31 2 mins 12 yrs

 – it’s just very small.

NOT for the first time Obamses shows he isn’t the brightest spark. Combined with his increasingly apparent hubris and petulance, pratfuls will be an occupational hazard –

Last night he flung protocol away and, before the American people, called out and insulted the Supreme Court Justices. So rude was he that not only did Alito mouth back “not true”, even Sotomayor’s stony face betrayed her thoughts. But look again at what he said:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open 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. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

The Supreme Court Justices made a decision based on constitutional limits and the wording and intent of McCain-Feingold. No wonder this lawyer went into politics; clearly, hiding behind the law to shake down Americans is the only way he can make a living. What should or should not be is irrelevent. What he thinks best or right is irrelevent. The Law is the Law and the Supreme Court Justices must have no other interest.

So we know now what the Living God thinks on the matter of “special interests” and “powerful interests”. He thinks they must concede to the American people and not bankroll election campaigns. We shall see the evidence of this if ACORN and the unions make themselves scarce from now on. 


Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. The only rule you need is that every contribution should be on the record. If McDonalds or Starbucks or the Trade Unions are giving money to a candidate the voters should know about that before they vote.

  2. Pete – I am pleased to see a fellow ATW writer supporting the judiciary. Some folks (not you) label judges "activists" when the disagree with the decisions, and standard bearers of the Constitution when they agree. I do agree that the President’s remark at a State of the Union Address was inappropriate behavior (but probably good politics).

    Phantom – Those posters are all over the Arab world.

  3. Obama was correct in trashing the judges for their decision- money isn’t speech and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. But he did it in an undignified way, amateur that he is.

    His speech was a rambling mess. No speech should be longer than 30 minutes, unless you are speaking about a new theory of relativity or something.

  4. Supreme courts judges are not infallible (unlike me) . They can make wrong decisions and should be criticised, but perhaps a State of the Union address with the Judges in attendance is not the right place to do so.

  5. Colm –

    They can make wrong decisions, but the next time Obamses tells the Justices what should and should not be, maybe he can offer a critique on their interpretation of the Constitution.

  6. He did. He said the free speech provisions of the Constitution should not relate to the laws regulating Companies political donations . It’s all a matter of opinion isn’t it. Is giving money a facet of ‘free speech’ or not. There is no defnitive answer. Just as there will always be divisions over whether ‘Roe V Wade’ was a proper application of the wishes of the Constitutional creators.

  7. Roe v Wade was made up out of thin air.

    I think that the money=speech line of malarkey is knowing bullshit made by the moneychangers and parrotted by the extremely gullible- who will wind up being burned by this.

  8. I take it Roe V Wade has nothing to do with an atlercation between Erica Roe and Virginia Wade ;o)

  9. "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech"

    Regardless of your views on campaign finance (and I agree with Obama on this) the 1st Amendment is pretty clear on it. No law abridging freedom of speech, regardless of content. So people complaining (like me) of unregulated campaign finance have no constitutional grounds to ban it (and people yelling at Tim "Can’t play in the NFL" Tebow need to shut up as well).

    Roe is a different kettle of fish entirely. They took the right to privacy and extended it to right to have an abortion. They problem is that neither the right to abortion or even the right to privacy is enshrined in the Constitution and takes a certain amount of deductive reasoning to reach it. It basically extends the 3rd, 4th and arguably the 5th Amendments (which basically say the Governemnt can’t enter your home, seize or search you, or seize your property without having proper reasons to do so). They thought (rightly or wrongly) that this implies that there is a direct Constitutional right to privacy which they then extended to Abortion, yet bizarly this right of privacy doesn’t extend after a certain period of time (so a woman still has a right to privacy surrounding Abortion after say 20 weeks but doesn’t after 26).

    You need to make one argument to argue wheter McCain-Feingold is Constitutional or not and that is whether Corporate Donations are part of Free Speech. You need to make huge movements and arguments to suggest that the Constitution allows access to Abortion.

  10. Seamus

    That is why I am not a great fan of Constitutions or Bills of Rights or Human Rights laws. They are all too vague by necessity and give much greater powers to unelected Judges that should be more properly invested in accountable elected representatives.


    I think Erica Roe would have a couple of advantages in that clash, no matter how big Ginny’s racket was 🙂

  11. Colm – except the elected representatives aren’t always really accountable in practice as they are in theory. And not having to run for election shields the judges (more often than not) from having to pander to prevailing popular winds. They muck up sometimes, but overall have a fairly decent record.

    If it is an egregious decision, the accountable elected representatives can try to have the Constitution amended.

  12. LOL Colm

    I have to admit that those two pop into my head when ever I hear that phrase (the two being Erica and Ginny)

  13. the accountable elected representatives can try to have the Constitution amended.

    No way that can happen. The dim bulb Mitch McConnell wing of the Republicans have bought the money = speech line hook, line and sinker.

  14. "I take it Roe V Wade has nothing to do with an atlercation between Erica Roe and Virginia Wade ;o) "

    A joke I heard a couple of years ago-

    -What’s George Bush’s opinion of Roe V Wade?
    – He doesn’t care how people get about in New Orleans.

    Obviously it works better when spoken than written down.

  15. Colm –

    You miss the point. The point of Anglospheric constitutions and bills of rights is that they exclude entire swathes of life from the reach of political power, not confer powers on it.

    "Congress shall make no law …" is not the opening line of a sentence, it is a hugely powerful statement that Congress is subservient to the Law and that the natural rights of the people are beyond the writ of any who sit in Congress.

  16. Mahons

    I can accept that your Supreme Court judges have done well in their roles geenrally though the years . I am more bothered by the stupid trivialising of ‘Human Rights’ in our courts in recent years where Judges have bent over backwards to indulge their new found powers by turning silly demands often by convicted criminals into ‘Fundamental Rights’.


    I bet some of our American readers are thinking ‘who on earth are Erica Roe and Virgina Wade’. They’ll get a surprise if they Google image the former 😉

  17. "If it is an egregious decision, the accountable elected representatives can try to have the Constitution amended."

    The problem is that on many key issues the Supreme Court is a major player and there aren’t the numbers on either side the get an amendment. The fact that there have only been 27 Amendments (two of which cancel each other out so in reality 25) isn’t a testiment to how well it the Constitution was written but a testiment to how difficult it is to change it. Right now the Supreme Court is, if they wanted to be, the most powerful body in the US. They have a permanent veto over every piece of legislation and every executive decision and they have flouted the Constitution on numerous times to forward their own agenda. The US is changing quickly from a Democratic Republic to one governed by an overpowered, zealous Judiciary.

    "I bet some of our American readers are thinking ‘who on earth are Erica Roe and Virgina Wade’. They’ll get a surprise if they Google image the former ;)"

    And a frightfully ugly picture if they google the image of the later.

  18. Phantom

    Exactly what Seamus said. She was just an ordinary member of the public who streaked at an International Rugby match and became a national heroine on that basis

  19. Isn’t ATW great. A post about the Presidents opinions of a Supreme Court ruling turns into a discussion about an English bird who got her baps out 20 years ago at a Rugby match 🙂

  20. "It is the natural right of all chicks to get their baps out."


    Is that the clause that James Madison accidently left out of the Constitution ?

  21. and to amend the Constitution, Congress has to vote and then it goes to the States, as someone said. Who vets this guys speeches?

    As Phantom said, the speech was a mess. It was rambling and too much like a school master lecturing students. The humour was also a bit inapporpiate for a State speech.

Comments are closed.