An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Obama Weekly Address: Blasts Supreme Court Ruling and takes Populist Tone
President Barack Obama’s weekly You Tube/radio address this week is notable for two things: he blasts the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on campaign finance reform (which swept away 100 years of legal and judicial precedents) and as is taking a notably populist tone about battling special interests:
opinions powered by SendLove.to
48 Responses to “Obama Weekly Address: Blasts Supreme Court Ruling and takes Populist Tone”
Obama talking about battling special interests is like Fred Phelps speaking out against predjudice. Hard to believe him after the backroom deals he made with big Pharma and his own appointments of lobbyists.
Hey, where are all the moderates at TMV?
Gallup says most Americans generally agree with SCOTUS decision on campaign finance. Wouldn't it be 'moderate' to post an article applauding a decision that most Americans support as well as the string of articles bashing it?
PRINCETON, NJ — Americans' broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court's decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees…
I guess the sheep blog as USA today.
Hmmm, I think the practice dodging trebuchet salvos here is starting to give me some definition in my calves
Some folks have been disabled by the disqus browser conflicts, I wasn't able to get back on until now. Not that I necessarily claim the mantle of being moderate, since labels aren't terribly useful. I prefer to consider myself a common sense realist. As for the supreme Ct. ruling, all it does is help consolidate more power and influence into few and fewer hands, at the same time reducing the influence of Joe-citizen. If that's peachy with you, then you never understood the principles of the founders to begin with.
For one thing, if the entire SCOTUS decision was hinged on corporations being equal to citizens, [since being superior is out of the question as per the 14th Amendment], then if it can be demonstrated that any corporation has committed a felony or other crimes, then thei board of directors [in their entirety] can be tried and jailed or otherwise face the penalties that any other citizen must bear. If this cannot be done, if no “one” person can be fingered as accountable for the actons of the corporation, then it does not have a 'body” that is tangible in order for citizenship to apply. Because citizens are not only bodies with freedom, they are bodies with accountability. Without accountability for redress in law against the corporation for, say, committing felonies or otherwise endangering others or the environment that others have to live in and around, corporations do not pass the test of “citizenship”.
There are no supercitizens. The 14th Amendment guarantees equality. Here is the language again:
*********
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
*************
The SCOTUS decision has repealed the 14th Amendment in that allowing unlimited influence in elections. Since money is a de facto part of the predicted outcome of any election, and there is such a fiscal disparity between corporations and singular citizens or even nonprofit citizen groups, the five Justicies have taken away equality among citizens. In other words they have repealed the 14th Amendment because taking away the ability to influence elections is the very heart of our democracy and the Constitution itself. But more specifically to the 14th Amendment, the SCOTUS 1/21/10 decision allows “abridging” to the powers of everyday citizens to affect their own destinies.
However there is a remedy. And Congress can effectively overturn this decision because of the last line of the 14th Amendment which reads:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
“Appropriate legislation” is up to the interpretation of the current sitting Congress. And last time I checked that Congress has a democratic majority. It doesn't say the Congress needs a supermajority. It doesn't say anything at all specifically, only that Congress has the power to enforce the language of the 14th Amendment to which the SCOTUS decision has repealed without due process. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution, not to repeal it or any part of it.
The SCOTUS decision is therefore outside its powers. Congress trumps the Court in this instance. There is no language in the Constitution that gives power to the Court to usurp the very essence of the Constitution or any of its Amendments.
There's your argument. Proceed.
Conservatives consistently quote out of context, lie and ignore things that don't go along with the narrative they are trying to push. Take DaMav's giddiness at being able to quote part of Gallup's results.
He completely leaves out the part that shows the public's true priorities, which is
Ooops. Are there any honest conservatives anymore? Damn few, apparently.
Besides, when the SCOTUS comes up with a reason to eliminate the rights of unions under this ruling I expect the conservatives to be cheering just as loudly as they are now because there has to some reason why unions don't deserve the same rights as corporations.
You know and since the SCOTUS decision affects the rights and priveleges of every citizen in every state, my argument applies.
Again, the Supreme Court isn't a legislative body. They may not create conditions that nullify the Constitution. Only Congress can do that. And if I am wrong, if the Supreme Court may nullfy Amendments via its decisions, then Congress must now formally repeal the 14th Amendment.
However as I said and is writtin in specifically in the 14th Amendment, Congress has the unique power to enforce or uphold the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Sorry SCOTUS, not this time..
you never understood the principles of the founders to begin with
Apparently neither did the SCOTUS or the ACLU in your opinion. I'd say I'm in good moderate company
Apparently you consider it 'dishonest' to take the first sentences from an article and provide a link. Which is what I did. The quote came straight from the top of the Gallup article.
And rather than respond to the documented facts you don't like you respond with a personal attack. Impressive. You having a bad week Jim?
This debate is moot. The Supreme Court acted outside its powers in Thursday's decision. Congress may simply repeal the decision with a majority vote and declaration as such. I wondered why they included that last line in the 14th Amendment about Congress trumping The Court in this way, but thinking back, they probably wisely surmised that stacked Courts with prejudice might try to take away the rights of blacks or women if they could manage it. They added that extra protection to keep nine people from affecting the destiny of 300 million. Little did they know that the new “hated minority group” would be the poor and disenfranchised…a group that is growing by the thousands by the day.
Other posters on other sites, [rabid ones I suspect of being on payroll for the fringe GOP] immediately countered my argument with the fact that McCain tried a similar angle but failed and he/they stated that free speech trumps all, which is false but funny enough, the effective suppression of free speech [to which the SCOTUS ruling actually ENCOURAGES via economic suppression of "lesser financial citizens" is what that ruling was all about.....which got me to thinking..
The 14th Amendment provides specific powers to Congress to remedy any descrepencies with the 14th Amendment. If another's free speech impinges o the 14th Amendment rendering all equal, then it falls within the Congress' jurisdiction to trump that activity..lol...checkmate. Thank God the authors of that Amendment thought about the 9 vs the 300 million.
And to McCain and Co.s attempts to use the 14th to do the same thing. I wonder if someone had a masterplan in mind for some time, say to give unlimited power to their financial contributors [just for example] and knew that last sentence in the 14th had the power to overthrow that plan, they would attempt to mock-challenge that last line and “fail” in order to discourage a timid democratic majority into believing it couldn't be done?
Hmmm…the guy still defends Palin who is the summation of all the fringe GOP rhetoric. I'm going to change the name “McCain” to “Trojan Horse”..lol.. I mean after all, McCain is the one “moderate republican” the dems all trust and love right? Beware of labels, they can be so misleading..
“Wouldn't it be 'moderate' to post an article applauding a decision that most Americans support as well as the string of articles bashing it?”
Wouldn't it be reasonable to post an article about what a Pres. says about a SCOTUS decision? Thats all that was done in this case. There was zero editorializing or commenting on the subject just, you know, reporting.
Once again, Silhouette, you show that you misapprehend the law. The Supreme Court acted well within its powers of judicial review of a law. As such, Congress may not simply overrule the court with a majority vote, but, if it seeks to limit these sorts of contributions, must amend the Constitution to simply state either that money is not speech, or to give Congress power to enact this sort of campaign finance reform. Congress cannot simply override the Court on a constitutional decision, which this was.
There have been roughly six articles posted addressing the SCOTUS decision as a major or exclusive part of the original post. One (Jazz) covered both sides in a neutral manner. Every single one of the others vociferously attacked the decision. Not one article in support of the decision has been posted. (Unless I missed one, in which case please point it out.)
That doesn't seem very balanced to me on a board representing itself as 'moderate' with 'features from the left, center, and right'. Support for the SCOTUS decision can hardly be considered to be fringe when the majority of Americans agree on major parts of it. It's a critical decision that indeed deserves a vigorous and well balanced discussion, not just a reaction to the talking points of one side of the issue.
It is absolutely up to the board owners/operators to choose what articles are posted, not me. I addressed my comment to the OP with a title that indicated to me a possible interest in such balance, i.e. the Political Editor. I presume that he/they are open to such feedback.
I certainly have no objection at all to the opinion of my President being posted, whether I agree with it or not. In fact I welcome it as should all Americans.
I hope this clarifies my comment which I agree may have been ambiguous.
So why then do you object to reporting the other side of the story with a link to a Gallup poll?
I have not seen on article on the front page supporting the decision. I have seen ones with titles like “Obama Weekly Address: Blasts Supreme Court Ruling and takes Populist Tone”, “An Open Letter To Chief Justice Roberts”, “The Supreme Court’s Brave New Electionworld”, “Activist Judges are Terrible”, and “Quote of the Day: the “Anti-Human Supreme Court”.
Does not a single one of the editors of TMV agree with a Supreme Court Majority, the ACLU, and the majority of the American public on this?
Fair and Balanced here at TMV, it seems.
The sentence below the title from Gallup says all:
But have mixed views on other issues at heart of new Supreme Court ruling
LOL The Wingnuts now laud an ACLU stance…
Sorry, but it was based on the actual written language of the First Amendment.
Read it and weep, or whine whichever suits you.
Read the 14th Amendment and weep where at the end it says that Congress has the power to enforce it. [meaning the other two branches do not.]. The 9th Amendment tells us that no one Amendment has the power over another. Your championing the wrong cause. The SCOTUS decision effectively squashed free speech BTW. Suppression, whether physical or financial of the right AND ABILITY to speak freely over the din of others financially louder than you is what is at stake. So if you want to drag in the First Amendment, we can do that too…also to the SCOTUS decision's demise.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge {*} the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
********
{*} “ABRIDGE”: = 2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
So even if this was about freedom of speech, Congress has the right to determine if that speech is in detriment to the 14th Amendment. Which it is. It sets up inequities of speech. That's an indisputable fact. One “person's” rights may not reduce, lessen or curtail another's.
Read that and weep.
SCOTUS may not rule on the 14th Amendment, particularly it MAY NOT nullify it. The SCOTUS decision is therefore illegal and defunct.
From the language of the 14th, which specifies..
“5. The CONGRESS shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
**************
It's right there in black and white. And because of black and white, its authors took it's policing out of the hands of the nine and instead put it in the hands of hundreds of elected officials more close in kinship to those who might be affected by its usurping, like what happened last Thursday. January 21st, 2010.
“So why then do you object to reporting the other side of the story with a link to a Gallup poll?”
Well when you make stuff up that never happened……………………..
“Does not a single one of the editors of TMV agree with a Supreme Court Majority, the ACLU, and the majority of the American public on this?”
This was news not commentary. I might make sense to bitch about editorializing on an editorial, but here it's just whinny.
So, you're taking the meaning of the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment to mean Congress is above Judicial review?
That they can appropriate any power and remove it from Judicial review, by simply granting the power to enforce.
You seem to equate the power to enforce as somehow being equal to extra-Constitutional authority.
By your definition, Congress can nullify ANY existing Amendment or Article of the Constitution by claiming it is doing so under the powers granted by the 14th Amendment, and there can be no Judicial oversight or review.
Ridiculous and absurd.
When 100% of the posts show or report only one side of an argument, that is editorializing.
Again this post is only what the Pres said. Bitch to him.
“So, you're taking the meaning of the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment to mean Congress is above Judicial review?
That they can appropriate any power and remove it from Judicial review, by simply granting the power to enforce” ~Schaden
*********
No, please don't put words into my mouth. The 14th Amendment specifically hands the powers of enforcement of the 14th Amendment to Congress. They are the “policemen, judge and jury” of its specific mandates. I haven't read this attachment to the other Amendments so it is significant that they attached it to this one. There was a reason and like I said, I believe it is because they knew that 9 people could be “bought” to affect the liberties of millions. I believe they wanted hundreds of elected representatives to have this specific jurisdiction to decrease the likelihood of tampering.
Which is of course exactly what the free-speech suppressing SCOTUS decision is guiltly of.
For what the public education system that produced such thinking? The 14th? Really?, you gotta do better than that argument. No one is abridging the rights of individuals by not limiting that of corporate free speech. Individuals remain as free to advertise and speak as the ever were. Nothing has changed that.
Sorry but government was never empowered to decide who were preferred and non preferred speakers.
Pass a Constitutional Amendment if you don't like the Constitution as written.
“Does not a single one of the editors of TMV agree with a Supreme Court Majority, the ACLU, and the majority of the American public on this?”
Hi Schadenfreude, to try to respond to your question… I wasnt sure if it was a rhetorical question or not, but here's some info about TMV. There's no editorial rule or pressure for TMV authors to poll on topics. Tmv authors have never weighed in… in the aggregate… on any individual topic. They may or may not hold opinions on any given topic in the MSM news. If they have interest, they might write about a given topic, but all of us have day jobs too, families, and might like to write about various but cannot find the time to post. So, not hearing from all TMV authors or not having all of them weigh in, is a matter of interest and time. Part of the vitality of TMV is you never know who is going to write about what. We do try to cover what most would consider breaking news and important speeches, for instance, otherwise, editorial content is varied.
Just my two cents worth,
Thanks.
dr.e
dr. e -
I certainly wasn't advocating any restrictions on what the editors do or do not comment on. I was making a simple, and I think obvious, observation on what appears to be an overall leaning, if you will, of the editorial staff.
And the question was not really rhetorical, as I do wonder what the answer to my question is.
Ooops. Are there any honest conservatives anymore? Damn few, apparently.”
Thank goodness there are super-sanctimonious truth spouters like you to squash the evil bastards.
or the ACLU”
Bad company. I would't hang out with them unless they wear flea collars.
Good policy.
Tim, your panties are too tight.
hi there Schadenfreaude
I dont know the content of editors' minds, so I could only answer about some of TMV's process of bringing articles to readers. Also, if you have links to articles, please continue to type in the entire url, I believe it will change it to red link upon posting it. At least that's what worked for you last time and works for me too as I just tried it before recommending it to you just now.
Thanks
dr.e
I know the truth hurts, especially when you despise it as much as modern conservatives do. I mean, those ideological blindfolds can be a bit tight and make you grumpy to start. Then you get that really good feeling from posting something that is a misleading claim about what an article actually says, like DaMav did, hoping that people will just believe it and not follow the link. Then along comes some spoil sport who reads the article and points out the truth. So you just have to call names in return.
And you really shouldn't insult bastards like that. Your typical bastard is a much higher form of life than most modern Republicans.
Your typical bastard is a much higher form of life than most modern Republicans.”
As pond scum, some lefties like do a lot of looking up.
Dr e – that works well enough for short URLs, but not long ones unfortunetly.
I would just like to know why I cannot post HTML URLs, when obviously most if not all the posters and commentators can.
I know it is not your problem. but you are the only TMV staffer than has addressed this with me.
Thanks.
You can always in include specific HTML tags inline. A quick way of looking at those is to find something that you want to emulate, then use the “View Source” option in your browser to see how they did it.
Prof -
I appreciate the attempt at help, but I am very experienced with HTML tags. I am doing it right – it just won't post if I do.
Weird.
I actually used to vote for Republicans. I just can't stand the current crop. And actually I logged on here during this bout of insomnia to dump the post. I have in fact had a bad week, having been ill for several weeks now but going into work anyway as much as possible. Yes, I still feel that what DaMav posted was misleading. Saying that a poll or some article says one thing without mentioning an important caveat qualifies, IMO. But I did overreact, and for that I apologize to you both.
Again this post is only what the Pres said. Bitch to him.
So the Editor in Chief at TMV is referring feedback posted to him about the ongoing blatant bias of article selection to the White House? Are you implying that TMV is an astroturfing operation?
That would make sense, the way you are stonewalling this issue but I'd like to see confirmation before I believe it.
ok
Who is this “Tim”?
My name is Frank. Dr. Frank N. Furter, to be exact.
And I don't wear panties, or any underwear at all for that matter! Just a garter belt and fishnets.
And I don't wear panties, or any underwear at all for that matter! Just a garter belt and fishnets.
Ok, I won't try to Curry favor with you. If you don't, you should (good enough for Monica).
“So the Editor in Chief at TMV is referring feedback posted to him about the ongoing blatant bias of article selection to the White House? Are you implying that TMV is an astroturfing operation?
That would make sense, the way you are stonewalling this issue but I'd like to see confirmation before I believe it.”
See now you're just acting nuts. I'm a very conservative person and my comment history backs it up but sometimes ………….. No one likes whinny. That is what too many conservatives act like. It is bad. You should not do.
Really complain about the authors posts, his/her history, ect, ect. When you just ignore the posts and start bashing the website, well then whats the point? That they'll change because you got whinny? That they will change the editorial policy? Get Real! Here is an idea write your own stuff instead of bitching because there aren't enough articles that meet your political bent. Submit some and see what happens. Stop being whinny.
There are a number of well reasoned articles supporting the court decision including from the Wall Street Journal. The issue is that in an ostensibly “moderate” site, the selection of Original Posts is obviously biased. Wouldn't a site claiming to be moderate try to correct that? Or at least appreciate someone pointing it out? Opinion is divided on the decision but support for it is hardly a fringe position. After all, it includes the majority of the SCOTUS, Cato, the ACLU, the AFL-CIO (on part of the decision), and on some of the key points the majority of Americans. How can something the majority of Americans support not be considered 'moderate'?
I don't understand why you think it is 'whinny' to point that out. I had hoped the “Editor in Chief”, to whom I directed my initial comment to would respond to feedback, directly or via delegation. If he is not even going to respond to a comment, why would I take my time to prepare an unsolicited article for submission, only to be ignored? I am not a journalist shopping around screeds. And I might have missed it but I see nothing here saying “your submission welcome”.
I have submitted over 500 comments in 2 months. Only a small handful of them have been about the site itself. Of those, some have been complimentary. In this case, not so. I offered a little dig and some constructive criticism/observations. And what kind of a response to I get? None from the site, and somebody telling me to sit down and shut up and quit 'whinning'. And saying I am “acting nuts”.
imo you ought to rethink that approach, but obviously that is up to you. Maybe the site doesn't want conservatives posting here, other than Moran and the 'right wing of the NY Times”. If that's the case, it just ought to make that clear. I'm sorry if all this upsets you. If I had wanted to do that I would have just hurled an ad hominem at you like saying you were “acting nuts”. Instead I have tried to explain my position in a moderate and reasonable way.
“Or at least appreciate someone pointing it out?”
Thank god you were here. There is always a shortage of people who “point things out”.
” I had hoped the “Editor in Chief”, to whom I directed my initial comment to would respond to feedback, directly or via delegation. If he is not even going to respond to a comment, why would I take my time to prepare an unsolicited article for submission, only to be ignored? I am not a journalist shopping around screeds. And I might have missed it but I see nothing here saying “your submission welcome”.”
Because in the years that this site has been open your complaint was the first he has ever heard on the subject right? Even in two months how many times do you think it's been mentioned by one side or the other? Now think about years worth of comments. How many thousands of times would you go before you stopped responding?
“I have submitted over 500 comments in 2 months. Only a small handful of them have been about the site itself. Of those, some have been complimentary. In this case, not so. I offered a little dig and some constructive criticism/observations. And what kind of a response to I get? None from the site, and somebody telling me to sit down and shut up and quit 'whining'. And saying I am “acting nuts”. “
No, the response was why I thought you were wrong. The rest was after you started acting all offended, “astroturf” my ass, and yes I think you went overboard.
“imo you ought to rethink that approach, but obviously that is up to you. Maybe the site doesn't want conservatives posting here, other than Moran and the 'right wing of the NY Times”. If that's the case, it just ought to make that clear. I'm sorry if all this upsets you. If I had wanted to do that I would have just hurled an ad hominem at you like saying you were “acting nuts”. Instead I have tried to explain my position in a moderate and reasonable way and gotten stone walled.”
What approach? I just comment. I have no connection to the site. By the way I'm conservative, very. As far as I'm concerned “acting nuts” was far more honest and made so much more sense than your “astroturf” thing.
Do you know how many times a conservative complains about the site note being moderate? First it just gets old. After years people show up and think their going to do what? I mean come on. Second it bugs me because in a way it reflects on the conservative commentators when a conservative says something stupid. Third whinny is whinny. No one told you to do anything I just pointed out the zero editorial content in this article and called you whinny when you started acting all offended and went conspiracy theory on me.
Listen they will take articles, who wont if they are good, but who “advertises”. You want published do it yourself or work at it. Nobody says to random people please write. As to the writers here they do lean liberal. My belief is the conservatives have other things to do. Those writers are less prolific because they have lives. Example Jazz writes much less than Kathy. (not to label Jazz, Kathy would make Marx look like he is to the right)
I did a spit-take with my coffee when I read that.