RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
So, I think we’re all familiar with the fact that of the many falsehoods in the SOTU, one caused a bit more controversy than the others. When the POTUS spoke of campaign finances, Justice Alito was visibly agitated and was seen mouthing, “That’s not true.” Here’s the video.
In an act of utter irony, they are decrying judicial activism. Because, we all know that judges NEVER make policy…right?
So, the POTUS and his minions in the Administration, Congress, and MSM, are attempting to lie to the people about free speech. The SCOTUS, and Justice Alito in particular, are interfering. Rather than discuss their points, and educate, the left is resorting to its usual methods, attack the messenger.
Democrats say Alito crossed the line when he mouthed the words “not true” during President Barack Obama’s speech Wednesday night. But worse, they say, both Roberts and Alito misled them during their confirmation hearings when they represented themselves as jurists who would respect precedent.
“You bet they misled,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the assistant majority leader and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I see, upholding the Constitution is “misleading.”
At issue is the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the campaign finance decision Obama was discussing Wednesday night when Alito mouthed his objections.
Supporters say that Alito, Roberts and the three other justices in the majority simply returned to the original meaning of the First Amendment — that the ruling was intended to uphold the right of free speech.
“I really believe that an injustice was done to the First Amendment and political speech in the earlier decision,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a Judiciary Committee member who has argued before the high court. “I don’t think that’s activism.”
But Democrats see it otherwise — insisting that the decision represents exactly the sort of precedent-bucking judicial activism that Roberts and Alito rejected in sworn testimony during their confirmation hearings.
Referring to the memorable analogy in which Roberts compared himself to a baseball umpire, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told POLITICO this week, “He’s not somebody who just measures balls and strikes. It’s been the most activist court that I’ve seen in my 17 years in the committee.”
Diane Feinstein calling a judge “activist” is so ironic that it might alter the laws of physics, creating a parallel universe, or something like that.
New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman, another supporter of Roberts, said he thought the chief justice would be “more of a mainstream justice” and has been “disappointed on how conservative and ideological his decisions have proven to be.”
So, when the court rules with you, it’s justice. When they rule against you, it’s activism. I understand now.
Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu said that what she knows now “might have influenced me a little differently” on Roberts but said she made the “best decision I could” when she voted in 2005 to confirm him.
Maybe he just should have bribed you, and everything would be OK?
In his speech Wednesday night, Obama said the Supreme Court’s decision “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”
As Democrats rose to cheer, Alito shook his head and mouthed the words “not true.”
Feingold, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said it was “inappropriate” and “not very judicial” of Alito to protest — and he criticized the justice for failing to “maintain his judicial demeanor.”
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), another committee member, said in an interview that Alito was “totally classless.”
Now, here’s the Alinsky part of the show. Attack, attack, attack. Don’t debate the fact that the POTUS lied. Don’t address the content, attack the messenger. Forget that it’s poor form for the POTUS to attack the court, attack the court. It’s all a distraction from the actual situation.
A Note on Judicial Activism:
The more we look at this situation, the more ironic it becomes. There seems to be a difference in opinion as to what judicial activism actually is. Let’s take a look.
For “progressives,” creating rights that are not in the Constitution, and limiting those that do exist, is NOT judicial activism. Roe v. Wade? NOT activist!
For Conservatives, upholding rights that DO exist…OMG ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!
As usual, it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, or the Constitution. It has everything with the left’s desire to control. I think that is the source for the left’s obsession with precedent. They want the SCOTUS to uphold the decisions of actual activits judges, rather than rule based on the Constitution. Anytime that is disrupted, there will be an attack. If the focus stays on the ideas, they’ll lose, and they know it. So, they will personally attack the messenger. They will attempt to discredit the person, so the ideas will never be discussed or explored. Know the playbook, and adjust accordingly.
Do you favor the restoration of our Republic?
Do you dislike the nanny state?
Do you believe that our Constitution should be followed?
Have you joined the RESISTANCE? .
Be part of the solution!
Conservative Hideout Recommends
- Reject the GOP: Sharing the Disgust No. 3 - Rush Limbaugh is the Conservative Message (maggiesnotebook)
- Dilemma: What’s a mom to do? Creepy President to deliver speech to all public school children! – Updated (LonelyConservative)
- Know Your Enemy: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (WesternFront America)
Related posts:
I believe that future generations should have the same opportunities that myself, and those that came before me, had. My parents taught me that I could do anything I wanted to do. I don’t want to have to tell my daughter, “You can do whatever the government tells you to do.” We are at a crossroads in this country; are we going to be free, or are we going to be slaves to the nanny state. I choose freedom. 
![Recommend [conservativehideout]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/badge/logo-recommend-badge-medium.png){kind=icon}
Loading ...
Alito and the four other Justices were upholding the Constitution- freedom of speech, instead of misrepresenting the Constitution the rights of the Constitution, for so-called privacy rights, as in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Plus, the lawyers lied and used Roe, Norma McCorvey just to achieve their position that had absolutely nothing to do with a person’s privacy and nothing to do with the Constitution.
I’ve heard McCorvey on the radio. She was definitely used. And you are right. 4 judges voted for censorship. Would those same 4 judges vote to censor us, or talk radio, or FOX? Who knows?
Yep, Matt, distract and attack. The hypocrisy of the left is just astounding.
Well said Karen. I hope that exposing the tactics makes the attacks ineffective.
There is nothing activist in re-affirming old existing rights that have been trampled by the legislative branch and pass bad ruling by the high court. Roe vs Wade was an activist ruling that steped on major constitutional rights.
ABSOLUTELY!
Alito is too respectable for the lot of them Matt!:)
He is indeed. Know that I’m thinking about this a bit more, should he have been surprised and shocked in the first place?
Of course these despicable leftists would do that! I read somewhere, I wish I could remember, how obama hates Alito, because he didn’t vote for some drivel of his. Alito has more class in his little finger than the whole lot of these libtards.
Go gettum Bunni!
Matt,
You nailed it. Change the story. Don’t debate the facts, attack the court. It’s time to turn these rules back on them. POTUS used his SOTU address and position to marginalize a branch of the government exercising its Constitutional authority in front of all of America. Absolutely classless!
You are right John. It’s still sad to me that so many Americans missed it, but then again, that’s what public education is for.
Yeah … the kings of judicial activism, the Democrats, are calling the Supreme’s decision “activism.” Well, that’s because the Democrats think the Constitution is “out-dated” and “lives.” Democrats are also known to think that crack tastes like sugar.