Does anyone, Republican or Democrat remember the SOTU speech by President Obama or any other president for that matter. President Obama’s criticism of the SOTU decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was memorable for many Americans regardless of party because the Court ( Chief Justice Roberts included) basically said that more free speech goes hand in hand with having deeper pockets. That goes against legal precedent and it also goes against what many Americans feel, is the spirit of egalitarianism that the U.S. has always stood for in theory, if not always practice. Here we are a couple months later and Chief Justice Robert’s feelings are still bruised. Roberts: Scene at State of Union ‘very troubling’
Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”
Roberts knows he couldn’t sell the message – no criticism of my decisions – on the free speech front. So why not drag it through the back door as a breach of ‘decorum”. President Obama was not being presidential. A familiar line of attack we all expect from the right-wing peanut gallery – Limbaugh, Malkin, Bill Kristol, Drudge etc. As a matter of coincidence? Its a line up of the usually shady characters echoing Roberts whining – Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, Instapundit and Above the Law. So begins the umpteenth chapter of its OK when Weird-nuts do it, Media conservatives falsely claim Obama’s Supreme Court criticism was “unprecedented”
Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:
Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court….
Bush condemned “activist judges” who are “redefining marriage by court order.” In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized “activist judges” who, according to him, were “redefining marriage by court order”
Roberts has not exactly been the shining beacon of conservative movement legal virtue. Then we have Justice Antonin Scalia who should have been impeached long along. Then there is Clarence Thomas who’s legal opinions descend from the ether or via memo from Antonin. Justice Samuel Alito is a second rate hack who is only on the court to carry the Right’s water. Current Conservative members of the court are an insult to justice and American values. President Obama was not just within his rights to point out a glaring instance of that, but should be praised for ignoring the political correctness and faux outrage of the right-wing fringe. If Roberts elite attitudes towards the role and decorum of the SCOTUS are giving him fits, he can always resign. That would require the character of his convictions. So just expect more whimpering followed by praise from the sheeple.
From Bloomberg no less, Obama Defies Pessimists as Rising Economy Converges With Stocks
Job Losses Ease
Since then, monthly job losses have abated, from 779,000 during the month Obama took office to 36,000 last month. Corporate profits have grown; among 491 companies in the S&P 500 that reported fourth-quarter earnings, profits rose 180 percent from a year ago, according to Bloomberg data. Durable goods orders in January were up 9.3 percent from a year earlier. Inflation is tame, and long-term interest rates remain low.
An economist at Morgan Stanley predicts the economy will produce 300,000 new jobs in March. If we manage even half that and the media notices than Obama should start to get a little of the credit he deserves.
Reconciliation? Republicans are Two Faced Scallywags. 34 Of 41 Senate Republicans Supported Passing Major Domestic Policy Legislation Through Reconciliation
I’ve looked up Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich voting record o VoteSmart. On paper he’s not a bad Democrat – generally pro labor, pro education, pro environment, pro civil rights. He’s just got a bug up his back side about abortion funding. Its aggravating because the language in the Senate bill does not fund abortions. I’m wondering what he and his staff are reading. Why Stupak Is WrongThe Senate bill doesn’t fund abortions. Here’s why he thinks it does.
Let’s go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 of the Senate-passed bill. It says, “If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage … the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services.” (This is on Page 2072.) That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions. (Except in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life—the same exceptions granted under current law.) If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage—the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so—then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won’t be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy. (This is on Pages 2072-2074.)
Stupak is right that anyone who enrolls through the exchange in a health plan that covers abortions must pay a nominal sum (defined on Page 125 of the bill as not less than “$1 per enrollee, per month”) into the specially segregated abortion fund. But Stupak is wrong to say this applies to “every enrollee.” If an enrollee objects morally to spending one un-government-subsidized dollar to cover abortion, then he or she can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn’t cover abortions. (Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan.)
What Stupak appears to want is for Congress to specially forbid private insurance from offering abortion coverage. Stupak does not appear to be acting on ethics or principle, but on some kind of compulsive obsession. If anyone wants to e-mail the Congressman with their thoughts and a clipping of the column from Slate – he as a form here for contact.
“I did not say I’m going to Costa Rica,” Limbaugh claimed, even though the audio of him saying exactly that is readily available. “The stupid people in the media who cannot trouble themselves to read my transcripts or listen to this program, listen to out of context stuff. I was asked yesterday where will I go for health care if Obama’s health care passes, and I said if doctors here are not permitted to form private practice little clinics with individuals paying a fee, a retainer, and for services, then I’ll go to Costa Rica to get major medical health care. I didn’t say I would move there.”
This is the second time Limbaugh has unwittingly praised the very type of health care system he claims to despise.