Idiot jurist Sammy "The Bullshit" Alito had the gall to sit there and shake his head and disagree with the President when Obama called out the Supreme Court tonight on their awful precedent shattering decision on corporate money in politics. President Obama rightly said that their decision that corporations can spend what ever money they like on our elections means that foreign corporations can now influence elections. But like the true conservative he is, Alito refused to listen to the truth and he shook his head no and muttered that the President's comment wasn't true. I guess in the dream world where Alito lives only the nice and super sweet American corporations will pour money into our electoral process and the mean and nasty foreign corporations will sit out the whole process. And pigs will fly, blacks will willingly go back to the plantations, and the gays will stop pestering people for equal treatment under the law, in Alito's world as well. I long for the good old days when Supreme Court justices weren't such douchebags. And when they actually followed precedent and didn't just make up new laws and doctrine based on pleasing those who appointed them to the bench.
10 comments:
I saw that and was happy he did it.
That way, the media keeps playing the clip and reminding the entire world what an asshole Alito is.
Sotomayor should have elbowed him, scowled and said "shhhhh."
That would have made great into perfect.
Not disagreeing with the fact that Alito's a moron, but the SCOTUS decision doesn't legalize foreign corporate involvement in funding elections.
That statute/code remains intact. 2 USC 441e.
What the SCOTUS decision did do was repeal a law that is barely 15 years old.
For a better synop, check here: Politifact.com
Of particular interest to you might be the following statement: "because the majority justices didn't actually strike down the existing barriers on foreign companies -- in fact, they explicitly wrote that it fell beyond the boundaries of their decision -- our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law."
Again, not saying the alarms in our heads shouldn't be sounding, but the propaganda twist on SCOTUS' decision seems to be overriding what actually happened.
Did you notice during the Republican Rebuttal, that they carefully included a black women and an Asian American in the shot?
And I think the term 'smarmy' perfectly fits Bob McDonnell. I had to take a hot shower after that.
Of particular interest to you Jeffscape is the fact that a corporation is a corporation is a corporation and it makes no difference if it's foreign or domestic, they will all be pouring money in to out elections as a result of this ruling. Wake up and stop drinking the corporate media Kool-Aid.
Why isn't the Right screaming about activist judges???
Considering how many "American" corporations have foreign ownership, I don't see how it's possible to NOT be true.
Of course you are correct Ubie.
I am pretty sure there are no blacks or gays in his world.
So i wrote a totally eloquent and brilliant comment and then lost it - 3 times. Blogger hates me. Maybe it is fixed now...Totally forgot what I was going to say.
Oh yeah. (1). super easy to domesticate a foreign corp. Depending on what state, you can do it in about 5 minutes, probably while eating a roast beef sammich and cruising the interwebs for clown pron.
(2). the 100+ law that SCOTUS overruled/ignored was the Tillman Act. I have seen a number of conservapologists pharguing that the phrase ""make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office" somehow isn't "clear" on whether it means a corp can't throw money around in an election or means just can't donate directly to a candidate.
Really? REALLY? It says "any election" not any candidate - how is this "unclear?" Is this unjustified semantic hairsplitting revenge for the whole 'depends on what the definition of "is" is' thing?
'Cause if so, don't you think it's overkill?
Jeffscape is wrong because most "US corporations" have heavy foreign ownership these days.
Post a Comment