(02-05-2010 01:56 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-05-2010 01:03 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Not any more. I can't imagine them being there for the SOTU ever again. There's no reason for them to be.

Good. Let the 5 not show up. It will show the world what they truely are-partisan activist judges.

To clarify, I meant any of them. If the Chief Justice doesn't show, then I'd expect none of them will.

Looking at the video of the incident, even Ginsberg looked mortified. Or very close to death. I'm not sure how to tell.

(02-05-2010 06:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The president's decisions are questioned (and ridiculed) by many. So are Congress's decisions. Why should the SC be any different?

Because they are a non-political branch of government and are there for a constitutionally mandated event (even though there's no requirement that they be there). It is unconscionable for the President to attempt to intimidate the court by tossing out applause lines during the State of the Union. If it's ok for the President to do it then why is it a problem for your local drug dealer to intimidate a judge?

(02-05-2010 07:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  If it's ok for the President to do it then why is it a problem for your local drug dealer to intimidate a judge?

Because one is criminal threatening and the other is, well, nevermind.

(02-05-2010 07:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-05-2010 06:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The president's decisions are questioned (and ridiculed) by many. So are Congress's decisions. Why should the SC be any different?

Because they are a non-political branch of government and are there for a constitutionally mandated event (even though there's no requirement that they be there). It is unconscionable for the President to attempt to intimidate the court by tossing out applause lines during the State of the Union. If it's ok for the President to do it then why is it a problem for your local drug dealer to intimidate a judge?

If the Pres can throw out insults from one side of the teleprompter...........

I think most individuals feel like our political system is dominated by special interests. Those interests have the ear of politicians because they have a concentration of money to pay for lobbying and to use for campaign donations. The recent SCOTUS ruling makes it much, much easier for special interests to inject money into the political arena. IMHO, such a ruling deserves to be criticized in all sorts of forums because it represents a degradation of our democracy.

(02-06-2010 09:14 AM)Paul M Wrote:  If the Pres can throw out insults from one side of the teleprompter...........

How about Palin reading notes off her hand(just after bashing Obama for using a teleprompter)?

Good to see you took me of your ignore list. :) Maybe you can talk Torchy, Lord Stanley(my comment to him was supposed to be a joke-forgot to add a emoticon-but obviously wasn't funny) and others into doing the same?

I'd just refer you to what Hambone10 said in post number 27.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=41...pid5142247



For the record, I haven't taken you off my ignore list. Beside seeing "The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.", there is also an "Show this Post" button.

I check a few of your posts. Haven't seen a reason to take you off ignore yet.

(02-05-2010 06:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The president's decisions are questioned (and ridiculed) by many. So are Congress's decisions. Why should the SC be any different?

Read the story again. That's what the headline says... but its not what Thomas says. Exactly the sort of comment that Thomas was talking about... and your reaction shows why it is irresponsible of the AP.

(02-06-2010 03:16 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-05-2010 07:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-05-2010 06:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The president's decisions are questioned (and ridiculed) by many. So are Congress's decisions. Why should the SC be any different?

Because they are a non-political branch of government and are there for a constitutionally mandated event (even though there's no requirement that they be there). It is unconscionable for the President to attempt to intimidate the court by tossing out applause lines during the State of the Union. If it's ok for the President to do it then why is it a problem for your local drug dealer to intimidate a judge?

Really (the laugh?) When's the last time you saw a judge deliver a speech on behalf of a candidate or accept campaign money or lobby another branch on behalf of a party?