Why do liberals Hate Sarah Palin?

[pattygreen 5]

It's Alito who owes Obama and the american people an apology for mouthing "that's not true" when Pres. Obama spoke. Very unprofessional, inappropriate and unjudicial of him.

And as far as that conservative interpretation of the supreme court ruling, well you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

It doesn't suprise me that you would side with big corporations - you've always advocated for them and big insurance. And why is it that you think the republicans embrace this decision? They don't give a rat's patuty about free speech - it's because they stand to profit from this ruling. It's the whole thing I said before about the republicans representing the rich and corporate america.

And this ruling was the biggest example of judicial activism since they decided the 2000 presidential election.

When republicans complain about judicial activism - which they do all the time- it means: Some judge didn't rule the way we wanted them to. More hypocrisy.

Whether the republicans give a rats patuty about free speech or not is irrelivent. The supreme court must uphold the constitution!

[phil1336 0]

Remember the old saying, Whats Good for General Motors is Good For The USA? Isn`t it ironic that GM is NOW Government Motors. With the FCC now allowing monopoly ownership of ALL TV and Radio Stations nationwide airing the same pre-packaged crap, every station plays the same (loop) programing with identical sponsors? Now, one needs XM radio or Public Radio to avoid this corporate noise. You go Murdock, buy every Newspaper and Radio outlet you can. Fox will certainly take them off your hands when you want to sell them. And for the Supreme Court to rule the corporations have the same rights to freedom of speech as living breathing individuals and can now give unlimited monies to back their profit driven agenda, ( as long as they are USA owned entities) whatabout FOREIGN owned and run companies that have USA divisions or maildrops, No longer will funds be limited or be required to be driven through PACS. How can a Corporation be given the same freedom of speech as a individual. Corporations have no "soul" except at the base of their feces smeared shoes! This Country is Doomed! Thanks Glenn, Rush, Shawn, and lets not forget Newt. Don`t you just love Apple Pie and Family Values?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Whether the republicans give a rats patuty about free speech or not is irrelivent. The supreme court must uphold the constitution!

And they did so with Roe v Wade, too, but you don't agree with that particular "upholding of the constitution" do you?

[BJean 16]

I'm glad that patty posted those inane remarks made by Mr. Barnett, teacher of constitutional law. Clearly a person who is influenced by his politics. It makes you wonder who he teaches. Perhaps patty can tell us?

The president went on to say that the house and senate should come togther to figure out a way to fix the problem. Roberts and Alito are embarrassments to their robes. The sexist and inappropriate remarkes they make in public reveal how untouchable they think they are.

Mr. Barnett, if he were an apolitical person, would be far more concerned about these men and that buffoon, Judge Thomas, and their clearly set agenda.

[phil1336 0]

Speaking of the Most Honorable Clarence Thomas, who advocated ending all affirmative action and EEO programs! Being Black himself and having made himself the Man he is today (I`m sure HE never made use of any of those LIBERAL Government programs) once he passed through the door, close it, lock it, and screw the "Bothers and Sisters" that get shut out. I gots mine! Anita Hill lied about that (pubic hair) on her can of Pepsi? Whatever happened to "Long Dong Silver". I did`nt think conservative Republican CHRISTIAN folks enjoyed Porn? I forgot....hate the Sin....Love the Sinner! LMAO

[Cleo's Mom 257]

He was no more stupid than Obama himself at the state of the union adress insulting the supreme court justices in a public forum. Obama owes the high court an apology.

Suppose for a moment that you were a justice seated there as the president of the United States singled you out for criticism and the room stood and cheered. Could they take it? Yes, of course. Should they have been put in this position? Absolutely not.

Then there is the substance of the remark itself. It was factually wrong. The Court's ruling in Citizens United concerned the right of labor unions and domestic corporations, including nonprofits, to express their views about candidates in media such as books, films and TV within 60 days of an election. In short, it concerned freedom of speech; in particular, an independent film critical of Hillary Clinton funded by a nonprofit corporation.

While the Court reversed a 1990 decision allowing such a ban, it left standing current restrictions on foreign nationals and "entities." Also untouched was a 100-year-old ban on domestic corporate contributions to political campaigns to which the president was presumably referring erroneously.

If the president, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, is going to criticize a judicial opinion, it is incumbent upon him to be legally accurate and responsible in his commentary. If that is too much to expect of a politician giving a nationally televised speech to the general public, then this again illustrates the inappropriateness of making this remark in this venue.

For those who strongly object to the ruling in Citizens United and still do not see the impropriety of criticizing the Court this way, consider Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during the president's address to a joint session of Congress in September. No one denied the right of a congressman to criticize the accuracy of the president's remarks. The objection was to the rudeness and disrespect shown the president, for which Mr. Wilson promptly apologized. So too should the president.

excerpts from Randy E. Barnett's letter (teacher of constitutional law)

We'll just have to see if american corporations with foreign investors will be allowed to use unlimited amounts of money to buy elections. This could actually work in the democrat's favor because they will be sure to point out the foreign investors of any corporations that contributes to the republicans. We do not extend first amendment rights to foreigners.

[phil1336 0]

With our Federal Government as inept as it.....THE Shilaki`s...Obama party crashers...SECRET SERVICE, do you expect more over sight from any other agency?

[pattygreen 5]

And they did so with Roe v Wade, too, but you don't agree with that particular "upholding of the constitution" do you?

where does it tell you in the constitution that you can kill life?

[BJean 16]

Fertilized eggs are not people. Women, on the other hand are.

[phil1336 0]

Where does the Government (State or Federal) have the Right to make a Woman`s decision whether or not to proceed carrying her Embryo/Fetus, especially during the first trimester. Your Religion tells YOU, that Life begins at conception. For many others it begins once the cord is cut, the baby`s buttocks is spanked, a cry comes out, a new life is delivered....Born. Until that point of delivery, we have stem cells in different degrees of development! The Xray shows a partially formed human, but until delivery, it is not a living child. Like I said in earlier posts, if Men could get pregnant, there would never-ever been any laws legislated to interfere with a Males option to interfere with (His) Reproductive choices. What a Male Chauvinist controlled Judiciary we have! Old Men eating Viagra Tablets like M&M candies who can`t get it up anymore making laws that Women need to obey! Do what (your) own Religious faith mandates...don`t force everyone else to observe your Church edicts or Papal Bulls! Or outlaw Vasectomies! Why should Men be allowed to spill their precious bodily Fluid (Minus) their furtile seed, that was bypassed during that Pro-Choice procedure? Where are you Pro-Lifers protesting in front of your local Urologists office screaming at Men NOT to have a Vasectomy?

!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

where does it tell you in the constitution that you can kill life?

from about.com

Roe v. Wade is the historic Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.

Where does it say in the constitution that corporations are people with the right to vote, own a gun and get married?

You only say the SCOTUS is supporting the constitution when you like its ruling, when you don't, well then they just got it wrong, I guess.

[BJean 16]

phil, I love it. Whenever a woman gets pregnant without her permission, a man has to have a vasectomy! Perfect solution. Or castration, maybe castration would be even better. Hee!

[BJean 16]

You've got me musing, phil, wouldn't it be great if a board of women legislators could pass a law that men can't get vasectomies.

Wait a minute, in the Roe v. Wade case, what if Roe went before the Supreme Court suing that the man who got her preggers had to carry the baby - in his scrotum. Oooh, this just keeps getting better!

[pattygreen 5]

Do what (your) own Religious faith mandates...don`t force everyone else to observe your Church edicts

There are many, many, many laws that are enforced and in place that stem from the moral beliefs that come from religion. With your philosophy, we shouldn't have a law that says "don't steal from anyone", cause that's a law that Jesus put forth. Or the law that says "don't use drugs", cause Jesus told us not to when he said ,"your body is God's temple and you should not abuse it". Or the law that states you should not murder, cause that's one of the 10 commandments that God gave to mankind.

It's ridiculous to say that we should not make laws that stem from our faiths.

[BJean 16]

It's ridiculous to say that our laws are based on religion. There have been those same laws used to keep men civilized since long before religion was a word.

How do you think the Ten Commandments were invented? Oh yeah, God gave them to Moses. Because it was not obvious to anyone but God that murder was bad or stealing was bad or doing your neighbor's wife was bad, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

One day you're going to have to question your blind faith, just as Mother Teresa did, or you're going to die having had a very limited spiritual existence.