White House stands ground on high court criticism

[TomCADem]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The White House on Sunday defended President Barack Obama's scathing criticism of a Supreme Court decision that allows unions and corporations to funnel unlimited dollars to political campaigns.

Senior adviser David Axelrod and press secretary Robert Gibbs refused to retreat from criticism Obama leveled during his State of the Union address, with six of the nine members of the court sitting a few feet in front of him. The two White House officials defended Obama's statement that the ruling was seriously flawed.

"Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, any lobbyist could go in to any legislator and say, `If you don't vote our way on this bill, we're going to run a million-dollar campaign against you in your district.' And that is a threat to our democracy," Axelrod said. "It's going to further reduce the voice of the American people, and it's something we have to push back vigorously on."

Chief Justice John Roberts said this week that Obama's unusually open criticism was "very troubling" and questioned whether justices should attend the annual address.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_white_house_supreme_court

[efhmc]

1. Finally a firm stand.

[pattmarty]

11. today is Sunday, wait until tomorrow.

[No Elephants]

16. LOL

[No Elephants]

15. Which will accomplish what? Not as though this SCOTUS is going to reverse

the decision he criticized.

[Cha]

2. Oh I knew they would ..now clarence thomas' wife is a teabagger

taking donations from corporations.

<snip>

"She is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and she has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court.

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14,0,6505384.story

[aquart]

3. Roberts is troubled? I notice it's not his conscience.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. "The White House on Sunday defended President Barack Obama's scathing criticism ..."

Interesting framing.

Have you ever heard the White House excoriate the President?

It's patently ridiculous.

[katandmoon]

5. Funny the things he'll criticize, and the things he won't. Bush/Cheney must be going "Whew!"

[Triana]

6. The Teabagger Court needs to have its wings clipped

Good for Obama. :applause:

[No Elephants]

17. How does criticism clip the wings of the SCOTUS?

Roberts criticized Obama right back. Are Obama's wings clipped as a result of Roberts's criticism?

[Triana]

23. you can split hairs all by yourself MK?

[No Elephants]

25. I sought the reasoning behind your post. Given that response, maybe there was none.

[UpInArms]

7. "questioned whether justices should attend the annual address." - stfu

asswipe and go and sit in on the tea party with Mrs. Long John dong Thomas as hostess.

I spit in your general direction, fuckwad. (directed at roberts, not the poster of this article)

[awoke_in_2003]

12. His mother was a hamster...

and his father smelt of elderberries

[liberation]

13. I could swear his mother was a goat.... :-)

[SemperEadem]

8. If right is so on your side, Roberts, then why are you afraid to stand in your truth

and take your ass whippin' for it? You're grown enough to basically take a 2x4 to a hornet's nest, but you're not grown enough to not complain when you get stung.

[earcandle]

9. Obama is not a king. And neither are the judges on the supreme court. We still have a constitution

I wish the press would state the rules and the regulations
that govern all three branches of government considering the
education
lost to our young people over the last thirty years, so that
people could be reminded of what is actually happening versus
how we keep our constitution intact and make sure our leaders
are doing their jobs.

The way the press deals with issues seems like they treat laws
and regulations as if they are wars of words in
gossip columns looking at best to reach hopeful results rather
than reach the certainties guaranteed by our system of checks
and balances.   

[TomCADem]

14. What? Only Kings Can Criticize The Supreme Court? Sorry, Don't Buy It. It Was A Stupid Holding

Over turning decades of precedent to recognize a right of corporations to contribute unlimited amounts in elections was an amazing decision by the Supreme Court. International rights organizations have criticized the decision.

So, I may not be a king, but I feel perfectly comfortable criticizing the decision.

[No Elephants]

18. We've kept our constitution intact and made sure our leaders are doing their jobs?

What a relief. Here I thought we'd not been managing to do either of those things.

[Iowa]

21. Agreed, and I think your post may have been misunderstood...

You're simply saying that the media should be reporting what our political leaders are doing within the context of the certainties that are guaranteed by the constitution, right? Instead they operate from the premise that everything is up for grabs and simply a matter of opinion... almost as if it's the Jerry Springer show or something. At least that's how I read your post. And I agree.

[earcandle]

24. Thanks goodness for intelligence and understanding. This is exactly what I meant. Appreciate the

recognition!  Thanks much.  

[BumRushDaShow]

26. "I wish the press would state the rules and the regulations that govern all three branches..."

The media doesn't even know "the rules". They are as dumbed down as the rest of the nation and are completely clueless regarding the separation of powers and the role of each branch. Their reporting on the HCR process over the summer and through the fall was a case-in-point as they continually talked about "the bill" (in reference to the Senate version), while completely ignoring that the House had it's own version. And when on Christmas Eve, the House version passed, they simply glossed over it regarding the fact that some sort of reconciliation would need to happen once the Senate version was done.

To the M$M, government functioning has been distilled down to innuendo and gossip, and the reporting on the government is now indistinguishable from entertainment and sports reporting, despite the fact that government machinations impact us all and should not be relegated to being infotainment.

[april]

10. someone had better stand for something or we are screwed

[No Elephants]

19. Hopefully, someone will stand up for something more than a pointless pissing contest.

[No Elephants]

20. Impeach Roberts for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings and for partiality.

[BlueIdaho]

22. Good for the White House!

The conservative court members have routinely gone out of their way to make rulings beyond the scope the cases they hear - just to further their masters agenda. Fuck 'em.