Liberty MavenJudge Napolitano on Justice Alito’s “Not True” Moment
January 29th, 2010 2:37 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Commentary, Constitution, Court Cases, andrew napolitano, law | 16 Responses
Judge Andrew Napolitano, the freedom-loving host of Freedom Watch, penned a column describing in detail why Obama was wrong and Justice Alito was right, when Alito mouthed the words “not true” during the State of the Union speech on Wednesday night.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling last week on the campaign finance that is still being discussed all over the country. In fact, it was even mentioned by President Obama at Wednesday night’s State of the Union address. The high court invalidated its own 20-year-old ruling — which had upheld a one hundred-year-old statute on group political contributions — and it also invalidated a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance law.
The 20-year-old ruling had forbidden any political spending by groups such as corporations, labor unions, and advocacy organizations (like the NRA and Planned Parenthood, for example). Ruling that all persons, individually and in groups, have the same unfettered free speech rights, the court blasted Congress for suppression of that speech. In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand?” Thus, all groups of two or more persons are free to spend their own money on any political campaigns and to mention the names of the candidates in their materials.
The Judge later appeared on Fox Business News with David Asman to discuss the topic. Check it out below. It appears that Justice Alito’s “Not true” was more right than the snake oil salesman Obama would ever admit.
January 29th, 2010 at 7:01 pm (#)
As the author of the article, I wrote it. Sometimes the truth is rude, crude, and uncouth, but the truth is always appropriate.
The definition of snake oil salesman:
A product that has been proven to not live up to the vendor's marketing hype. The term comes from the 1800s in which elixirs and potions of all kinds, even ones that supposedly included the oils from snakes, were sold as a cure for everything that ailed a person.
Obama is a snake oil salesman when he:
- Tells us he cut taxes last year when he didn't. And if you add the hidden inflation tax caused by the Fed printing money… well he's completely wrong when he says it.
- Goes on for more than 15 minutes denouncing the "previous 8 years" then attempts to get us to believe he's for being above the name calling.
- Tells us that the Supreme Court decision will cause foreign companies to fund U.S. elections when the law specifically prohibits that.
- Saying that his administration excludes lobbyists when it simply does not do so.
- Misleading the American people about how many jobs his "stimulus" plan "created or saved"
I could go on, but you get the point. For more read any number of the State of the Union fact check articles that came out after the address. Here's one from ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union...
So since I've just proven that he is, in fact, a snake oil salesman, you calling my comment inappropriate reveals that you are a snake oil salesman too.
Thanks, I appreciate your comment!
-Marc
January 29th, 2010 at 7:01 pm (#)
As the author of the article, I wrote it. Sometimes the truth is rude, crude, and uncouth, but the truth is always appropriate.
The definition of snake oil salesman:
A product that has been proven to not live up to the vendor's marketing hype. The term comes from the 1800s in which elixirs and potions of all kinds, even ones that supposedly included the oils from snakes, were sold as a cure for everything that ailed a person.
Obama is a snake oil salesman when he:
- Tells us he cut taxes last year when he didn't. And if you add the hidden inflation tax caused by the Fed printing money… well he's completely wrong when he says it.
- Goes on for more than 15 minutes denouncing the "previous 8 years" then attempts to get us to believe he's for being above the name calling.
- Tells us that the Supreme Court decision will cause foreign companies to fund U.S. elections when the law specifically prohibits that.
- Saying that his administration excludes lobbyists when it simply does not do so.
- Misleading the American people about how many jobs his "stimulus" plan "created or saved"
I could go on, but you get the point. For more read any number of the State of the Union fact check articles that came out after the address. Here's one from ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union...
So since I've just proven that he is, in fact, a snake oil salesman, you calling my comment inappropriate reveals that you are a snake oil salesman too.
Thanks, I appreciate your comment!
-Marc
January 29th, 2010 at 7:01 pm (#)
As the author of the article, I wrote it. Sometimes the truth is rude, crude, and uncouth, but the truth is always appropriate.
The definition of snake oil salesman:
A product that has been proven to not live up to the vendor's marketing hype. The term comes from the 1800s in which elixirs and potions of all kinds, even ones that supposedly included the oils from snakes, were sold as a cure for everything that ailed a person.
Obama is a snake oil salesman when he:
- Tells us he cut taxes last year when he didn't. And if you add the hidden inflation tax caused by the Fed printing money… well he's completely wrong when he says it.
- Goes on for more than 15 minutes denouncing the "previous 8 years" then attempts to get us to believe he's for being above the name calling.
- Tells us that the Supreme Court decision will cause foreign companies to fund U.S. elections when the law specifically prohibits that.
- Saying that his administration excludes lobbyists when it simply does not do so.
- Misleading the American people about how many jobs his "stimulus" plan "created or saved"
I could go on, but you get the point. For more read any number of the State of the Union fact check articles that came out after the address. Here's one from ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union...
So since I've just proven that he is, in fact, a snake oil salesman, you calling my comment inappropriate reveals that you are a snake oil salesman too.
Thanks, I appreciate your comment!
-Marc
January 29th, 2010 at 7:01 pm (#)
As the author of the article, I wrote it. Sometimes the truth is rude, crude, and uncouth, but the truth is always appropriate.
The definition of snake oil salesman:
A product that has been proven to not live up to the vendor's marketing hype. The term comes from the 1800s in which elixirs and potions of all kinds, even ones that supposedly included the oils from snakes, were sold as a cure for everything that ailed a person.
Obama is a snake oil salesman when he:
- Tells us he cut taxes last year when he didn't. And if you add the hidden inflation tax caused by the Fed printing money… well he's completely wrong when he says it.
- Goes on for more than 15 minutes denouncing the "previous 8 years" then attempts to get us to believe he's for being above the name calling.
- Tells us that the Supreme Court decision will cause foreign companies to fund U.S. elections when the law specifically prohibits that.
- Saying that his administration excludes lobbyists when it simply does not do so.
- Misleading the American people about how many jobs his "stimulus" plan "created or saved"
I could go on, but you get the point. For more read any number of the State of the Union fact check articles that came out after the address. Here's one from ABC news:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union...
So since I've just proven that he is, in fact, a snake oil salesman, you calling my comment inappropriate reveals that you are a snake oil salesman too.
Thanks, I appreciate your comment!
-Marc
January 29th, 2010 at 4:48 pm (#)
Who wrote the term, "snake oil salesman"? Unappropriate, rude, crude, and uncouth.
January 29th, 2010 at 4:49 pm (#)
I meant to type "inappropriate", not "unappropriate".
January 29th, 2010 at 5:28 pm (#)
Judge Alito is a D-Bag
January 30th, 2010 at 6:30 am (#)
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=That's+not+true">That's not true
January 30th, 2010 at 6:30 am (#)
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=That's+not+true">That's not true
January 30th, 2010 at 9:59 am (#)
The constitution is a D-bag. Duh…
January 31st, 2010 at 3:53 am (#)
part 1 of 3:
In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand? -not sure about Congress, but the part I don't understand is why I can't listen to a chosen show on a television without constantly being interrupted by commercials I don't want to see. It's annoying. It's like opening my mailbox after one week and getting a whole armful of mail and, after painstakenly going through it to verify if anything important is lost somewhere in the middle of it, finding out there is only one letter that is not junk mail. I've gone to the post office three times to tell them I don't want junk mail yet every time they tell me that legally they are required to deliver it. Where's my freedom in not having to hear all the "free speech" I'm not interested in hearing (or seeing)?
January 31st, 2010 at 3:53 am (#)
part 1 of 3:
In effect, the court asked, “What part of ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech’ does Congress not understand? -not sure about Congress, but the part I don't understand is why I can't listen to a chosen show on a television without constantly being interrupted by commercials I don't want to see. It's annoying. It's like opening my mailbox after one week and getting a whole armful of mail and, after painstakenly going through it to verify if anything important is lost somewhere in the middle of it, finding out there is only one letter that is not junk mail. I've gone to the post office three times to tell them I don't want junk mail yet every time they tell me that legally they are required to deliver it. Where's my freedom in not having to hear all the "free speech" I'm not interested in hearing (or seeing)?
January 31st, 2010 at 3:54 am (#)
part 2 of 3:
-as for those who want to learn about their candidates via television broadcast rather than reading about them, why not claim our rights on the public broadcast spectrum we own? -why not tell the broadcast monopolies that in order to license such and such a frequency that, say, two months prior to an election that they need to allocate the 8pm to 10pm timeframes, Monday through Friday, to public forums that give equal blocks of time for all candidates during election season to speak about issues and debate one another? -that these primetime broadcasts shall have no commercials, and that the public be made aware that these are special timeframes in which the networks have no control? Candidates allowed into these forums should meet some <given> threshold of public support and no third party candidates shall be denied entry into the forums if that threshold is met. (note: the threshold does not have to be related to money).
January 31st, 2010 at 3:54 am (#)
part 3 of 3:
-like other Americans who honor the Constitution, I understand the premise but am disgusted by monied interests constantly corrupting our politics. I'm tired of seeing qualified candidates overlooked and who are never heard simply because they are drowned out by big-monied interests. I don't know what the answer is, but there's got to be some way to accomplish this without changing the Constitution. And there's got to be some way of not hearing the free speech of those we don't want to hear — any ideas?
January 31st, 2010 at 3:54 am (#)
part 3 of 3:
-like other Americans who honor the Constitution, I understand the premise but am disgusted by monied interests constantly corrupting our politics. I'm tired of seeing qualified candidates overlooked and who are never heard simply because they are drowned out by big-monied interests. I don't know what the answer is, but there's got to be some way to accomplish this without changing the Constitution. And there's got to be some way of not hearing the free speech of those we don't want to hear — any ideas?
February 2nd, 2010 at 10:39 pm (#)
A couple of things.
Ever think of calling the companies and asking them to take you off of their mailing list?
How about changing the channel?
Those are the ways to tune out others without getting all Fascistic on the subject.