Video: Justice Alito Corrects Constitutional Scholar Prez

January 27, 2010

Well, his oath is only to preserve, protect and defend. It doesn't say anything about actually reading, or knowing the law he invokes in a SOTU address.

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

The president's statement is false.

Video below via Bretibart – Alito corrects Obama. And I agree, if this becomes the narrative it hurts Obama and distracts from any thing he may have wanted to accomplish with the address.

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. iconoclast says:

    What do you expect from a leftist who got through law school on an affirmative action pass?

  2. Fred says:

    How long is America going to continue to put up with this insulting, condescending, bully tyrant?

  3. Looking Glass says:

    Obama’s not concerned about the law, nor with governing. Barack Hussein Obama seems concerned with one thing, and one thing only.
    Getting attention by any means possible. Narcissism cubed.

  4. GFFM says:

    He is a breathtaking uncivil and undemocratic man. And he seems to believe what Rahm lately said, “The First Amendment is overrated.”

  5. rookwood says:

    This is how desperate people act.

  6. Dave says:

    All the Supreme Court Justices look pretty shocked. Well, if and when Congress passes something else on campaign finance, I am sure all the Justices will remember this moment and react to such intimidation accordingly. Also, remember what happened when Roosevelt tried to pack the court…the public turned against him.

  7. Michael says:

    Watch the reaction of the blond woman far right. Jaw dropped, looking at the justices expecting one of them to keel over.

  8. This is Obama’s version of a Presidential Signing Statement. That is where a President signs a bill and notes what part of the legislation he intends to enforce.
    But, in this case, he reaches across to the desk of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, grabs the opinion on free speech, and writes “We’ll see about this” in the margin. What happens to the exclusive voice of political parties if anyone can run an ad? Anarchy. (smile)

  9. rrpjr says:

    “And he seems to believe what Rahm lately said, “The First Amendment is overrated.”
    The Left has a legacy hostility to free speech. But for an assistant to the President to make such a remark is astonishing. The First Amendment IS America — our defining virtue upon which freedom stands. Emmanuel is a vile worm. What vile people these are. I had a shiver of chills this evening. This is an altogether new development — a foray against free speech from the presidency. I can’t be the only American who felt this chill. I hope not.

  10. luagha says:

    Maybe the Supreme Court will just have to grant cert on the next birther case that comes up asking to see Obama’s long-form certificate with the name of the doctor and hospital on it.

  11. montee says:

    I don’t care if you are for or against the SC decision. The image of him directly attacking and insulting the justices present in the hall, while being applauded by his party is not a Presidential image at all. I believe the WH has already expressed their disappointment, did he really need to go after them like that again so publicly. Has this man learned nothing from his Gates/Crowley gaffe.

  12. Nick Reynolds says:

    Resign, Obama. It’s just two little words. “I resign.” That is all.

  13. Kerry says:

    Resign…no. Seppuku on pay per view.

  14. JadedByPolitcs says:

    He and his Democrat minions truly have diminished any real “hope” of civility back in DC with his ATTACK on the Justices and the Military when they are in no position to defend themselves. Obama is a street hoodlum and he acted as one last night. He truly DISGUSTS me!

  15. archer52 says:

    This is what I posted today.
    Obama just declared war on you, your business, your banking, finances, education and your children. And he did it with the same head tilt and far away gaze we’ve seen from every tyrant from Mussolini to Chavez. He truly believes what he is saying. Here is where I admit I may have misjudged him a tad. I was always wondering if he was a cardboard cutout propped up by the Chicago Machine or was he a really committed ideologue ready to sacrifice all of you in order to obtain his goal. I was hoping he was just another petty hack politician with a gifted tongue and a few small agendas. I was wrong. Last night he convinced me he BELIEVES he is the one.
    That makes him dangerous. Those who lead and feel they have a vision will trade you for that vision. As some of you know, I’ve been reading about Mao’s last revolution (1966-1976). Mao was not insane or stupid or uneducated yet he managed to kill millions of his own people through words and policies. You would be amazed how many efforts we see today are matching those Mao ordered during his last “purge” of unbelievers. Is Obama Mao? No, Obama’s an amateur in comparison. But the desires are the same. The desire to force citizens to follow his will, his ideas, his principles because HE knows best. Obama’s capability to ignore history, or worse lie about it without hesitation is very familiar to those who have followed the progression of dictatorships throughout the world. The key is an ignorant public dependent on the government for income, health and security. Obama’s America now has more people working for the government than for private industry and he is working hard to increase the percentages with his every proposal. Even the forgiveness of college debt is designed to drive people into government service.
    As I said in my post- “For those of you out there with friends who say “How bad can he be?” or “We are just misreading his intentions.” I hope now we are past the “ah golly” stage of dealing with this man who I believe truly thinks he is the chosen one. Before I figured he was just sold on himself. Not anymore. He has left himself little wiggle room between what he wants and what we will not give him. So his only option left is to take it.
    So the question is still this- What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?
    Mao knew, as did Mussolini, Stalin and all that came before them.
    Welcome to the war.”
    The worst part is I predicted this thirteen years ago and wrote a novel about it back then. The published novel will be available soon.

  16. Northeast Elizabeth says:

    Mexican cell-phone billionaire had wealth equalling 2% of his country’s annual economic output. He loaned the New York Times Co’s $250 million and owns 6.4% of the Times’ common stock. Can we shut down their editorial board during election time?

  17. Based on what I am seeing on Memeorandum, on the news sites, and around the web, the Alito thing has become the narrative for Obama’s snoozer speech.

  18. Randel says:

    Campaign reform has been carefully crafted by both parties over 30 years and spearheaded by Senator McCain and others. Conservatives cry about the SC being activist. To reverse precedents and law of such magnitude make Row vs. Wade look like strict constitutional interpretation. It is sad to read this blog as it reveals the depth of ignorance and distortion of facts that the president is trying to change. The president inherited a mess created by a president that could not talk in sentences, who is the first president to wage wars without paying for them (yes, wars cost money but he used deficit spending), and who gave each American $400 via deficit spending as a solution to his feeble attempt to stimulate (which did nothing except raise the debt and send more money to China). Deficit spending started with Reagen.

  19. Teresa in Fort Worth, TX says:

    And we have our first troll of the day…..

  20. seekeronos says:

    Campaign reform would be really simple:
    No candidate … in any given election… is neither allowed to receive in total, nor spend in total, more than $1M USD from all sources combined.
    Problem solved: this would guarantee a shorter campaign season, and encourage people to actually do some research into their candidates.

  21. Don Rodrigo says:

    There was a remarkable scene recorded on film of Saddam Hussein speaking before his rubberstamp Iraqi “parliament” where he read off a series of names of people he said had betrayed him. As the laughter and applause grew to a crescendo with each new name, the accused filed out meekly, one by one, to be taken out and shot, or worse.
    Now, the analogy to Obama calling out the SCOTUS is a stretch, I admit, but that scene from Iraq of the 1980’s leapt into my head when I looked at the clip above.

  22. Ron Edge says:

    So. In the era of Globalization, you guys really think that overturning corporate political donation limits is the way to go? I realize that you don’t like Obama… not too happy myself… but, UNLIMITED corporate dollars? You SURE that’s what’s best? For America, now: not just to trash another Obama initiative / opinion / whatever; what’s best for the USA….?
    Yeah. Well…. you’re wrong. Making corporations Super-Citizens (because of all their cash, you see) is going to send us all up the river. “Us” being the guys who must labor for a paycheck. I suspect that many of the writers to these blogs, forums, etc are not “us”.
    You see, “Globalization” was, mainly, NEVER about trade per se. It was / is about wages. What? You think someone in the early 90’s suddenly said “Ya’ know, this trade thing could be done on a world-wide basis.” You think (or not, as the case may be) China has an edge now? Wait until, hidden by corporate “proprietary information” (you’ve heard of that, right? Cheney used it often to disguise his involvement with Halliburton during his stint as V.P.), they buy up a Senator or two-three…
    All these foreign governments are protecting themselves and their political processes. We should too…..
    Well. Well….. I can’t say / make it any clearer.
    Thank you Mr. Riehl for your blog and the opportunity to have my say…. if this is posted, of course. Otherwise, ……. YOU know. 8-]