Comments on: Justice Roberts Stokes State of the Union Controversy http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/03/justice-roberts-stokes-state-of-the-union-controversy/ A Wide Open Weblog for Big News, the Big Picture Thu, 24 May 2012 16:31:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: admin http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/03/justice-roberts-stokes-state-of-the-union-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-4017 admin Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:18:40 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=6541#comment-4017 Let's hope not... Let’s hope not…

]]> By: DrStanCoty http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/03/justice-roberts-stokes-state-of-the-union-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-4016 DrStanCoty Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:47:43 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=6541#comment-4016 then...all will be lost... then…all will be lost…

]]> By: admin http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/03/justice-roberts-stokes-state-of-the-union-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-4015 admin Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:58:27 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=6541#comment-4015 You ain't alone... Just sayin', give peace a chance. Give Obama a chance. Give health care reform a chance... Once we have the enabling legislation to regulate the insurance industry for the first time, we can tweak it. When people see it doesn't fully work without the public option, maybe we can get it. If this bill doesn't pass NOW, the national media will declare the Obama presidency over, a failure, and the Republicans will take back control of Congress. Then, in 2012, Sarah Palin will be the next president. Surely you don't want that... You ain’t alone…

Just sayin’, give peace a chance. Give Obama a chance. Give health care reform a chance…

Once we have the enabling legislation to regulate the insurance industry for the first time, we can tweak it. When people see it doesn’t fully work without the public option, maybe we can get it.

If this bill doesn’t pass NOW, the national media will declare the Obama presidency over, a failure, and the Republicans will take back control of Congress. Then, in 2012, Sarah Palin will be the next president.

Surely you don’t want that…

]]> By: drstancoty http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/03/justice-roberts-stokes-state-of-the-union-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-4014 drstancoty Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:38:10 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=6541#comment-4014 My point is that without the public option this bill is a sham and a toothless tiger. There is nothing there to pull the teeth of the for-profit insurers. The Congress, dems and the gop, is owned by the corporations and are too scared or too greedy to buck them on anything. The Supreme Court is so politicized that they can't wait to screw the common man. By the way, this is what I think and I don't listen to talk radio other than sports talk. My point is that without the public option this bill is a sham and a toothless tiger. There is nothing there to pull the teeth of the for-profit insurers. The Congress, dems and the gop, is owned by the corporations and are too scared or too greedy to buck them on anything. The Supreme Court is so politicized that they can’t wait to screw the common man. By the way, this is what I think and I don’t listen to talk radio other than sports talk.

]]> By: Martha Hamby http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/03/justice-roberts-stokes-state-of-the-union-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-4013 Martha Hamby Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:19:12 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=6541#comment-4013 Perhaps it is most troubling to hear the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court tell the U of A Law School how difficult it was to be surrounded by one branch of the government that was "cheering and hollering." In fact, 2 branches of government surrounded the Justices: The Legislative and the Executive, by way of Congress, the Cabinet Secretaries of the federal agencies, and the President himself. In the words of the great Eleanor Holmes Norton in an interview with Stephen Colbert, "This is a civics lesson." There are 3 branches of government. I have seen no commentary that anyone present noticed. As to his comment that the rigors of protocol require that the Justices "sit there expressionless" during the State of the Union, I did not observe that, either. Justice Alito's visible rebuke during the State of the Union Address was unprecedented. The President's "adverse" remarks about the making of bad public policy should not be a surprise. When you issue an opinion like the one in Citizens United v. FEC, then you should expect controversy when the chamber holds more people who don't think it's a good idea to sell the government than people who do think it is a good idea ... and you should be able to handle the criticism, as Chief Justice Roberts said. So why did he bring it up? Were we supposed to feel sorry for the Court? Finally, the State of the Union Address has always been a political pep rally. It has traditionally been the President's night. See also the Addresses in prior Administrations. Even the minority party traditionally bestows respect. This President has spoken to Congress twice. In his first speech, a minority party member shouted, "You lie." In his second, a Supreme Court Justice shook his head and mouthed, "Not true, not true." I have to wonder why these events are not raised when issues of political decorum and protocol are discussed. At the risk of sounding like the great Jimmy Carter, what is so different about this president that dismissal of decorum and protocol is acceptable to the minority party? Today, March 12, George Wills’ column in the Washington Post called the “spectacle" of the State of the Union Address “increasingly puerile,” a word that comes from the Latin word for boy. I spy an answer. Perhaps it is most troubling to hear the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court tell the U of A Law School how difficult it was to be surrounded by one branch of the government that was “cheering and hollering.” In fact, 2 branches of government surrounded the Justices: The Legislative and the Executive, by way of Congress, the Cabinet Secretaries of the federal agencies, and the President himself. In the words of the great Eleanor Holmes Norton in an interview with Stephen Colbert, “This is a civics lesson.” There are 3 branches of government. I have seen no commentary that anyone present noticed.

As to his comment that the rigors of protocol require that the Justices “sit there expressionless” during the State of the Union, I did not observe that, either. Justice Alito’s visible rebuke during the State of the Union Address was unprecedented. The President’s “adverse” remarks about the making of bad public policy should not be a surprise. When you issue an opinion like the one in Citizens United v. FEC, then you should expect controversy when the chamber holds more people who don’t think it’s a good idea to sell the government than people who do think it is a good idea … and you should be able to handle the criticism, as Chief Justice Roberts said. So why did he bring it up? Were we supposed to feel sorry for the Court?

Finally, the State of the Union Address has always been a political pep rally. It has traditionally been the President’s night. See also the Addresses in prior Administrations. Even the minority party traditionally bestows respect. This President has spoken to Congress twice. In his first speech, a minority party member shouted, “You lie.” In his second, a Supreme Court Justice shook his head and mouthed, “Not true, not true.” I have to wonder why these events are not raised when issues of political decorum and protocol are discussed.

At the risk of sounding like the great Jimmy Carter, what is so different about this president that dismissal of decorum and protocol is acceptable to the minority party? Today, March 12, George Wills’ column in the Washington Post called the “spectacle” of the State of the Union Address “increasingly puerile,” a word that comes from the Latin word for boy. I spy an answer.

]]>