New Stanek poll: In the case of Obama v. Alito, I rule in favor of...

Poll 2.pngI have a new poll question up (bottom right side of home page):

In the case of Obama v. Alito, I rule in favor of...

The previous poll question was tough. No one can say s/he knows for sure who or what caused the Haitian earthquake. One answer I felt comfortable agreeing with was the last one. Here is what you thought...

poll 1-31 slide 1.png

Click on the map to enlarge to find your own brightly colored flag...

poll 1-31 slide 2.png

poll 1-31 slide 3.png

As always, make comments to either this or last week's poll here, not on the Vizu website.


Comments:

Obama was both factually wrong about the case and wrong to make such an announcement in a situation in which the justices had no recourse.

All Alito did was quietly mouth "not true" to a blatant misrepresentation of the case. I'm on his side all the way.

Posted by: Lauren at January 31, 2010 9:49 AM


This is all wrong. Obviously it was Bush's fault for the Haiti quake!

Posted by: Jack Lakeman at January 31, 2010 9:52 AM


Can anyone out there give me an example where a sitting President has PUBLICLY rebuked the Justices of the Supreme Court because he disagreed with one of their decisions?

Can anyone out there give me an example where sitting Justices of the Supreme Court, either individually or collectively PUBLICLY rebuked the President because they disagreed with one of the President's decisions?

I would submit that B.O. was not only factually wrong in his criticisms, B.O. wrong in the time and the place and the manner he chose to make his criticism.

Alito showed great restraint by not responding more forcefully than he did.

B.O.'s actions were calculatingly cowardly, because B.O. chose to attack, when the whole world was watching and B.O. knew the Justices would NOT repsond out of deference to protocol and respect for the office of the presidency and of the Supreme Court.

It was akin to the scene from the movie Patriot where the british officer murders the mans son right in front him of hoping the man will react so he can justify killing him and the rest of his family, but knowing the father will be restrained from acting by conern for his family.

The wheels of justice turn slow but they grind exceedingly fine.

B.O.'s days of public humiliation are coming when all B.O.'s allies of convienence will abandon him to the pursuing hounds of the lame scream lap dog media.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 31, 2010 10:34 AM


There a is a cable TV show called 'Dirty Jobs'.

Look for them to do a segment on the Secret Service Agents assigned to protect B.O.!

B.O. should not take the agents fidelity to their oathe for granted.

Rom 5:6-7 Even if we were good, we really wouldn't expect anyone to die for us, though, of course, that might be barely possible. TLB

B.O. better hope the Secret Service Agents assigned to his protection value the office of the President more highly than they value him.

The Agent's job is growing increasingly dirtier.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 31, 2010 10:51 AM


What happened between President Obama and Justice Alito?

Posted by: Vannah at January 31, 2010 11:12 AM


First Representative Joe Wilson.

Now Justice Samuel Alito.

A breakdown in protocol between the branches at the State of the Union Speech?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Good form begins with a President who shows up and tells the truth, who does not arrive at an event meant to unite the nation and act like it's a campaign.

If Obama breaches protocol by spewing calumnies, then protocol has been severed.

It is a restorative act to call him a liar. Perhaps next year he might come as a responsible adult.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at January 31, 2010 11:33 AM


The venom spewed out at our Supreme Coutr Justices during his infantile rant during the SOTU address on Tuesday was beyond the pale....in that he had the balls to lecture ANYONE on campaign donations---considering he refused to use public funds for his own campaign and spent over 8hundred million dollars to McCain's 80?million----And by waiving public funds he was able to open up to foriegn contributors/no limits/etc.... talk about corruption!

No wonder he went on his WORLD WIDE VICTORY TOUR! Who knows how much foreign cash streamed in to his campaign that got him elected.

GAG! Once again-talk holier than thou-while covered in filth!

Posted by: imsteph at January 31, 2010 1:32 PM


I'm not 100% we're going to end up appreciating this decision on the part of SCOTUS. Certainly we're going to hate them come election time this year and we're all bombarded with even more ads than usual.

But I've seen some people absolutely loose it over this ruling. On another web forum of mine, one person accused SCOTUS of "selling America to the corporations." Keith Olbermann believes that candidates are going to be openly bought and sold by big businesses and all liberties will be utterly lost in the next ten years' time. And Obama practically threw a temper tantrum during the State of the Union address. I'll grant this might not have been a good idea, but I just don't see it being the end of the world as we know it.

And these are the people who accuse the rightwingers of "scaremongering." *sigh*

Posted by: Keli Hu at January 31, 2010 4:39 PM


Here is an audio clip of Rush Limbaugh's response to B.O.'s recent state of the Union speech.

Limbaugh touches on B.O.'s pimplike backhand to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08rx3JmspnI&feature=player_embedded#

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at January 31, 2010 7:58 PM