Picking a fight with the Supreme Court, he isn't too bright is he?  I guess he's upset that his unions will have competition when buying government.

are you talking about the supreme court ruling regarding the funding of election campeigns via businesses or industry? If you were, I have a question regarding that.

Not only that, he got it wrong.  Constitutional scholar my ass.

All I needed to hear to know how much Obama hates the US Constitution was the words, "Charter of negative liberties".  Especially considering he didn't mean negative liberties for the People, but negative liberties for the Federal Government.  The idiot thinks the Constitution should allow his majesty to do whatever he wants, simply because he wants to do it. 

He hates the US with the same passion as his friend Rev. Wright (spit).

Obama was referencing that when he trashed SCOTUS.  I do not agree with Daiwa in the reprecussion end of it.  I think the democrats love to legislate from the bench, but like all other things, cant stand their own medicine.  To his party, Obama is a hero for defying them.  They dont understand that when you do an end run, it will come back to get you in the end.

It was contemtible, but not unsurprising or unexpected.  And I doubt he will suffer for it.  Most of the electorate has no clue about what the SCOTUS does - nor do they seem to care.

Given how many people could care less about & didn't watch the SOTU, you're probably right, DG.

Whenever I asked americans to explain to me the need for an indirect election system they told me that it would be unfair if only the populous states recieved attention and that this way the candidates were forced to campeign in states like Iowa (which would be totally unimportant otherwise because hardly anybody lives there). Doesn't this ruling of the SCOTUS nullify this attempt of a balanced and fair election campeign? So it is the freedom of speech that gives those with alot of money the opportunity to create advertisement that support their candidate.. it is interesting that too much government control is described as evil incarnate but possible too much private influence on the election process through privately funded commercials and by that directly on the political process is tolerated. Are those companies bound to addvertise in all regions like candidates have to tour all regions?

I am curious how this will look during the next election. Too much intertwining of busines and politics never ends well, and I for one wouldn't want to have some billionaire who draws the strings from behind the scenes because it's his constitutional right. It might be private and not government influence, but that doesn't make it positive. I don't like lobbyism and this ruling opened the floodgates for that even more.

Sister Toldjah has a humorously contemptuous summary here.

Utemia, name one time the labor unions, George Sorros, Michael Moore or musicians (most of which are incorpated) were limited by McCain Feingold.  Not only was this farce unconsitutional, but it was so selectively enforced it would qualify as discriminatory.

This assumes the 'floodgates' were at some time closed, which they never were, and suggests you've never heard of George Soros.

McCain-Feingold just stacked the deck by redirecting the flow of money to the advantage of incumbents (many called it 'The Incumbency Protection Act').  If you think corporate influence in elections was inhibited in any way, you are wrong.  It just made it indirect and less transparent.  The SCOTUS ruling does not prohibit regulation of corporate political speech, which should be subject to meaningful disclosure requirements.

You should also remember that with McCain-Feingold in place, BO took in millions in foreign campaign contributions without any disclosure of sources, and was the beneficiary of many millions spent by dozens of Soros front organizations on his behalf.  He's a brazen hypocrit.

Full disclosure: I lent my name and support to a Soros-funded effort to legalize medical marijuana in my state almost 15 years ago (I believe it should be as legal as alcohol, for that matter, but that's another story).

I don't know what you refer to, Ted. I didn't really follow the specifics of the campaign, it all looked like a overblown circus from my pov. I think there is a discrepancy between not having a direct democracy because the little and less populous states should have importance as well which forces candidates to campaign there and direct corporate influence.

I don't like political endorsements by prominent figures of public life of either ilk. Candidates should say what they want to say and the voter should make up their minds according to that, not according to some emotional polarizing and utilization of psychological tricks as it is done in some american commercials that tailored to reach a specific demographic.

I hadn't heard of George Soros - but the US election process is so overblown and pompeous that I find it pretty boring and rarely pay attention to anything but the actual election day when the seats of the electorate body are counted out.

That's fair.  I only follow German politics for flashes of Merkel's cleavage.

Stop, you're making me hun-gry!

My God, it's even worse than I thought.  The hypocrisy, that is.  What utter bozos these guys are.