Obama's State of the Union Address

[Miros]

Did anyone get a chance to see it? Was it smoke out ass or was it decent? I just started watching it on Hulu right now.

 

[Tristam Green]

Did anyone get a chance to see it? Was it smoke out ass or was it decent? I just started watching it on Hulu right now.

I missed the Address itself, intent on watching it tonight, but I did watch the Republican Response. I was surprised they didn't put Mr. Cosmo up on display from Massachusetts.

 

[Miros]

It wasn't too bad at all to be honest. It will be interesting to see what the next few years bring.

 

[Halifirien]

I was pleased to hear him renew his call for a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the implication of getting it done this year. It's time that policy went the way of the dodo.

 

[Miros]

I wasn't too happy at some of the "snide" comments he made. I put snide in quotations because I couldn't think of the right word for it, but it was mainly when he was talking about the global climate change and said something about "even if you don't believe the over abundance of evidence in favor of global climate change" to which the pause came and then applause happened. I just felt that it wasn't necessary at all. I was pleased with what he said after the comment though. I'm perfectly fine with moving forward with finding new ways or improving current items to make them a cleaner source, but I'd rather it not be hiding behind global climate change and he put that into words for people who are not fully convinced of the phenomenon.

I'm hoping this doesn't twist this thread into a global climate change debate, just pointing out what was said.

 

[Celvantes]

First sitting president to publicly call out the Supreme Court during the State of the Union... and get his facts wrong when doing so. Good job, dude.

 

[masterorion]

im guessing the judges of the supreme court was that group sitting up front during the speech? if so, maybe thats why they didnt clap so much. they were looking quite pissy

 

[Halifirien]

Justices avoid clapping and standing during the SotU to avoid looking partisan, which is why Alito's muttered "Not true" at Obama's rebuke is getting so much attention, even though it wasn't as obvious as Joe Wilson yelling "You lie!"

 

[masterorion]

Good point. I suppose it would look bad if they didn't stay partisan. I didn't hear anyone mutter anytbhing tho

 

[Celvantes]

It's valid when the President is factually wrong, especially on a case that THEY JUST DELIBERATED.

 

[Halifirien]

Funny, I don't remember him being wrong about that. You're saying their decision doesn't allow corporations to spend as much as they want in political campaign advertising? The dissenting justices certainly seem to think it does.

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission doesn't affect direct corporate or union contributions to candidates. Those will still be banned. Nor does it cover spending from any of the thousands of political action committees set up by special interests.

Instead, the decision frees corporations and unions to spend from their own treasuries on ads and other advocacy efforts. It does so in several ways.

The decision strikes down part of a 2002 campaign finance law, which banned direct corporate spending on "electioneering communications" within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. The decision also reverses a 1990 Supreme Court decision that had upheld a broader federal ban on corporate campaign spending.

"Were the court to uphold these restrictions, the government could repress speech by silencing certain voices," Kennedy wrote.

Corporations and unions will still have to disclose their sponsorship of ads run close to an election.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, writing for the four dissenters, warned that the ruling would harm the political system as well as the court's own reputation. In striking down certain corporate campaign spending limits, the court reversed its own precedents.

"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation," Stevens wrote.

...

Even the decision's release suggested history in the making. Kibitzers waited on the Supreme Court's steps, as justices convened in a very rare special session. Stevens took the unusual step of reading aloud part of his 90-page dissent from the bench.

"The court's ruling dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions, and the narrow interests they represent . . . in determining who will hold public office," Stevens wrote.