Alito On Obama - "Not True". And He's Right!

Supreme Court Justice Alito had a made-for-video moment during Obama's State of the Union address,  mouthing "Not true" after the President inaccurately described the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance laws.  Brad Smith is a law prof with the truth, or we could go to David Kirkpatrick of the NY Times:

The president appeared to have mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political commercials by suggesting that the decision invited political advertisements by foreign companies, too.

“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,” Mr. Obama said.

“Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and 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.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the majority in that decision, broke with the justices’ usual decorum to openly dissent. He shook his head no and mouthed the words “not true.”

...President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections. But he is too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies.

I think Mr. Kirkpatrick has more of a future as a reporter than as a political strategist - Obama's strategy of calling on Congress to enact laws already on the books should assure him of a useful victory.  A year from now, Obama can appear at the State of the Union and proudly announce that Congress has banned foreign corporations from running ads.

The Times got this right during their live-blogging last night as well:

A Memorable, Unusual Moment | 10:38 p.m. David Kirkpatrick notes a rare moment of confrontation. As Mr. Obama criticized the recent ruling on campaign finance, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to correct him.
(The justice’s reaction is captured on YouTube.)

When Mr. Obama declared that the ruling would open the floodgates to special interest spending on American elections, including foreign companies, Justice Alito broke with the justices’ usual decorum during such events and shook his head no, mouthing the words, “No, it’s not true.” In fact, though a dissenting opinion and some analysts argued that the opinion could imply a First Amendment right for foreign corporations to spend money on American campaign commercials, the majority opinion explicitly said it was not making that determination with this decision [link to 183 page .pdf].

So the Times, at least, is not in the tank for Obama on this one.  But you can't spell "apologist" without AP!  Their coverage:

The court did upend a 100-year trend that had imposed greater limitations on corporate political activity. Specifically, the court, in a 5-4 decision, said corporations and unions could spend freely from their treasuries to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court's majority "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

As the Times noted, Stevens was arguing (p. 120 of the .pdf) that a simple-minded extension of the majority logic ought to allow foreign corporations the right to run commercials.  However, the majority expressly addressed that (p. 3 of the .pdf,or p. 46 of the opinion):

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”).

Geez - what sort of basic skills are they teaching in law schools?

Comments

[Jane]

Mr President isn't much of a Constitutional lawyer. Wasn't that the bulk of his resume?

[Pofarmer]

Wasn't that the bulk of his resume?

What resume?

Affirmative Action Hire is looking truer and truer.

[Old Lurker]

Well we can inspect his transcripts and see which course he took and how he did in them.

...oh, wiat....

[Old Lurker]

Two typos already. Going to be a long day.

[Pofarmer]

Hey, OL.

Or, we could just read some of his Harvard Law Review articles........................

[Pofarmer]

Maybe look at his past legislative accomplishments for a clue??

[Old Lurker]

Morning, Po. That's quite a president you have there.

[steve sturm]

You would think that Obama's speechwriters and everybody on his staff who previewed the speech would take care to not put in anything that was so easily proven wrong... but obviously, you'd be wrong.

The same holds for his claims about wanting transparency (when everything was done in secret and without a peep of protest from Obama), bi-partisanship (when the Democrats in Congress wrote their legislation without any Republicans in the room), an elimination to earmarks, rants against lobbyists and so on... all said with a straight face and all false and so much so that even the pro-Obama AP felt the need to point it out.

The question I keep asking (not just of Obama but of politicians in general): are they that careless and stupid that they don't know of what they speak? Or do they know better but are figuring that we're so ignorant that we won't know any better?

[Old Lurker]

Steve, you had me at "careless and stupid"

[MikeS]

This president does not play well with others, whether Democrat or Republican.

[Old Lurker]

...and I could go on.

[sbw]

Alito had the decorum not to throw his shoe.

[narciso]

In the dictionary definition of demagogue, you would have to find Obama in the gallery of illustrations. He has shown contempt or at least disdain, for veterans, church goers, businesmen, doctors, et al. That his speeches
echo with cadences better fit for Caracas, Havana, or Tehran isn't an accident

[Rob Crawford]

Obama's presidential campaign disabled the checks that allowed them to prevent donations from foreigners. There's pretty good evidence they raised a LOT of money from foreigners.

So WTF is Obama's beef with foreigners bankrolling campaigns? That they might not just slip money into his pocket? Or that, now that it's legal, his opponents have the same opportunity?

[fdcol63]

Obama:

[narciso]

Even the AP isn't buying the story, although they used only half the fact checkers as in Sarah's book

[jorod]

This is just a political attack on the Court. Get ready for more lies and misrepresentations.

[MarkO]

This is a president with the courage to insult a captive audience of Justices (Ruth was asleep most of the night). Has any other president displayed such bad manners and bad judgment? Good luck with that next big case.

[clarice]

Every time he opens his mouth about the law, the value of a HLS degree is substantially diminished. (I know for a fact at the Univ of Chicago every time it is reported he was a "professor of constitutional law" there, eyes roll, teeth gnash and people deplore the decision to make him an adjunct lecturer to pad the AA roll.

[centralcal]

Obama is a really ugly, petty, little man and he is showing it more and more in public.

[fdcol63]

The really disgusting thing about Obama is that we'll be reminded of his presence FOREVER, with schools, streets, buildings, and everything else named after him.

[Paul D.]

For this administration The State of the Union Adress has become just another 'Scoldabe Moment.

[Captain Hate]

You would think that Obama's speechwriters and everybody on his staff who previewed the speech would take care to not put in anything that was so easily proven wrong... but obviously, you'd be wrong.

You'd think that his staff would've told him that going to shill for Coakley instead of concentrating on Haiti or the economy wouldn't be a smart idea but you'd be wrong. Or his idiotic speech in Elyria in front of a bunch of obvious plants. I'm not sure why Axelrod and whatever other geniuses are choreographing this stupidity think that anything he does is well advised but Rove couldn't come up with a better scenario to send a President and his party into the toilet.

[Jim Ryan]

This country is making it alright. The electorate are still knowledgeable and discerning enough to smell a rat. They can get duped for a little while by a con-man, but not for long.

The ineptitude of this con-man is a blessing. He's just not that bright or cunning. The notorious tyrants of history are doing facepalm from their graves, saying, "Groan. You need either brute force or cunning, but this punk has neither. I can't bear to watch 2010."

He thought he had cunning and at the very least overpowering and hypnotic speech. But he didn't. He had some power of mass persuasion but not enough to last more than a year on our electorate. About the time it takes for a new-fangled flavor of popcorn to see its novelty wear thin and its sales plummet.

BS only lasts a year or so in this country (God bless America.) The next three years will be a spectacle of buffoonery. He's not bright enough to swerve away from his stupid policies, drop the lying, and get those approvals above 50%. It remains to be seen only how much damage he can do to the economy before he's voted out in 2012. "Worst president" doesn't describe it. He's just a mistake, an outlier. The bumper sticker "Oops" sums it up.

He had only style which is now stale and passe. There was never any real power there.

[Pofarmer]

The really disgusting thing about Obama is that we'll be reminded of his presence FOREVER, with schools, streets, buildings, and everything else named after him.

I dunno, making sure people remember this time in history might not be such a bad thing. Plus, it will give opportunities for nice conversations in the care. Everytime you see a sign, "Heah, do you remember what that &#)#*%% did?".

[fdcol63]

Ever the optimist, eh, Po? LOL

[Porchlight]

Good luck with that next big case.

Especially now that he's insulted his crucial swing vote, Kennedy, who wrote the opinion. A winning strategy I'm sure.

[fdcol63]

Personally, though, I think it would have been much better for the country if our 1st African-American POTUS had been competent and successful.

And a conservative.

[Pofarmer]

It remains to be seen only how much damage he can do to the economy before he's voted out in 2012.

Get congress flipped in 2010, and it should be controllable, although I'm sure Barack Hussein will still throw temper tantrums. IMHO, he may be dead in the water already.

[Danube of Thought]

British intelligence has reported that the Court's decision may open the floodgates...

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 17 at Ras.

[Ed F]

I find it ironic that Obama is concerned about elections being bankrolled by powerful American interests when he ran the most expensive Presidential campaign in history.

[Pofarmer]

find it ironic that Obama is concerned about elections being bankrolled by powerful American interests when he ran the most expensive Presidential campaign in history.

Oh, he just wants to make sure it's the correct interests. Have no doubts about that.

[Cecil Turner]

I guess yelling "you lie" during the SOTU would be bad form . . . but it'd be refreshing anyway.

[Pofarmer]

I guess yelling "you lie" during the SOTU would be bad form . . . but it'd be refreshing anyway.

How about just saying "This guy supposedly taught Constitutional Law?"

Not quite as grating.

[clarice]

Remember, his guy turned down public financing of the election after promising he's abide by it. If he was so worried about "special interests" controlling campaigns he should have thought about it before his conduct assured the issue of public financing would die.

[Danube of Thought]

Linda Greenhouse of the NY Times says Alito got it right.

[Ignatz]

--The really disgusting thing about Obama is that we'll be reminded of his presence FOREVER, with schools, streets, buildings, and everything else named after him.--

--I dunno, making sure people remember this time in history might not be such a bad thing.--

Not to mention the innumerable chances for nocturnal embellishment and graffiti.

Besides at the rate he's going the only thing named after him might end up that San Fran sewer plant they were going to name after W. If Pelosi loses her speakership she'll of course blame him and then I can almost gaurantee it.

[jimmyk]

Remember, his guy turned down public financing of the election after promising he's abide by it.

And speaking of foreign interests, weren't there some credible suspicions of the sources of some of his non-traceable contributions? Like Louie in "Casablanca", Barry is "shocked" at the prospect of "foreign interests" providing money to political campaigns.

[Extraneus]

Wow, I didn't see the speech and only just now checked out the video, but was that the most disgusting thing a president has ever done during a SOTU speech? And to have the Supreme Court surrounded with clapping Dem functionaries besides?

That was really... Infuriating.

[anduril]

TM asks: "Geez - what sort of basic skills are they teaching in law schools?"

Um, the influence of Einstein's theory of relativity on the law?

If that's what young Barry spent his time pondering (with Laurence Tribe), is it any wonder he has trouble understanding Supreme Court decisions?

[NK]

CentralCal-- puts it clearly and succinctly. barry O is an ugly, petty, little man. The only thing he's ever done is pick the right time to run for pres. and abuse campaign laws, so barry-o willfully misreprsented the holding in Citizens United. His false demagoguery is ugly and petty and shows again barry is little man. sad but true.

[narciso]

I think Professor Kingsfield, would certainly have flunked him

[anduril]

For good or ill, the world hasn't stopped turning during Obama's week of crisis.

Michael Young is a Beirut based reporter and editor. I've read his articles and listened to interviews with him re Hezbollah, the Israeli invasion and the Lebanese Spring. He's always struck me as well informed and balanced. Here's his latest: An Israeli attack on Iran? Don’t hold your breath

Two brief excerpts from a very worthwhile article:

No one doubts that Israel has a contingency plan, and the will, to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. However, the political costs of such action may be so prohibitive, and the chances of military success so uncertain, that the probability of Israel going through with it may be far lower than Israeli officials, keen to display their brinkmanship, let on.

...

Iran has plenty of latitude to make life difficult for Nato in Afghanistan, and it doesn’t take much imagination to foresee how an American-authorised Israeli attack against Iran would play out in Pakistan, given the mood there. The combination of both factors could cripple Mr Obama’s Afghan strategy, which is already hampered by delays in troop deployments and the reticence of American allies.

Iran has the scope to respond in a multifaceted way to any American or Israeli military operation – from Lebanon, possibly from Gaza as well, in the Gulf and in Afghanistan – all areas away from Iranian territory. Neither the US nor Israel can do the same, which will, in turn, make them both more reliant on a rapid escalation of force. In other words, Iran can play on the multiple political contradictions in the region, while the US and Israel, by responding through the only means readily at their disposal, military power, would only heighten these contradictions.

All this still does not mean that Israel will refrain from attacking Iran. But with the potential repercussions so risky and the international community cold towards any sort of military operation, we may steadily be moving closer to an American, and international, Plan B: the acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons, then containment through nuclear deterrence and other multilateral means. That said, so clear a statement of purpose has yet to be publicly expressed in Washington, and the bureaucracy has not reached a consensus.

Despite Israel’s conviction that an Iranian nuclear weapon represents a mortal threat, this view may have to be mitigated. Those entitled to fear Iran most are the Gulf states, who have no nuclear deterrent. Under present circumstances, an Israeli assault would open a Pandora’s box with aftershocks that the Obama administration is deeply reluctant to face. And when Washington is helpless, Israel has little room to dissent.

[rrpjr]

"Justice Alito broke with the justices’ usual decorum during such events..."

Hilarious. Good old NY Times. Yes, it's ALITO who "broke with decorum" by speaking to himself under his breath completely unaware he was being viedotaped, not OBAMA who broke with decorum by calling out the Supreme Court for the first time in the history of SOTUs.

[Ignatz]

How did WF Buckley raise such an imbecilic Charlie Brown fecklessly trying to boot Barry's football again and again? Here's Chris Buckley cheering Barry's transparently phony boosting of nuclear power.
Good grief.

[Ranger]

BTW, a little off topic, but it looks like congress is a little miffed about Obama blaming them for back room deals:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32116.html>Backlash on W.H.'s backroom deals

Hours before President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address, Republicans and Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee agreed to pursue a revised GOP request for additional documentation about the talks that led to a series of controversial administration agreements with doctors, hospitals and drug makers at the outset of the health care debate.

Looks like Obama is about to reap the whirlwind.

Via Instapundit

[Extraneus]

An excellent CATO video Fisking of the SOTU address, via InstaPundit.

[Cecil Turner]

I think this post from Glenn encapsulates the best reactions. I know I was struck exactly like Pejman Yousefzadeh by the self-contradictions in the speech. But the funniest part on topic is this parenthetical from Orin Kerr:

As I re-watch the clip, I image a collective bubble over the Justices at about the 25-second mark, representing their thoughts, with the text, ‘We are so not coming to this next year.’

[Danube of Thought]

I wouldn't surprise me at all if the Supremes passed on the event next year, perhaps letting Sotomayor represent all of them.

[caro]

Alito had the decorum not to throw his shoe.

HAHAHAHA

But will he get credit for that?

[Porchlight]

Ignatz,

FWIW some people are reading that Chris Buckley article as a parody. I sort of see what they're seeing - esp. in the part about SCOTUS - but it's extremely hard to tell. His previous writings don't give one much hope that he is sane wrt Barry.

[Jack is Back!]

The man just proved beyond a doubt what an imbecile he is when it comes to basic political etiquette. Why, in God's name, would you take on an equal member of the American government in such a disagreeable manner when the facts are he was wrong in his understanding of the legal concept that was decided? I find him not only tone deaf and out of touch with the common citizenry but also with the other branches of government. The fact that the Dems continue to cling to him like saran wrap tells me he isn't the only hopeless cause in DC.

[Tom Hayden]

It appears Obama's one crowning glory in history will end up being his surpassing Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever in recent times.
Jimmy may have been inept but he had more decorum

[Tom Hayden]

In one way you must admit Obama did reach across the isle to a past Republican president,
He has the honesty and truthfulness of Richard Nixon, "I am not a crook"
Nixon may have been a crook but he also had more decorum

[Dave (in MA)]

surpassing Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever in recent times.

[Ignatz]

--Ignatz,

FWIW some people are reading that Chris Buckley article as a parody.--

If so Porch, he's parodying himself by writing words indistinguishable from his previous rhetorical fellatios.

[Rob Crawford]

Why, in God's name, would you take on an equal member of the American government in such a disagreeable manner when the facts are he was wrong in his understanding of the legal concept that was decided?

Perhaps Mr. Constitutional Scholar doesn't understand that the Supremes are co-equal with him?

[soccer dad]

jimmyk
And speaking of foreign interests, weren't there some credible suspicions of the sources of some of his non-traceable contributions?

Ironic, ain't it? Though maybe "hypocritical" would be an even better description.

[glasater]

Ironic, ain't it? Though maybe "hypocritical" would be an even better description

Or perhaps projecting.......?

[fdcol63]

Has Obama ever argued a case before the USSC? In ANY courtroom?

Or did he just edit the HLR?

[Mustang0302]

It appears Obama's one crowning glory in history will end up being his surpassing Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever in recent times.

Yes, but he's still only gaining on LBJ. Can BHO catch and pass LBJ?

Yes He Can!

[Frau Sowienoch]

The really disgusting thing about Obama is that we'll be reminded of his presence FOREVER, with schools, streets, buildings, and everything else named after him.
Maybe some community can name the local sewer system after Obama. Civil SF did it for GWB.

I want a bumper sticker "Alito for President."

BTW I'm glad to be back home after my stint in King Co WA. I sure missed JOM.

[centralcal]

Rush agrees with me . . . he is calling Obama a "petty, little man."

[centralcal]

Welcome back home, Frau.

[Porchlight]

If so Porch, he's parodying himself by writing words indistinguishable from his previous rhetorical fellatios.

Yeah. It doesn't do to be too subtle in these things. Iowahawk will have a ball with this new one.

[Porchlight]

Hi, Frau! Great to see you.

[Jane]

Hey Frau - glad you have returned home.

[Neo]

A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change.

The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses -- from new regulations or legislation they may face domestically or abroad to potential changes in economic trends or physical risks to a company.

Does this include the risk to investors if AGW is proven a fraud ?

Al Gore call your office ...

[centralcal]

I think Althouse is spot on in this observation:

Isn't it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — are outweighed by one man's headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?

Alito really took all the wind out of Obama's sails.

[Danube of Thought]

He's never argued a case anywhere. I am not aware of his ever having made a court appearance

[clarice]

lad you're back, too, frau. King Co..Hope you got combat pay.

[Old Lurker]

"Rush agrees with me"

Damn, CCal, I think we ALL agree with you!

[matt]

Herzliche Wilkommen, gnaedige Frau!

[Jane]

I always had the impression that most of my law professors, including my Con Law Professor pretty much knew what they taught, but not a lot more. I think they would have been hard pressed to apply any of it to the real world. As a result I've never ever been impressed with some guy who was a second seat in Con Law for a couple of years.

I don't know if the rest of you have the same impression of law professors but I never thought O's experience in that regard counted for much.

[Extraneus]

Iowahawk will have a ball with this new one.

Ace sure did. [Language Alert]

[Neo]

Last night Barack Obama waterboarded the nation with another baroque flood of words.

[stan]

BTW - if BO-zo is so intent on reining in the influence of money from powerful interests, is he going to stop Soros?

[Neo]

First it was Wilson, and now Alito.
Will Obama ever get through a speech on Capitol Hill without somebody yelling "You Lie" or a facsimile thereof ?

What's worse, both times he was not telling the truth.

[Janet]

surpassing Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever...

A posting at Ace of Spades -

" The "Big Winner" from tonight's speech?

Jimmy Carter.

It's official: Jimmy is no longer the Worst President of my lifetime."

[Extraneus]

It's already been said in not so many words, but if the SC decides not to show up next year, Obama will be dripping blood from the podium.

Smart move, Barry. Hope we don't have any foreign enemies to worry about before 2013.

[Frau Sowienoch]

Thanks for the kind welcome back. I was able to check out JOM the night the Swimmer finally lost his seat. Wasn't that a grand night?
Yeah, like we truly think Number 44 (just multiple Nr.2 in one place) condemns foreign contributions for Democrats. Next year, we'll probably see tiny Judge Ginsberg all alone, staring at her knees during the SOTU.

[Extraneus]

Sarah Palin weighs in on the SOTU.

[centralcal]

FOX (the network, not the news channel) had the highest ratings for the SOTU among the networks at 9.74 million.

FNC (the news channel) had the highest ratings among the cablers at 5.741 million during the address and 6.617 for the analysis that immediately followed.

(per MediaBistro)

Also, according to TV By The Numbers the SOTU viewership was down 22% from the last Obama address to the joint Congress.

[anduril]

Peter Wehner puts it all together, beginning with a nice pun: A Self-Reverential State of the Union Address.

Virtually random samples:

And even as he castigated Washington for being "unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems," he continued to champion an agenda that would concentrate unprecedented power there.

If substance was the main take-away of this address, it would have been merely mediocre. But what made it downright harmful for Obama and Democrats was its tone. The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him.

...

What made the speech a bit bizarre, and somewhat alarming, is how detached from reality the president is. After having spent much of his time blaming his predecessor for his own failures, he said he was "not interested in re-litigating the past."

...

Having gone on a spending spree that is unprecedented in American history, the president castigated the political class for "leaving a mountain of debt" to future generations.

...

Perhaps the most striking aspect of last night's speech, though, was that Obama spoke as if the last year hadn't happened; as if he had not been president; and as if Congress had not been controlled by Democrats.

[bgates]

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

James Riady, Norman Hsu, a boatload of Tibetan monks, and the boys from the phone banks in Gaza could not be reached for comment.

[centralcal]

Sorry phone rang, here are the ratings links for anyone interested:

Cable

Network

[anduril]

A nice little zinger from Taranto: "How can you tell when President Obama is lying? Justice Samuel Alito's lips move."

And this a little later:

The Greenhouse Effect--II

Our favorite moment in the State of the Union was when Obama said this:

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.

To be sure, this was a "to be sure" sentence: The president went on to say global warming is worth fighting even if imaginary. But we liked this moment for two reasons: First, because the president felt obliged to acknowledge disagreement. Second, because his laughable assertion about "the overwhelming scientific evidence" was greeted with laughter. The climate-change climate has changed.

[Danube of Thought]

What made it so unforgivable to me was that he made his remarks at a time and in a place where he knew the members of the Court would be unable (and unwilling) to respond. It reminded me of Jimmy Carter at Coretta Scott King's funeral, when that petty, venal man couldn't resist taking cheap shots at G.W. Bush over "secret government wiretaps," Katrina and the Iraq war. He knew very well that Bush would not respond in kind.

He knew, in short, was that Bush was a gentleman. And he probably understood in his heart of hearts that he himself was not.

[Danube of Thought]

Just as Carter falsely described himself as a "nuclear physicist," Obama surely knows that it is entirely deceitful for him to call himself a constitutional law professor. He taught courses that were narrowly limited to the equal protection and due process clauses--in a word, civil rights law.

Every law student takes a course called "constitutional law," in which the entire document and its salient cases and history are taught. In addition to Obama's subjects, the students learn, among other things, about the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Commerce Clause cases, and all the rest. The person who teaches the course is called a constitutional law professor. Obama was never any such thing.

[clarice]

Exactly--and then to be so utterly wrong on the charge....Certainly a bad move on his part.

[Extraneus]

I was wondering why Breitbart even went on that show, but it seems Schuster lied to get him on.

[Extraneus]

Yes, he's a strategic genius. Totally vulnerable to a devastating riposte by the SC next year now. Hope he gets what he has coming to him, and if they do choose not to show up, they probably never will again, so every year we can hear how the SC used to attend before 2011 and why things changed.

[Captain Hate]

Just as Carter falsely described himself as a "nuclear physicist,"

I think it was "nuclear engineer" which was just as false

[Ann]

He knew, in short, was that Bush was a gentleman. And he probably understood in his heart of hearts that he himself was not.

That statement is one of the many reasons, we love ya, Dot. ♥ ♥ ♥

[Extraneus]

From Ace, Obmama responds to the SOTU address.

Heh.

[Neo]

In the spirit of "Area 51", I once sat through a talk on extra-terrestrials and ultra-terrestrials.

The more I view of Obama's SOTU speech, the more I find that he has a lot in common with the ultra-terrestrials.

Ultra-terrestrials, the story goes, live and are from the Earth, but are living on a different "plane of vibration" (yes, I laughed when I first heard that too). They supposedly hang out somewhere near the North Pole (sounds like the Superman folks stoled this part). They are far advanced over "normal humans", both mentally and technologically.

Now while that sounds a lot like Barry, why is it that I wish he were one of those "L5 colonists" ?

[Danube of Thought]

From Jake Tapper:

A noted Supreme Court historian who “enthusiastically” voted for President Obama in November 2008 today called President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address last night “really unusual” and said he wouldn’t be surprised if no Supreme Court Justices attend the speech next year.

“It was really unusual in my mind to see the president going after the Supreme Court in such a forum,” said author and Law Professor Lucas Powe, the Anne Green Regents Chair in Law, and a Professor of Government at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law. “I’m willing to bet a lot of money there will be no Supreme Court justice at the next State of the Union speech.”

[Janet]

Extraneus - That is a funny video! Thanks for the link.

[Neo]

THE United States today officially stated a goal to cut carbon emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 off 2005 levels, in a submission to the United Nations as part of last month's Copenhagen meeting.

The United States said it expected to cut emissions blamed for global warming “in the range of 17 per cent” and “anticipated” that Congress would approve legislation to meet the target.

Funny how none of the press thought this was big new today.