24 thoughts on ““The President Of All Americans”

  1. Just shows what a pathetic, narcissistic loser he is.

    Maybe the conspiracy theories about him being murdered by Democrat operatives have some merit.

  2. Don’t be such a tool.
    In spite of the criticism, people close to the Scalia family said Obama was making the right choice. “I wouldn’t have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending,” said Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk who now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time.”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384#ixzz40WqsZRbA

  3. Emery, that’s “scat from a male bovine”, to put it politely. Yes, the family is gracious about this snub, but let’s draw a picture; Bill Clinton attended William Rehnquist’s funeral, and they were no ideological friends, either. And please don’t give us this nonsense of competing demands on his time–not when he’s played 270 rounds of golf as President and attended only 40% of his security briefings, and has yet to work with Congress to get priorities passed. Part of the President’s job is to show respect to other people in government, and that includes the funeral of the biggest thorn in his side on the Supreme Court.

    Mr. Obama apparently has yet to learn that people can disagree without being disagreeable.

  4. Just goes to show classless libturds flock together. Dear Leader can do nothing wrong for eTASS.

  5. BB: we’re skiing a section of the North End Trail today. Tomorrow we’ll use the Birkie Ridge trail to test our wax as the race course has been closed to preserve the trail for final grooming on Friday night. Have a great weekend!🎿

  6. Two comments.

    One, BB is right: it’s a classless act and it enhances Obama’s image as a petulant partisan. He’s not taking his own advice/regret about “bridging divisions” in Washington. He could have gone the extra mile, but that’s not Obama’s style. And his spokescritter’s refusal to deny that he’d put golfing above the funeral is pretty telling.

    Two, it’s not unprecedented to skip Justice’s funerals. Clinton and Gore did it with Blackmun and Powell. At least Biden is going to Scalia’s funeral.

  7. Regarding Blackmun and Powell, it’s worth noting that they had retired from the Court years earlier. That fact gives Clinton some cover that is not available for the death of a sitting justice like Scalia.

  8. Or, put differently, you get to skip the funeral of the colleague who retired ten years back. You should go to the funeral of the guy in your department who was still working with you. It’s just basic common sense.

    And, ahem, skip the selfies.

  9. Barry makes time for some funerals: Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Nelson Mandela to name a few. Not able to make time for Margaret Thatcher and it seems now Antonin Scalia. Despicable!

  10. I believe the Scalia family is sincere in giving Slobmama a pass. They want a dignified service, and who needs trash rolling in off the street?

    Emery can be forgiven his ignorant blather on this subject; the idea of respecting the dead is alien to him.

    It’s his families tradition to just leave the body of the deceased in place and, after removing anything they have coveted, set fire to the single wide.

    They down a few cases of PBR, rape their sisters and call it a day.

  11. EI translated; because a couple grand for a weekend hunting trip is a bigger deal than two hundred million in foreign donations in 2008 or six hundred grand when Tony Rezko bought the lot next to Obama’s house so he could enjoy the whole thing, and is definitely a bigger deal than accepting a tripling of his wife’s wages from the U. of Chicago right after being elected to the Senate.

  12. BB;

    Not to mention over $15 MILLION of taxpayer money spent on exotic vacations. The Democrats always treat the U.S. Treasury as a personal bank account.

    And Emery, you are really funny calling someone else a tool.

  13. It’s rather telling that the best defense of Obama’s actions is that he did the minimum amount necessary to show his respect for a recently passed away Supreme Court justice. People who are just marking time do the minimum. Leaders make the effort to go the extra mile.

  14. So, Mitch, when GW Bush skipped Thatcher’s funeral too, I assume that made him classless? Or is it that as the acting President only, you are obligated? Thatcher was a family friend of the Bush’s and clearly Poppy couldn’t go.

    Furthermore, I find all of your outrage hypocrisy at best. You guys laud confrontational, disrespectful tone. Scalia was your hero in part because he behaved like a bully, popping off with one intemperate remark after another. He was openly disrespectful toward President Obama. My reaction is, you reap what you sew.

    http://theusconstitution.org/news/scalia-turns-advocate-against-obama-queries-criticized

    Please whinge to someone who cares, because as far as being respectful goes, sorry boys, but you already left that station far FAR behind.

  15. Gonna help you out, Penigma. Not only had Thatcher not been Prime Minister for 23 years, but W was also not President, and the funeral was across an ocean, not just two miles from the White House. Boy, for a foreign head of state of a key ally, one would have thought someone else–say a community organizer from Chicago–might have attended.

  16. Pen,

    Bubba stole some of my thunder.

    Thatcher died five years after Bush left office, and left office ten years before Bush was elected. He’d have been essentially crashing the party, as it were.

    Scalia was your hero in part because he behaved like a bully, popping off with one intemperate remark after another.

    People say the same thing about Ruth Bader Ginsberg. So what?

    Why is it so many of you on the left want the entire world to be your safe space?

  17. OK, Scalia was intemperate……unlike the President, who routinely flips people off in public appearances? Who uses the presumption of “the audience will be silent” to take potshots at the Supreme Court during SOTU speeches?

    Pot, meet kettle.

  18. Scalia’s stance was that only the text matters, and the only interpretation necessary is to make sure we understand what the text meant when the text was written. In other words, you shouldn’t change the intent of the constitution by adding new definitions of the words therein. The constitution should mean now what it meant when the various parts of it were incorporated into it.

    The same is true of laws today, but issues of a changing language are not pertinent with a recently passed law.

  19. “People say the same thing about Ruth Bader Ginsberg.”
    Ginsberg is awful. She has a Jewish understanding of religion and seems ignorant of that fact. She doesn’t understand that most Christian churches are evangelical in the sense that it is an important part of their mission to convert non-believers, and that Christianity is a universal religion where Judaism is not.
    She also cherry-picks her precedents. She will cite court decision from the 1890s that can possibly have a liberal interpretation as precedent for a liberal interpretiation today while ignoring precedents from the 1890s that do not have a liberal interpretation.
    Liberals lionize Ginsberg because they agree with her decisions, not because they admire her legal reasoning. There is not much there to admire.
    Like a lot of educated women of a certain age, she seems to believe that this is still the 1950s, and women are oppressed and overlooked by a patriarchial society and especially a patriarchial workplace. She seems to still be seeking vengeance for the mistreatment she believes that she received when she was a young lawyer. The Ledbetter v Goodyear equal pay for equal work case, where she wrote a blistering dissent to majority opinion, was about discrimination that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

  20. As an intellectual stance, originalism is completely sound. Believing that meanings change as time passes is, on the other hand, building the foundations of the rule of law on quicksand. I’m sure Scalia’s stance was that the Supreme Court, as an unelected body of jurists, should not lead in political changes, but instead should resist change and let legislatures lead.

    The intellectual integrity of Scalia’s approach is why so many who disagreed with him still respected him as a jurist. Religions are trapped by their holy books supposedly inspired by a supernatural being. It is hard to justify changes to those books after the fact, even as the religion becomes a poor fit for a more modern society. But is it intellectually sound to be a biblical originalist? Absolutely. It’s just not intellectually sound to believe in supernatural beings whose existence cannot be proven or disproven. Religion and Constitutional Law make for a poor analogy.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.