Then, he leverages that largesse by extorting the same companies to reach pay scales that satisfy big-government types who never produced anything other than government. He spends us over the precipice and wants to tax us more. That he does it in a well delivered sppech without sounding "like a Negro" "from the south side" of Chicago is wholly beside the point. That he is stomping for effect on the political grave of Geo. W. Bush is also to no avail (in any real way, although it shook Chris Matthews color blind) since Obama has done absolutely nothing but exacerbate the fiscal problems the Bush had a hot hand in creating.

In my view, the nation would've been better served had Obama written the State of the Union address and posted the words on YouTube with "Pants on the Ground" playing in the background.

As to the Citizens United case, Obama is wrong on the law, period. He may freely disagree with the public policy that the decision creates by the Court's holding, but that public policy has to pass Constitutional muster and here it simply did not. Obama was not a particularly bright part of the Harvard Law Review as president of it; he was quite undistinguished as a high-brow Ivy Leaguer when he was practicing law; he stated well early in his public political life what he thinks the law ought to be in terms of redistribution of wealth and how the SCOTUS should be a vehicle for achieving the goals he thinks we should reach; and, during his speech, he only managed to disclose more publicly that he is willing to use the power of the Presidency to try and force the Supreme Court through political means to act in an unabashedly political direction. That's wrong, constitutionally. He's wrong, period. You might agree with his policy preference, and that's another debate altogether, but he's wrong on the law and he's wrong historically and constitutionally about the power of the presidency over the Court.