Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
I think he's not used to having cameras on him. So it prob didn't occur to him that muttering under his breath about a misstatement of the decision in a case would be picked up on a camera and make national news. From what I know about Alito from people who know him, he is a total wonk, perfect gentleman and not devious in the least. This was not some political stunt because he just doesn't think that way.
My guess is that he either will be very sure not to move a muscle at future SOTUs or won't show because he doesn't want to have the camera on him.
|
I'm sure you watched his confirmation hearings just as I did. He struck me as a very deliberate, controlled individual, more so than Justice Scalia. I'm not comparing this to Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" outburst, but you know how the Supreme Court is supposed to work: there's an expectation that SCOTUS opinions are free of partisanship and politics. (Yale Educated) Justice Alito wasn't invited to the State of the Union to enter into a debate with (Harvard law educated, former constitutional law professor) President Obama, regardless of how entertaining that might be.
I'm sure after Justice Alito was sworn in, Justice Thomas sat him down and talked his ear off about this and that. I disagree with Justice Alito a lot, but I don't think him a fool.
I think he either had a moment of ego or anger.
By the way, there are a lot of very, very qualified people that don't seem to think President Obama made any misstatement about the ruling. We all know corporate personhood's been around for a century, but this ruling does change the way laws are interpreted, specifically when it comes to campaigning. You know that four Justices voted against the ruling, right? Did you read Justice John Paul Stevens
90-page dissent? If not, I highly recommend it (thought admittedly there was some of it I couldn't quite follow and I felt like the story arc didn't have a satisfactory conclusion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Tell me, you think Obama's behavior was appropriate - attacking them to their faces when he knows they can't respond - especially given his rather blatant misstatement of what that case was about?
|
President Obama brought up a serious hypothetical consequence to the recent ruling. He's not lying us into an endless war or covering for torture, he's suggesting that this recent decision means we should start looking at introducing legislation to deal with campaign finance. What the heck is inappropriate about that? Should President Obama not mention a legislative agenda at the State of the Union?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Or for that matter, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, sitting right behind the Justices and in effect razzing them, when they know damn well the Justices have no way to respond? From what I know of Ruth Ginsburg, she probably recoiled in distaste from that display by the President and his Senatorial sycophants, and my guess is that Breyer and Kennedy did, too. Obama did himself no favors with the Justices by behaving that way toward them in public.
|
I'm glad the Supreme Court has you to protect them from Harry Reed.
