Was the President's speach appropriate?

[Revmitchell]

Was it appropriate to berate the Supreme Court in the state of the union address?

Did Obama represent the office of the President of the US in his speech last night?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

He portrayed himself as an ill-informed bully. Foreign campaign donations have been illegal way before McCain-Feingold.

Rush Limbaugh is exactly right. This resembled a Chavez/Castro speech.

 

[Revmitchell]

He was like an under sized kid wanting to be a bully but not knowing how.

 

[canadyjd]

I immediately (even before the Dems started cheering/clapping) saw his confrontation of the SC members in the halls of congress as inappropriate.

Wan (sp?) Williams was the only one of Fox who flagged it as inappropriate. I applaud him for his honesty.

peace to youraying:

 

[carpro]

It was what one expects from a narcissist. Mostly about himself. Full of lies and half truths. Condescending.

He took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court justices, from a bully pulpit where they could not respond. One on one, any of the judges he criticized would hand him his head in a Constitutional debate.

He's a power hungry coward.

 

[Martin]

Was it appropriate to berate the Supreme Court in the state of the union address?

==Since when is it wrong to criticize the Supreme Court? When did that group of unelected judges become beyond questioning and criticism? Presidents have a right to be critical of Supreme Court rulings anytime they feel it is necessary. Whether Obama's criticism was factually correct or not, however, is another issue.

If I were a betting man, and I am not, I would bet that all the conservatives who are angry at Obama's remarks would not have been angry if those type of remarks had been spoken by Bush about a court ruling conservatives disagreed with. We should seek to be more consistant. I don't believe it is wrong for any President to "berate the Supreme Court", therefore I am not critical of Obama on this point.

Did Obama represent the office of the President of the US in his speech last night?

==I did not watch much of the speech, so I can't say. However as a general rule I would say he probably did about as good as the others have. You know, told the gullible partisans what they wanted to hear and gave the media something to spend the rest of the week and weekend talking about. In other words, it was a grand waste of time.

 

[Revmitchell]

==Since when is it wrong to criticize the Supreme Court? When did that group of unelected judges become beyond questioning and criticism? Presidents have a right to be critical of Supreme Court rulings anytime they feel it is necessary.

Dishonest statement..no one said it was wrong to criticize the SC. I say that because I do not believe you have a reading comprehension problem nor do I believe you are ignorant of all the dynamics involved in giving such a speech. Maybe you should do like one or two others need to on this board and quit feigning objectivity. It ain't convincing.

If I were a betting man, and I am not, I would bet that all the conservatives who are angry at Obama's remarks would not have been angry if those type of remarks had been spoken by Bush about a court ruling conservatives disagreed with. We should seek to be more consistant. I don't believe it is wrong for any President to "berate the Supreme Court", therefore I am not critical of Obama on this point.

Who cares what you would bet on. That and $1. 25 will get you a cup of coffee at the 7/11. You have nothing to back up your useless comment.Nothing but a statement on what you wish to be true rather than grounded in facts on what has actually happened. But good luck with that.

 

[Martin]

Dishonest statement..no one said it was wrong to criticize the SC. I say that because I do not believe you have a reading comprehension problem nor do I believe you are ignorant of all the dynamics involved in giving such a speech. Maybe you should do like one or two others need to on this board and quit feigning objectivity. It ain't convincing.

==Allow me to make several points very clear. First, I gave my opinion on the issue. I did not ask you to agree with me. Second, I am not "feigning objectivity" I am giving my view. Whether you agree or disagree with my view is not really important to me.

Who cares what you would bet on. That and $1. 25 will get you a cup of coffee at the 7/11. You have nothing to back up your useless comment.Nothing but a statement on what you wish to be true rather than grounded in facts on what has actually happened. But good luck with that.

==Actually I have seen enough of the partisan back and forth to know how the game is played. What's ok for my party is not ok for the other. It is called hypocrisy and the politicians in D.C. have cornered the market on it.

 

[Revmitchell]

==Allow me to make several points very clear. First, I gave my opinion on the issue. I did not ask you to agree with me. Second, I am not "feigning objectivity" I am giving my view. Whether you agree or disagree with my view is not really important to me.

Did you even read your own post. You said "Since when is it wrong to criticize the Supreme Court? When did that group of unelected judges become beyond questioning and criticism? Presidents have a right to be critical of Supreme Court rulings anytime they feel it is necessary." This implied that someone had actually said that. Please provide the quote and name of the people or person who did.

==Actually I have seen enough of the partisan back and forth to know how the game is played. What's ok for my party is not ok for the other. It is called hypocrisy and the politicians in D.C. have cornered the market on it.

Making accusations based on personal suspicion is not factual nor credible. You made statements of fact not opinion.

 

[Martin]

This implied that someone had actually said that. Please provide the quote and name of the people or person who did.

==I was not responding to any one particular individual.

Making accusations based on personal suspicion is not factual nor credible. You made statements of fact not opinion.

==I stated my views. You are, of course, free to disagree with me.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Sure it was appropriate. I disagreed with the Supreme Court on this one. No group should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on trying to get a certain candidate elected. They can spend as much as they want presenting their opinion on the issues, just as long as they don't end up with saying "vote for canidate x cause he will stand up for our cause".

We have limits on contributions for a reason.

What I would have liked to hear from Obama is what sort of legislation he plans on presenting to change the laws the ruling was based on. Then, his opinion might have made a difference to me. As it is, he might as well be Joe the Plumber. All bark and no bite.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

==Since when is it wrong to criticize the Supreme Court? When did that group of unelected judges become beyond questioning and criticism? Presidents have a right to be critical of Supreme Court rulings anytime they feel it is necessary. Whether Obama's criticism was factually correct or not, however, is another issue.

If I were a betting man, and I am not, I would bet that all the conservatives who are angry at Obama's remarks would not have been angry if those type of remarks had been spoken by Bush about a court ruling conservatives disagreed with. We should seek to be more consistant. I don't believe it is wrong for any President to "berate the Supreme Court", therefore I am not critical of Obama on this point.

When his facts are incorrect, it would be wrong. Since you didn't watch the speech, I feel it is inappropriate for you to throw in this far-fetched supposition.

 

[Steven2006]

I voted other. It was not presidential, it showed a lack of class and lack of manners. I didn't vote for #1 because I don't see anything un-American about it. Americans have every right to act like a jerk.

 

[Martin]

When his facts are incorrect, it would be wrong. Since you didn't watch the speech, I feel it is inappropriate for you to throw in this far-fetched supposition.

==I watched parts of the speech. However I did note that, "whether Obama's criticism was factually correct or not, however, is another issue". In other words, my comments were not based on the substance of Obama's remarks, but on the issue of such remarks during the State of the Union. That is, was it appropriate for him "to berate the Supreme Court". My view is, yes, it is. Whether he is right or not is another issue.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

==I watched parts of the speech. However I did note that, "whether Obama's criticism was factually correct or not, however, is another issue". In other words, my comments were not based on the substance of Obama's remarks, but on the issue of such remarks during the State of the Union. That is, was it appropriate for him "to berate the Supreme Court". My view is, yes, it is. Whether he is right or not is another issue.

It is not appropriate to berate anyone when you don't have your facts straight. The real issue is, was the zero mistaken, or being dishonest, in order to score a political point ? Stating something that isn't true, and not giving the subject of your berating a chance to set the record straight is the act of a bully.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not appropriate for the President to berate anyone especially in that setting and to a branch of the government that cannot defend itself. What a coward. He did everything in that speech but do what it was intended to do. It was nothing but payback and political bashing. Most umAmerican and unPresidential.

 

[Martin]

It is not appropriate to berate anyone when you don't have your facts straight. The real issue is, was the zero mistaken, or being dishonest, in order to score a political point ? Stating something that isn't true, and not giving the subject of your berating a chance to set the record straight is the act of a bully.

==I don't know if Obama lied or if he does not know the facts on this issue. Generally I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure the justices who disagreed with Obama will, at some point, find a way to respond. They are adults, and very accomplished adults at that, and they know they are in a tough business. If they had thin skin they would not be on the Supreme Court. The confirmation process is nothing but bullying and misrepresentations. If they are able to endure that humiliation, I'm sure the President's remarks did not bother them that much. However, as I said, I'm sure those who disagreed with the President will find a way to respond.

 

[Aaron]

Sure it was appropriate. I disagreed with the Supreme Court on this one. No group should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money on trying to get a certain candidate elected. They can spend as much as they want presenting their opinion on the issues, just as long as they don't end up with saying "vote for canidate x cause he will stand up for our cause".

We have limits on contributions for a reason.

Oops. You drank the Kool-Aid.

Anyone or any group can spend any amount he wants to publish his political views and support or opposition to any candidate.

"Congress shall make no law abridging . . . the freedom of speech."

 

[righteousdude2]

He WAS WAY OFF BASE!

Was it appropriate to berate the Supreme Court in the state of the union address?

Did Obama represent the office of the President of the US in his speech last night?

I agree with your observations. He is showing his inexperience, and those who voted for him must be terribly embarrassed:laugh:

Great post REV!!!

Shalom,

Pastor Paul :type:

 

[mcdirector]

One thing I've read several places is that no member of the SC will likely go to a SOTU address again.

We all know the president didn't agree with the decision as he made that clear almost immediately. I don't think this was the time or place.