Chief Justice Roberts: Obama’s SOTU knock on the Supreme Court “very troubling”; Update: Gibbs responds

posted at 8:58 pm on March 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

Tough stuff. Although it was kind of him not to remind the student audience that Obama’s a liar, too.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama’s State of the Union address was “very troubling” and the annual speech has “degenerated to a political pep rally.”…

Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

“I’m not sure why we’re there,” he added, which I assume we can read as his personal flipping o’ the bird in reply to next year’s invite. As for Obama’s Court-bashing, don’t expect that to stop with the SOTU: Public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side regarding the Citizens United decision. Which brings the total number of issues these days on which the public is overwhelmingly on his side to, I guess, one. Exit question: Safe to assume that only the liberal justices will be at the state of the union next year? Or will smilin’ Anthony Kennedy once again answer the bell for the left?


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Update: Surely you weren’t expecting an apology from this tool.

Asked for comment, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans.”

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government for thee, but not for me. ”

PrincipledPilgrim on March 9, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.

crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Again, what was political about he said?

Notorious GOP on March 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.

crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

I assume you were equally upset over the president’s performance at the SOTU?

Cindy Munford on March 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

deidre on March 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

But you’re not a fascist.

OldEnglish on March 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Robert Gibbs: A mindless jerk who was the first against the wall when the revolution came…

wildcat84 on March 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM

John Roberts – Class Act

Barack Hussein Obama – Turd

D2Boston on March 9, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I assume you were equally upset over the president’s performance at the SOTU?

Cindy Munford on March 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Not betting on it.

conservnut on March 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM

I assume you were equally upset over the president’s performance at the SOTU?

Cindy Munford on March 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

Honey, I do think crr6′s brain is lop sided. It can only spew crap. Give her time though. She’s getting help from a colleague in how to answer you, and others. lol

How is Holder today, crr6?

capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Sounds like Gibbs doesn’t understand the law any better then his boss.

29Victor on March 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

How is Holder today, crr6?

Still trying to deflate the bus’s tires.

Notorious GOP on March 9, 2010 at 9:57 PM

The level of respect for other Americans from people in this administration is appalling. The “Chicago way” has certainly come to DC.

truetexan on March 9, 2010 at 9:58 PM

I’m hearing jeopardy music, as crr6 combs thru wikipedia pages.

capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM

The level lack of respect for other Americans from people in this administration is appalling. The “Chicago way” has certainly come to DC.

truetexan on March 9, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Fixed it for myself! :)

truetexan on March 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

To me the Democrats and their President (because I will never call him mine) are low class and hatefilled… Hillary and Bill are liars, crooks and classless (and some say murderers), Schumer, Kerry and Durbin have said despicable things especially about our troops. Pelosi is bat guano crazy, Reid tried to surrender while we were winning and they are trying to ram this HCR travesty down our throats, Franken is vulgar and low class, Rangel Geitner and how many others are tax cheats and corrupt, Frank is a pervert, the Emmanuels are crass, vulgar, ethically challenged…I just don’t have all night to go on and I could… Never have I seen such hypocritical, evil and unAmerican people in charge of this country…

CCRWM on March 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

If only The Gong Show still existed!
What I wouldn’t give to have Chuck Barris (?) run up and hammer the gong at Gibbs!

Domino on March 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Once again, for Gibbs and lib morons out there:
The supreme court does not exist to give us rulings that make our lives easier, nor do they exist to give us the rulings that we want.

strictnein on March 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM

When is the FCC going to investigate all those illegal contributions Obama received in 2008? Maybe they will get around to it in 2013 when The Smarmy One is given the boot.

Hey ObaMao – try, just try to observe the the laws that are on the books and stop trying to make up lies about what the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional.

Sporty1946 on March 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Maybe someone should ask Gibbs if Obama plans to do something about people using credit cards to max out ($2,300)campaign contributions to presidential candidates……and then never paying the balance on the credit card.

Yeah, I went to Huffington Post more than a year ago and read where people in my city, many of the unemployed, were maxing out contributions to Obama.

How many millions did Barry collect this way? How many millions did the taxpayer have to subsidize in Obama contributions?

Barry? Gibbs?

David2.0 on March 9, 2010 at 9:32 PM

Holy crap! I hadn’t heard this before.

Monica on March 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

…as a further musing to “His appointment may have been W’s finest hour” — the brief Harriet Miers fiasco was one of his worst. Not that Ms. Miers isn’t credible in a variety of positions, and not that it’s a bad thing to put a loyal and talented associate into, say, a cabinet position….but this is the Supreme Court.

I’m hoping for the day when we can see Janice Rogers Brown or Alex Kozinski in the SCOTUS — both are incredible legal minds, lend personality to the law without losing the law, and are scrappers in their service to truth and justice — but Justice Roberts was a nearly perfect choice for these troubled times.

It’s hard to feel too nostalgic about such a spotted record, but W had the knack of hittin’ it out of the park on the 3/2 pitch.

cthulhu on March 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

There’s one other thing that Roberts got right, and that is that the words “Obama” and “decorum” do not belong in the same sentence.

UltimateBob on March 9, 2010 at 10:05 PM

This guy is a low-life creature.

Hey Gibby,
Who all did you and your Chicago gang intimidate in Congressional Gym Shower today? Did the Precedent pay a visit for naked bullying exercise too?

PS: I guess Justice Roberts should have explained why The Magnificent One is a liar.

PPS: We will see how TheBoyPresident’s legislative response works out. BTW… GITMO is closed. Right? I mean it is well past 22nd January 2010.

antisocial on March 9, 2010 at 10:07 PM

it was kind of him not to remind the student audience that Obama’s a liar, too

That was my exact first thought when I first read this story earlier today.

KittyLowrey on March 9, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Hey Gibby,
Who all did you and your Chicago gang intimidate in Congressional Gym Shower today? Did the Precedent pay a visit for naked bullying exercise too?

Hey cut them some slack, it ain’t easy doing nude bullying when your little tallywacker don’t reach beyond your pubs.

conservnut on March 9, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Maybe they will get around to it in 2013 when The Smarmy One is given the boot.

Sporty1946 on March 9, 2010 at 10:02 PM

The day I see him climb in that helicopter and fly away from Washington will be a good day indeed. I’ll do better than to sing “na na na na, goodbye” like the hopeychangey gang did.

Like a classy conservative, I’ll put on a smile and hum it under my breath. :-)

Grace_is_sufficient on March 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

wildcat84:

I thought that was the Sirius Cybernetics Corp.

Vancomycin on March 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Holy crap! I hadn’t heard this before.

Monica on March 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Google: Mr. Doodad Pro

turfmann on March 9, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Again with the WaPo poll that asked this question:

35. Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

That right there is BS.

Bilby on March 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Why is that woman behind the justices wearing a suitcoat and tie?

[Bishop on March 9, 2010 at 9:41 PM]

The one on the far right in the second row? I think I remember a reporter commenting that she was an Escort for the Justices. She’s either Congressional or Supreme Court staff and it’s probably her uniform. Pages wear navy blue blazers, white shirts and Congress provides the tie.

Dusty on March 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Rahm, I’m sure has a needle dick.

Winebabe on March 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Here’s the poll from Washington Post with the ghastly USSC decision question.

Bilby on March 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Hey Gibbs, you and your boss will be but footnotes in history before too long. That is, unless your damage can’t be undone.

Obama 5 years from now will be nothing more than a Jimmy Carter freak show that only the increasingly irrelevant lunatic left media pays any attention to.

Chief Justice Roberts will still be relevant DECADES from now.

Obama will go down in history though, for proving one fact of racial equality, that African Americans can produce cataclysmic-ally bad Presidents just like whites can.

wildcat84 on March 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Update on 3/8/2010: Most Transparent President Ever Has Illinois Bar Records Partially Redacted This Week, Leaving Only Trace of His Existence Some Old Videos (Betamax).

Well, at least Roberts is licensed to practice law. Obama surrendered his license in 2008 and Michelle in 1993. And that is not the same as retiring.

Wethal on March 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM

A very very interesting read. I especially was taken back by the update. I’ll be interested in keeping up on this one. There’s something wicked in this!!! Thanks for the link!

capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 10:29 PM

The day I see him climb in that helicopter and fly away from Washington will be a good day indeed. I’ll do better than to sing “na na na na, goodbye” like the hopeychangey gang did.

Like a classy conservative, I’ll put on a smile and hum it under my breath. :-)

Grace_is_sufficient on March 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

I’d love to be there to stand tall, and strong, and proud, and belt out the song…God Bless America!!!

capejasmine on March 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM

The day I see him climb in that helicopter and fly away from Washington will be a good day indeed. I’ll do better than to sing “na na na na, goodbye” like the hopeychangey gang did.

Like a classy conservative, I’ll put on a smile and hum it under my breath. :-)

Grace_is_sufficient on March 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

This classy Conservative will sing it loud enough to wake the dead.

UltimateBob on March 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Gibbs, shut your pie hole and respect Justice Roberts right to speak. I want to punch that tool hard.

bluestateconservative on March 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Holy crap! I hadn’t heard this before.

Monica on March 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

I don’t think it was an organized campaign, Monica. I am just relating what I witnessed locally and then extrapolated that nationwide.

What I saw were people who, based on their employment or status as a student, should not have been in a position financially to max out a campaign contribution to Obama.

Then I got to thinking, “what if they just don’t pay on the card?” Obama already has the money and the taxpayer is on the hook for the contribution. I think it’s worth looking into.

David2.0 on March 9, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.
crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Let me warm those cold bones for you. Roberts didn’t make a political statement. He objected to political statements inappropriately directed at the only people in attendance not allowed to respond with a political statement.

I realize you have trouble comprehending the difference, so just understand that you misunderstood the point he was making and made a fool of yourself. That at least should be something familiar to you.

tom on March 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM

The point is not whether or not Obama agrees with the decision, it is the high handed way he went about criticizing the court. It was strange. I am sure Bush did not agree with all the decisions either, no president ever does, but I don’t ever recall seeing the Supreme Court treated like that.

Terrye on March 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Gibbs, shut your pie hole and respect Justice Roberts right to speak. I want to punch that tool hard.

bluestateconservative on March 9, 2010 at 10:32 PM

I’ve always felt a swift kick in the crotch would be the answer. Maybe that’s just me.

HAnthonyWayne on March 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.
crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Oh please. That is so stupid.

Terrye on March 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

When Obama breaks protocol good people must fight back.

This kind of behavior from Obama cannot go unchallenged.

scotash on March 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Are the SC justices permitted to write an op-ed that explains for laymen to understand the rationale behind their Citizens United decision? It is being misrepresented by the media, and the ObaMao administration is making hay over the mischaracterization.

onlineanalyst on March 9, 2010 at 10:54 PM

I’ve always felt a swift kick in the crotch would be the answer. Maybe that’s just me.

HAnthonyWayne on March 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM

There’s nothing there to damage.

AubieJon on March 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.
crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Oh please. That is so stupid.

Terrye on March 9, 2010 at 10:39 PM

This is beyond STUPID. There are lefties. And then there are lunatic lefties.

Justice Roberts was expressing his opinion. Justice Roberts was not attacking the Presidency or Congress OR Senate. The Magnificent One was attacking a majority Supreme Court Judgment in SOTU.

The little petty cheap boy looked really little petty cheap boy attacking Supreme Court.

antisocial on March 9, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Memo:

From: CJ, SCOTUS
To: POTUS
Subj: SOTU 2011

Dear POTUS (Barry),
1. For planning purposes and seating chart availability, I am writing to inform you that all 9 SCOTUS Justices will not be able to attend SOTU next January.
2. We’ll all be too busy washing our hair.

Regards,
Chief Justice (John)

Khun Joe on March 9, 2010 at 11:55 PM

“Public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side regarding the Citizens United decision.”

Well, read Althouse’s blog for her analysis of why people answered that way.

PattyJ on March 10, 2010 at 12:13 AM

Never have I seen such hypocritical, evil and unAmerican people in charge of this country…

CCRWM on March 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Next chance, Nov, 2010. After that, Nov. 2012. And they are not in charge, yet. Making lotsa anti-American decisions means more reason to return to Constitution, small government and low taxes PDQ. Occupancy of an elective office is not a right. Sneak it on D’rats. Your time was last year.

Did I mention that 2009 was a record year for the firearms industry? In a recession? These are usually a discretionary purchase. Peace thru overwhelming power.

Caststeel on March 10, 2010 at 1:30 AM

God,

What it would take to stand up every day and spew the party line…

I.AM.DEPRESSED

Hey Gibbs, learn to stick your head up your arse and whistle, before we have to do it for you.

docjohn52 on March 10, 2010 at 1:55 AM

I regret that I have but two middle fingers to flash at my president.

turfmann on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

You got your middle toes, don`t forget!

Sherman1864 on March 10, 2010 at 3:08 AM

Sherman1864: Agree exactly with your sentiments. Was taught in the 8th grade in Alabama about “or being hated, don’t give way to hating,” but Obama puts that to the test.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 9, 2010 at 9:50 PM

He certainly does. And he works hard at it, too.

Like termites destroying the foundations of an otherwise great house.

Regards,
Sherman1864

Sherman1864 on March 10, 2010 at 3:22 AM

What are the odds Obama/Gibbs don’t know the SCOTU is the 3rd branch of government?

DSchoen on March 10, 2010 at 3:30 AM

So does this mean that Chief Justice Roberts qualifies as being Olbermann’s Worst Person In The World?

Like Roberts would give a hoot if he did. At least someone out there is calling out B.O. for what he really is!

pilamaye on March 10, 2010 at 6:06 AM

As for Obama’s Court-bashing, don’t expect that to stop with the SOTU: Public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side regarding the Citizens United decision.

Again with the WaPo poll that asked this question:

35. Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

That right there is BS.

Bilby on March 9, 2010 at 10:20 PM

President Obama claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “opened the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

Furthermore, everyone knows Obama has no problem with bundled donations from Goldman Sachs, Google and University of California. The SEIU president met with the White House weekly while the stimulus bill was being written. Then there were those credit card donations from Rafah, GA — short for Gaza.

chunderroad on March 10, 2010 at 6:27 AM

Darned block quotes!

chunderroad on March 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM

Hummm. Let’s see now. Who am I going to trust to have the best legal understanding of this issue, and to be the most objective about the subject in general?

A: The Chief Justice of the United State Supreme Court, who gets paid to know the law and be objective, or

B: The Press Secretary for the Whitehouse. who gets paid to put a political spin on the information flow between the President and the media?

After due consideration, I think even considering Gibbs is a waste of time and brain cells.

MikeA on March 10, 2010 at 6:30 AM

Hey frat boy: If you want to end the influence of lobbyists in DC, give up your god damned usurpation of power! Live within the limits of the supreme law of this land and business won’t have to go begging and bribing to dirt-bag politicians to earn their daily bread.

MJBrutus on March 10, 2010 at 6:32 AM

How much would you pay to see Obama and Roberts debate the finer points of constitutional law?

Daveyardbird on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Wouldn’t be much of a contest. Roberts, unlike Obama, was a brilliant and highly successful lawyer for years. He argued and won many cases in the U.S. Supreme Court before being appointed to the bench. Barry Obama never tried a single case in the SCOTUS, and had a brief and unimpressive career as a lawyer before becoming an affirmative action hire at Chicago Law (where he was a part-time lecturer in grievance law, not a Constitutional Law professor, as he likes to claim).

Also, Roberts is a highly persuasive speaker with an impressive command of the facts and law of which he speaks. As he demonstrated repeatedly during his confirmation hearings, Roberts can speak intelligently on a wide range of subjects and does not need to rely upon notes or aides for reminders. Obama, by contrast, is heavily reliant upon his teleprompters. As he showed during the campaign, he memorizes a few talking points and then restates them over and over again. When distracted from his talking points (or when his ever-present teleprompter malfuctions), Obama becomes flustered and stutters or rambles incomprehensibly. And, as we’ve noted repeatedly here, Obama’s grasp of even simple areas of law (e.g., the difference between collision coverage and liability coverage in an auto insurance contract), is shockingly thin.

AZCoyote on March 10, 2010 at 6:38 AM

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government.

Line of the day.

COMEDIC line of the day. Someone book Gibbs at Caroline’s in NYC.

Vyce on March 10, 2010 at 6:40 AM

Well said, Mr. Chief Justice.
Wrong as usual, Gibbs.
Messiah & Co. can’t be trusted to correctly interpret a Supreme Court decision. Pretty much like anything else.

n0doz on March 10, 2010 at 6:44 AM

“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans.”

From the ACORN, UNION approved president? Rich, real rich.

gwelf on March 10, 2010 at 6:46 AM

How does Gibbs sleep at night?

bernzright777 on March 10, 2010 at 6:52 AM

I just went outside to feed my dog and stepped in a big, steaming pile of Barak Hussein Obama.

Alden Pyle on March 10, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government.

Says the man whose boss bought off the AMA, Pharma, AARP, and other special interests in his scheme to seize 1/6th of the economy.

highhopes on March 10, 2010 at 6:59 AM

What would we do without Robert Gibbs? The Best Press Secretary evah!

olesparkie on March 10, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Barry Obama never tried a single case in the SCOTUS

Good comment. I don’t believe Barry ever tried a case anywhere, is that correct? IANAL obviously but his short little law career appears to be a bit of a joke.

Missy on March 10, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Seems the Odumboi does not understand much about America, like consent of the governed and co-equal branches for starters. I doubt the SC Justices like the way the Constitution is being treated.

One of Stalin’s favorite refrains at his May Day intimidation shows was to shout out ‘peace, jobs and democracy’, for all the useful idiots.

The funny part, liberals always seem to forget, it’s their economy too.

tarpon on March 10, 2010 at 8:11 AM

Public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side regarding the Citizens United decision

Because people are freaking stupid and haven’t been taught that “Congress shall make no law” means what the hell it says.

Physics Geek on March 10, 2010 at 8:15 AM

What would we do without Robert Gibbs? The Best Press Secretary evah!

olesparkie on March 10, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Baghdad Bob!

Jaibones on March 10, 2010 at 8:25 AM

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

From my link posted above.

Wethal on March 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM

It would be nice if they all decided not to go, but I presume that won’t happen.

AnninCA on March 10, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. *

*We don’t consider unions to be special interests or lobbyists.

John Deaux on March 10, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Which brings the total number of issues these days on which the public is overwhelmingly on his side to, I guess, one.

Brilliant. That should be a quote of the day.

scalleywag on March 10, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Gibbs continued, saying, “the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. *

And what have we here?

Another bold faced lie.

scalleywag on March 10, 2010 at 9:08 AM

He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

From my link posted above.

Wethal on March 10, 2010 at 8:44 AM

He was also the first “editor” of the HLR not to be offered a clerkship at the Supreme Court. I wonder if he has a big chip on his shoulder about that.

I will repeat, this SCOTUS decision was incredibly damaging to the White House and the DNC. They had planned, either this year or in 2012, to declare Fox News and Rush Limbaugh’s Excellence In Broadcasting to be “corporations” and not “news organizations” and therefore subject to the restrictions on political speech during an election season. This is why they put their political lieutenants in at the Federal Election Commission and the FCC, and is the reason why immediately after taking office they went after Limbaugh and then Fox.

rockmom on March 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM

Amazing isn’t it, how Gibbs can recite almost verbatim the words of the One. Gotta keep the lie going. I was surprised at the number of letter in our local rag expressing the same view. It appears the lie has soaked in.

Kissmygrits on March 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Gibbs: “…the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government.”

ABC: Despite rhetoric, Obama pushed lobbyists interests

The Hill: After Obama rips lobbyists, K Street insiders get private policy briefings

OpenSecrets: Federal lobbying boom continues in Q3 of 2009

Gibbs, you are a shameless, lying, pathetic Democrat mega-hack. Get off that microphone I paid for. I’m not paying you to LIE.

Good Lt on March 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM

It’s stunning the ease with which Mr. President and his administration go about telling bold faced lies to the American people. The arrogance used to be stunning, but now I’ve come to expect that from them because, as despicable as it is, it’s apparently an inherent part of their character.

scalleywag on March 10, 2010 at 9:43 AM

This coming from the a**hats who got 450 million in campaign funding from Unions. You lie!!!

elclynn on March 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Gibbs is a mental midget. Of course the administration can insult the corporations all day long by teleprompter outbursts but the corporations must be quiet? Gibbs helps a lot of companies plan to move jobs overseas.

seven on March 10, 2010 at 10:52 AM

Wow. Political jabs from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Absolutely bone-chilling.

crr6 on March 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM

go and read some of the things Ginsburg said during Bush’s 8 years. If you want to talk about inappropriate political commentary by a supreme Court justice, first address that and then get back to this.

Monkeytoe on March 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Never have I seen such hypocritical, evil and unAmerican people in charge of this country…

CCRWM on March 9, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Enjoy the show while you can. November 2 is approaching faster than you think.

platypus on March 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Gibbs: “…the President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government.”

The “special interests” and “lobbyists” that are to be reduced are the ones who haven’t PAID OFF Obama!

DSchoen on March 10, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Too bad The One isn’t as tough on terrorists and rogue states as he is on fellow Americans.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2