What a windbag!

[GrayMatterWife]

I used to think that Obama was a great orator. I didn't agree with his politics, but I thought he was a fantastic communicator.

Uh, no more. Did anyone see that State of the Union?

Capping if off with the implication that if you don't agree with him and you vote based on what your constituency wants as versus what he believes is best, then you are acting immorally and selfishly.

As usual, it's all about him.

And, if he could POSSIBLY stop talking with his nose tilted upward, it would really help. He physically looks down on the rest of us.

Ugh. Sanctimonious windbag. He totally does NOT get it. People are growing tired of this. It is not inspiring. He is becoming trite in his condescension. He tone was defiant, instead of recognizing that people have a growing problem with his politics. Bill Clinton is probably shaking his head in experienced dismay.

And WHAT was that "scolding" that he gave the Supreme Court? Hey!! News flash!! They are an EQUAL branch to your branch. How wildly inappropriate was that? And that claim that he hasn't raised taxes on any Americans? That's only because your legislative initiatives have fallen flat. You WANTED to raise taxes--that's the point! People aren't stupid--they understand the effects of Cap'nTrade and the proposed health care reform. Geez.

[DCJenn]

I thought it was a well thought out, well spoken speech. I'm sorry that you didn't feel that way.

Jenn

[GrayMatterWife]

I thought it was a well thought out, well spoken speech. I'm sorry that you didn't feel that way.

Jenn

Interesting. I've been emailing with my friends from all sides of the spectrum. No one thought it was good, but some thought it was not bad. The libs are sick of his all-talk, no-results oration, and the conservatives are just shocked at how tone deaf he is to what people want. I have some "independent" friends, and they really were take-it-or-leave-it on the speech. Their issue is just a lot more with what he's already done (or not done). I think a lot of the less partisan folks see through the hype best--they don't get entranced by the Obama Romance, and they also don't get a tick just listening to him.

I think I was just deeply offended at his criticism of the Supreme Court. Who does he think he is? The Presidency is not bigger than the Third Branch. What a jerk, especially when the Supreme Court justices never comment on the sitting President's policies. Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant.

[SoonerTexan]

Eh...you cannot really take the State of the Union by any President seriously. There isn't a word in there that isn't strategically placed for some reason or another by a team of speechwriters. It's closer to fiction than anything else.

I think I was just deeply offended at his criticism of the Supreme Court. Who does he think he is? The Presidency is not bigger than the Third Branch. What a jerk, especially when the Supreme Court justices never comment on the sitting President's policies. Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant.

I was at a school function with the kids so I didn't get to watch/listen to it live, but I went and googled to find this "arrogant" criticism of the Supreme Court. Here's what I found:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said tonight. “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.”

I don't disagree with a single word of that. He disagrees with their ruling, and I see no reason he can't say that. He's asking Congress to enact laws to prohibit corporations - foreign and domestic - from being able to essentially bankroll their opinions into public office. And, if the justices were truly ruling on their interpretation of the law as it stood at the time of the case, then the President asking Congress to create new law that stands up to their litmus test shouldn't be insulting.

Just because the Court isn't normally mentioned in the State of the Union doesn't make Obama's mention insulting. Even if the ruling was legit by the letter of the law, it's hard to argue that the effects aren't going to be devastating.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: What a windbag!

The supreme court is mentioned infrequently in SOTU speeches, but republican president Ronald Reagan took a swipe at the supreme court regarding school prayer:

In 1988 President Ronald Reagan made an indirect jab at the Court's school prayer rulings when he said, "And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. "

I didn't think it was a bad speech but found it interesting when talking about health care reform that he said if there were other ideas to please share them. This bothered me because he has effectively shut out members talking about a public option of any kind. Also, I find it ironic that he is planning on strengthening Medicare. Through what? They just screwed us Jan 1 and now more Medicare and Medicaid cuts are planned. How that is strengthening the programs is a mystery to me.

Kris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrayMatterWife]

It's never appropriate for any President to take a swipe at the Supreme Court, whichever party. He's free to disagree, but to make it a political issue in his State of the Union speech...terrible. It's incredibly tacky. The Supreme Court justices have no ability to publicly respond, and the President can exploit his publicly platform. Not to mention, it plays to the most base populist sentiments. People who have no idea what the case was really about just jump on the "damn lawyers" bandwagon--it's bad enough when politicians (of both parties) ride that wave...but to see the President do it...to not give dignity and deference to the Supreme Court, as an easy political potshot...awful.

But, to be honest, over the past year, this is exactly what I've come to expect. He thinks he can get away with anything, because he says it in a faux-self-depreciating, and morally self-righteous tone.

[PrincessFiona]

I don't think any topic should be off limits. Presidents should be free to make remarks about anything happening that will or does effect the nation.

Also, I disagree that the supreme court can't respond. In today's cycle if 24/7 news they could definitely explain it ... and frankly, as a non-legal eagle, I wish they would.

It would seem to me that regardless of whether a pres is dem or republican that they are completely within their rights to discuss any and all issues affecting the state of the union whether it involves the supreme court, congress or any other economic or global issue.

And dignity and deference to the supreme court? Are they above criticism? The Holy court? What about dignity and deference to the president? Should we or members of congress or other political leaders not criticize him? My dad used to tell me that my criticisms of Bush were treason because our country was at war!

All said in the spirit of debate though of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrayMatterWife]

I don't think any topic should be off limits. Presidents should be free to make remarks about anything happening that will or does effect the nation.

Also, I disagree that the supreme court can't respond. In today's cycle if 24/7 news they could definitely explain it ... and frankly, as a non-legal eagle, I wish they would.

It would seem to me that regardless of whether a pres is dem or republican that they are completely within their rights to discuss any and all issues affecting the state of the union whether it involves the supreme court, congress or any other economic or global issue.

And dignity and deference to the supreme court? Are they above criticism? The Holy court? What about dignity and deference to the president? Should we or members of congress or other political leaders not criticize him? My dad used to tell me that my criticisms of Bush were treason because our country was at war!

All said in the spirit of debate though of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they cannot publicly respond. First (apparently unlike Obama), they recognize that picking a fight with the President is beneath their office. Second, federal judges do not comment on their opinions, especially if there may be additional issues that come before the Court, in later litigation, that would be related. Such as we have here.

And Obama wasn't "discussing" anything. He was taking a potshot at the Supreme Court without giving the slightest bit of legal analysis or context. Welcome to the new, "populist" Obama. When the intellectual snob Obama didn't work, he's now pivoted to the populist, reactionary version

Of course the Supreme Court is not above criticism. But it should not come from the President in an unintellectual, one-off, out-of-context slam in a forum before the entire free world. It is just...completely unbecoming. It is a confirmation of everything I had suspected about Obama, but was hesitant to believe. I didn't want to believe. I didn't want to believe that our President (the guy in charge of the EXECUTIVE branch) believes that his opinion on a legal issue is better than that of the Supreme Court (the JUDICIAL branch)--so much so that he feels the need to share it with the world in an contemptuous, disrespectful tone.

His self-depreciation is such a bunch of crap. He believes he knows better and therefore is entitled to show a complete lack of respect for the separation of powers based on his inherent brilliance. But hey, it's only the Constitution and after all...he's the Savior, so I guess that formalities should not be respected. So, scold the Court.

Besides that, his comment mischaracterized the opinion. That is why Alito, completely taken aback at the audacity and outrageousness of the comment and the context, mouthed to himself something like "That's wrong"--which got caught by all the new networks. He was in shock at the blatant mischaracterization.

[JaneDoe]

Capping if off with the implication that if you don't agree with him and you vote based on what your constituency wants as versus what he believes is best, then you are acting immorally and selfishly.

This is just a continuation from the last administration, excpet substitute "patriotic" for "immoral/selfish."

Disclaimer: I only heard parts of the speech since I was cleaning the kitchen after dinner. But, from what I did see, I just thought it was politics as usual. Obama says his part, the dems stand up and cheer and the Repubs sit there and look dour.

I'm glad that he at least paid lip service to tackling the federal deficit. I won't believe it until I see it, however.

[Pollyanna]

And, if he could POSSIBLY stop talking with his nose tilted upward, it would really help. He physically looks down on the rest of us.

I truly believe he does look down at the rest of us. I'm not surprised that he would call out the Supreme Court, his lack of respect is evident.

Luckily our Wednesdays start at 6am and the driving does not stop until 9pm so there was no way I had time to listen to the speech. I have no doubt it was just more worthless political crap. I did catch Dennis Millers commentary before the speech, total crack up, especially about Pelosi bobbing up and down like a piece of drift wood, lol.

[SuzySunshine]

Interesting article about the supreme court aspect: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35117174...s-white_house/

[Rapunzel]

Eh... I chose not to watch the speech. What in the world was that man going to say that would be worth my time? Apparently not much. Oh, I did pass by a channel showing the SOTU while channel surfing last night, but I quickly changed it partly because I just could not stand having to sit there and stare at Nancy Pelosi looking smug. Yuck!

[SoonerTexan]

Okay, I do have to agree the President seemed a little tacky in his criticism...not that he shouldn't criticize--there are just better ways to do it.

1. It's basic HS government that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on the Constitution, not popular opinion. You may not agree with their decision (and I really don't think the decision they made is good for elections), but it has to be dealt with constitutionally. That's just the way it is, and it is that way for a reason. Try for an amendment!

2. As a former lawyer, the President knows this well, and I sort of feel like he took advantage of the average American's ignorance regarding Constitutional Law. It was definitely said in the attempt to inspire "What! That dang elitist court is going to let them Chinese take over my American rights!" sort of ire from the American public.

3. It really is sort of rude to say that with the Justices right in front of you, especially since they cannot really respond. There would have been better ways/places to criticize. It was a cheap shot.

[Rapunzel]

3. It really is sort of rude to say that with the Justices right in front of you, especially since they cannot really respond. There would have been better ways/places to criticize. It was a cheap shot.

Since I haven't listened to the speech I'm going off of what I've read about this kerfluffle (with Obama criticizing the justices right in front of him). The only thing I think of that particular instance was stated by SoonerTexan in the quote above. It's rude and really a pointless tactic beyond attempting to turn public opinion against a certain entity or person (which is a completely impotent exercise when it comes to the Supreme Court). That being said, I'm sure lots of presidents have criticized people in their SOTU addresses - be they members of Congress, the courts, or even private citizens and foreign governments.