What a windbag!

[PrincessFiona]

Re: What a windbag!

Wow. Interesting, Jenn. I found myself nodding in agreement through most of what you wrote.

I definitely don't feel aligned to a particular party anymore as I agree with some issues on both sides.

I will say I don't think anyone imagined HCR in a year with the exception of the Medicare for all crowd. I thought it was moving too fast when they wanted to get the house bill done before Xmas. Slow but smart would have been better.
I'll have to think about it all.

There sure are a lot of great thoughts and ideas here! It really makes me feel like I need tovstep back and evaluate how I feel about certain issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrayMatterWife]

I'm pretty sure I bashed the Bush Presidencey (both of them) but I did not attack their physical appearance, just their brains and their actions. We admonish our children for that behavior, how can we expect respect for a person's person if we can't give it?

I'm with you about not bashing someone's physical appearance if they can't change it (Chelsea Clinton--age 14), etc. But Pelosi and Biden are vanity victims. They opened themselves up to it. You choose Botox, you risk being called out on it, in my opinion. Reps and Dems and everyone else alike--don't look like your face is fraudulent...part of your job is to sell yourself as a true person.

[McPants]

I'm with you about not bashing someone's physical appearance if they can't change it (Chelsea Clinton--age 14), etc. But Pelosi and Biden are vanity victims. They opened themselves up to it. You choose Botox, you risk being called out on it, in my opinion. Reps and Dems and everyone else alike--don't look like your face is fraudulent...part of your job is to sell yourself as a true person.

Not that I care much about the issue at hand, however attacking politicians for their appearance (self-inflicted or not) makes you come off appearing rather superficial.

Not that I care much about the issue at hand, however attacking politicians for their appearance (self-inflicted or not) makes you come off appearing rather superficial.

No personal attacks. Please stay to the topic at hand.

[McPants]

And personal attacks that have nothing to do with the thread are no better. Please stay to the topic at hand.

As part of the thread about Obama's speech, ridicule was directed towards Biden and Pelosi with regards to their appearance. I stated my opinion on the merit of such criticism. Provided that the previous posts were relevant to the thread, I cannot see how my comment was unrelated to it. Furthermore it was not a personal attack in any way or form as I did not actually call anyone superficial.

That said, I have no issues with staying away from the thread altogether if that helps keep the peace.

[Sheherezade]

Awww. Don't stay away entirely. Let's just get off that topic. It's a loser. The iMSN has a special place for that kind of "debate". We reserve it for our celebrity break up threads. In political discussions, we try to keep it focused. It's hard enough to keep the peace when we are talking about the serious stuff.

[PrincessFiona]

Re: What a windbag!

Helps keep the peace? McPants, how else can I find a healthy outlet to blow off steam. Don't stay away from the thread, disagree with me so I can get my knickers in a twist.



Kris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meenah]

See what happens when I make a post and run!!!!

[PrincessFiona]

Re: What a windbag!

Luanne, you are such a trouble maker!



Kris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrayMatterWife]

Hey, apparently Justice Thomas couldn't hold his tongue. I don't necessarily agree with his decision to comment, even in a substantively "light" way, but I can only imagine how infuriating it must be to be maligned by the President in a forum like the State of the Union, when you have no similar forum to respond. Especially in an intellectually disingenuous way that is only a political play. Anyhow, this is the slippery slope of what happens when the branches don't show respect and deference to each other. You get sniping. He didn't comment substantively, really, or give any inclination into issues that were left unresolved, but he does explain why he doesn't go the State of the Unions anymore. An interestingly, it sounds like he stopped going long before the current President. I guess I may have remembered him missing before, but it never struck me as a "statement" before.
________________________________
Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 3, 2010

WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.


Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Justice Clarence Thomas said he had stopped attending State of the Union speeches.

And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses.

“I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”

[Rapunzel]

It sounds like Justice Thomas has chosen to take the high road by simply not attending these speeches. If the atmosphere is as he states then I don't think I'd want to be there either.

Wonder what would happen if none of the Supremes showed up to the SOTU?

[DCJenn]

Traditionally the Supremes don't attend the SOTU. It's a recent thing.

Jenn

[Sheherezade]

From what I understand, Thomas has given all sorts of interviews and made himself much more of a public figure....because he has a book to sell. (My Grandfather's Son?) I think it came out a few years back and the media was *shocked* by his level of candor. Honestly, the SOTU has become politicized from all angles. Didn't Scalia just co-operate with an author for a book about him? Abortion has made the SOTU a common discussion with lay folk. When in history could so many people name so many justices???? I think they are in the news often now and they are on the political radar screen. Between all the political haymaking over the "error" in Roe v Wade to the political haymaking over Gore v State of Florida - both sides are guilty of calling out the Supreme Court and the justices have individually responded in their own way in the past. I've read so many articles with those responses over the years.

With all this debate about the recent events, though, I've heard historians say that it was a much more political institution in the far past as well. I should probably read more history before I type that, though....

[Rapunzel]

I wonder why they attend the SOTU then? I guess it is an address to Congress technically speaking so the court really doesn't need to or have to be there.

[Rapunzel]

With all this debate about the recent events, though, I've heard historians say that it was a much more political institution in the far past as well.

I agree with those historians. I know a lot of people complain about the politicizing of the SOTUS decisions, the "polarization" of Congress, and the viciousness of presidential politics, but it really isn't any different than it has been historically. The political and government history of our early nation is full of this type of stuff. Only difference today is that we don't tolerate duels to the death anymore (although Aaron Burr WAS charged it was still a somewhat acceptable way to go about things back then).