Alito's "You Lie" Moment

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 28, 2010 12:07 PM GMT
    Thankfully Obama dressed down that absolutely bankrupt Supreme Court when he said

    It’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.

    I don’t think that American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse by foreign enemies; they should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct … some of these problems.


    But as he said this
    Samuel Alito (Of Course) was seen shaking his head and saying under his breath "Not True"

    <object id= ">
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 28, 2010 1:31 PM GMT
    Although I agree with Obama on the Supreme Court decision last week and it's potential ramifications, I think this thread is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 28, 2010 3:03 PM GMT

    It looks like maybe Alito did mouth "that's not true". But, at least in my book, that's not the same thing as the 'You Lie' Moment - for a couple of reasons:

    1) Whatever Alito said, he didn't yell out to the chamber; and

    2) Saying 'that's not true' is different than saying 'you lie'. Saying "that's not true" implies a genuine disagreement or difference in interpretation of a set of facts or a difference in what is known by two people.

    "You lie' implies that the party accused of lying knows what he is saying to be untrue.

    My telling 10 year old daughter that 'embe' means 'elephant' in Swahili was a 'that's not true' moment. It means 'mango'. I made a mistake.

    My telling her that she is getting taller because monkeys come at night on tricycles to stretch her is a 'you lie' situation - in the nicest possible way icon_razz.gif

    In any case, I'm not sure what protocol calls for Justices of the Supreme Court to do during State of the Union addresses. My hunch is they are supposed to pay rapt attention by display no approval of disapproval of what is said. In that case, maybe Alito slipped a little. But, as much as I disagree with and am disturbed by last week's campaign finance ruling, I'm cutting Alito some slack on this one. He is, after all, only human.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 28, 2010 3:13 PM GMT
    coolarmydude saidAlthough I agree with Obama on the Supreme Court decision last week and it's potential ramifications, I think this thread is just making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    soundboard.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 28, 2010 3:19 PM GMT
    flieslikeabeagle said...In any case, I'm not sure what protocol calls for Justices of the Supreme Court to do during State of the Union addresses...

    Although based on long-standing custom, I don't think anyone but the Members of Congress should be on the floor of the chamber; not the Supreme Court, not the Cabinet, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The President is required to deliver his annual report to the Congress only, in accordance with the Constitution (which doesn't even require it be delivered in person, a written report being adequate, as was done in the early years of the Republic). I find this present circus more than a bit overdone, and now largely ceremonial, there being other ways the President conveys his view of the "state of the Union" on a continuous basis all year.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 28, 2010 10:59 PM GMT
    What was different about this address was that USUALLY the Members of the Supreme Court do not go to the State of the Union Addresses
    .... and if they Do
    They sit there and make sure that they do NOT show any emotion
    Since they are SUPPOSED to be the Objective Arbiters of the Law

    So much so for that little political myth

    Now we're going to have to go and fix this gaping hole in the protections that we have made over the last 90 years

    <object width=">


    Schumer calls for hearings on SCOTUS decision
    The Hill
    By Tony Romm and Michael O'Brien - 01/21/10 12:34 PM ET
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77293-schumer-calls-for-hearings-on-un-american-court-decision