The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

?? I pretty much restated exactly what Alex has been saying.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

?? I pretty much restated exactly what Alex has been saying.

It is never my intent to be closed minded. I suppose I should have more properly said -

After reading what you guys have written and thinking about it, yeah, it makes sense to me and I can certainly see it that way, and my dislike of Matthews made me read something into his statement that wasn't there. Also, as i mentioned I heard the statement on the radio on my way to work, the local radio guy here certainly injected an opinion into it that I picked up. I now believe, as you and Alex have said, that there was nothing in what Matthews said that should be interpretted as him having primarily a racial view of Obama above anything else.

It was not my intent to say what you said made sense but what Alex had said didn't.

[Chernabog]

I can't think of a good political reason he had to piss off 5 of the Supremes in the SOTU.... maybe in hopes that Congress will pass a law getting around that stupid decision? But why do it at the state of the union address with the Supremes in attendance? Just seems like a needless "slap in the face" to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Seems like a pretty neefull slap in the face to me.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Seems like a pretty neefull slap in the face to me.

I agree.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree that there's little to be gained by implying that judges are biased--which, of course, they are-- or corrupt--which they generally aren't.

Obama could have said that he would not comment on the merits of the decision but that the enforcement of constitutional rights does not always lead to socially positive outcomes, and we now live in a world where corporations, etc.

Was anybody else watching and thinking, "He didn't say the state of our union is strong. Please tell us it's strong."

[Alex]

My long term question about attendance by the justices (I don't really care about telling them to their faces that you disagree, though I haven't yet seen the exact language used and it could be a political bad thing regardless though no judge would ever admit such a thing) is why they attend wearing their robes. They're not presiding over anything. It's not like it is their normal all the time uniform. It's just silly looking.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Alex

is why they attend wearing their robes.

I think it is because the Illuminati sew the robes into their skin when they become Justices. Or is it the Cenobites? I forget.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

, though I haven't yet seen the exact language used and it could be a political bad thing regardless though no judge would ever admit such a thing)

"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."

[Alex]

Ok, that seems relatively moderate way of saying the Supreme Court was wrong and to advocate for a legislative solution (though I know the majority opinion explicitly disagrees that foreign involvement is an outcome of the decision). Probably would have been best to use another word than "wrong" at the end as it isn't clear where that is referring to corporate involvement being wrong (which would not necessarily say the court incorrectly decided) or whether the decision itself was unreasonably decided (though he doubtless thinks so).

He could have lashed out at activist judges. He could have gone the FDR route and asked that Congress increase the size of the bench so that he could stack it with right thinking judges to reverse things. (Though he never called out one decision Bush wasn't shy about criticizing aspects of the judiciary in his SOTUs; even outright calling out certain state Supreme Courts)

I do think that expanding the court to, say, 15 judges would be a good thing but it would never be politically viable in a time when the court is closely split ideologically and it would not be viewed as politically necessary when it isn't.