Obama is saying that the Supreme Court, since they are "unelected", has no business overturning his healthcare law, which was passed by elected officials?

Republicans Slam Obama Over Warning To 'unelected' Supreme Court | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/republicans-slam-obama-over-warning-to-unelected-supreme-court/)

This guy was a professor of Constitutional law, and he doesn't see where the Supreme Court gets off declaring a law is unconstitutional? Has Obama ever read the Constitution? Has he ever heard of seperation of powers or checks and balances?

Unfreakingbelieveble. This guy taught constitutional law...Look at this quote from Obama...

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

When the Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of a law, how it became a law is of no consequence. They routinely declare laws unconstitutional which have been passed by elected legislators. That's one of the core responsibilities of the court, for Christ's sakes.

Is Obama under the impression that when he signs a law, it's above scrutiny by the Supreme Court? Did he get elected President, or did he get anointed king, sometimes I forget??

Spence, looking forward to your apologetic, pro-Obama spin here...

thats funny, I guess he doesnt comprehend the 3 branches of our govt.

thats funny, I guess he doesnt comprehend the 3 branches of our govt.


If he does know, he must think the executive branch rules over the judicial.

This guy TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at law school!

Imagine if Sarah Palin said "it's not the role of the Supreme Court to toss out laws passed by the legislature".

How does Obama think abortion became legal? The Supreme Court decided that anti-abortion laws, which were passed by democratically elected officials, were unconstitutional.

Unfreakinbelievable.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

uh oh! The libs are getting antsy!
Read this and you'll puke on yourself.....

Is the Supreme Court playing with fire? - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/joondeph-supreme-court-risk/index.html?hpt=hp_c2)

"The justices' apparent willingness to take such steps suggests they may not appreciate the political stakes. A decision to wash away the most important federal statute in a generation, rendered in the heat of a presidential campaign, would likely unleash a political firestorm -- one that could significantly threaten the stature of the Supreme Court"

uh, so we shouldnt worry about the law, we should worry about the political implications? The quote could be coming straight frome "Animal Farm" or Stalin's propaganda machine.

Between sending a warning shot at the SC, and today stating that Reagan wouldn't win a primary, and in fact would be rejected by the GOP..... I think Obama is showing his lack of understanding history and the Constitution. Also showing some dictatorial traits..... Do you think that Reagan would have whispered "let me get back to you after the election" to the Russians?

Between sending a warning shot at the SC, and today stating that Reagan wouldn't win a primary, and in fact would be rejected by the GOP..... I think Obama is showing his lack of understanding history and the Constitution. Also showing some dictatorial traits..... Do you think that Reagan would have whispered "let me get back to you after the election" to the Russians?
The fact that it may be a 5-4 decision doesn't show that Obama doesn't understand the Constitution...it's a reflection that there is a slight variation in judgement. If the decision is 4-5 the other way does that mean that the other argument is completely wrong?

As for Reagan, I'm not sure you could be more off. Reagan at the height of the Cold War made a deal with Gorbachev to give him a soft landing as the USSR was breaking up. The stakes were a lot higher and the deal couldn't have been more personal. Do you think he didn't work to cut the best deal he could?

Reagan's brilliance was that he was really a pragmatist...

-spence

They were scared #^&#^&#^&#^& of Reagan, Jeff! They knew he had the balls to do whatever the situation called for. And they also knew he hated what they stoud for, pre-Gorbachov

Reagan's brilliance was that he was really a pragmatist...

-spence

Yes, a very practical man, but more importantly a true Leader who brought
the country together, made people proud to be Americans and brought
out true Patriotism.

The Justices should not be concerned wether something is completly wrong or not, but wether
it is or is not Constitutional.

The Justices should not be concerned wether something is completly wrong or not, but wether
it is or is not Constitutional.

Well, then it will pass, since it is constitutional based on precedent. The real question is whether the supreme court will overturn settled law. Many are obviously in favor of that.

today stating that Reagan wouldn't win a primary

He must be following these boards. I have been saying that for months. It doesn't show a lack of understanding of history, it shows an understanding of how far right the repubs have fallen. Although, Romney's candidacy does seem to nullify that. The tea party couldn't pull it off.

Reagan gave the working man the first kick in the nuts in this continuing assination of the middle class. Deregulation and union busting have undone us all.

Well, then it will pass, since it is constitutional based on precedent. The real question is whether the supreme court will overturn settled law. Many are obviously in favor of that.

Precedent is supposed to be binding only on the lower federal district and appeal courts. Even in those courts, judges often don't follow precedent. The ninth circuit is famous for abandoning precedent. The Supreme Court is not bound to follow precedent. If it were, the current interpretations of "commerce," "regulate," and "interstate" would never have happended. The first 150 years of SC jurisprudence understood those words, as well as many others, to be something quite different than the meanings they took on during the FDR court which, obviously, didn't follow precedent. Nor is there even precedent for adjudication upholding federal power to require individuals to buy commercial products, nor any precedent for it to create commerce that did not previously exist. So there is not really a settled law to be overturned. But if there were, or is, the SC is not bound to follow it, especially if such law was "settled" unconstitionally. Bad case law not only can be reversed, it should be.

04/02/2012 TheWashingtonPost

Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court
By Ruth Marcus

"There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.”

To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.

That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate(this is interesting:uhuh:), a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.

And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold."

Obama’s unsettling attack on the Supreme Court - PostPartisan - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettling-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html)

the only "precedent" being set here is one of an American President acting as a Third World Dictator:uhuh:

Pass the smelling salts! Obama `attacked’ SCOTUS! - The Plum Line - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pass-the-smelling-salts-obama-attacked-scotus/2012/04/03/gIQA7VpAtS_blog.html)
to be fair Zimmy, here's a rebuttal, although, both authors are sitting on the same side of the aisle politically...

I always like to check the bio's just to see where they might be coming from...

Ruth Marcus- Ruth Marcus is a columnist and editorial writer for The Post, specializing in American politics and domestic policy. Marcus has been with The Post since 1984. She joined the national staff in 1986, covering campaign finance, the Justice Department, the Supreme Court and the White House. From 1999 through 2002, she served as deputy national editor, supervising reporters who covered money and politics, Congress, the Supreme Court, and other national issues. She joined the editorial board in 2003 and began writing a regular column in 2006. A graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School(who apparently half paid attention while at Harvard Law unlike our President), she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2007. She lives in Maryland with her husband, Jon Leibowitx, their two daughters, and the world’s cutest dog.

Greg Sargent- Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated reporting” from the left. He joined the Post in early 2009, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer. He lives in Maryland with his wife, son and daughter.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "I was totally unprepared because of the way people talked. I always thought, intellectually, it might be a problem but I never heard it discussed politically as a prospect, that they actually might get his major achievement just ripped off the books."

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER-"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,(I believe it was referred to as a "train wreck" on day one and a "plane wreck" after the final arguments)'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening.

"It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.

"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't as broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded.

fascinating stuff:uhuh:

uh, so we shouldnt worry about the law, we should worry about the political implications? .

The SOLE REASON the founding fathers saw fit to create this court (unelected justices with lifetime appointments) was so that they could render their decisions free of politcal considerations.

Is this still the USA, or did that change in the last 3 days? Is this all an April Fools joke? What the heck is going here?

The fact that it may be a 5-4 decision doesn't show that Obama doesn't understand the Constitution...it's a reflection that there is a slight variation in judgement. If the decision is 4-5 the other way does that mean that the other argument is completely wrong?

As for Reagan, I'm not sure you could be more off. Reagan at the height of the Cold War made a deal with Gorbachev to give him a soft landing as the USSR was breaking up. The stakes were a lot higher and the deal couldn't have been more personal. Do you think he didn't work to cut the best deal he could?

Reagan's brilliance was that he was really a pragmatist...

-spence

Spence, what about Obama's statement that it would be "unprecedented" if the Supreme Courtoverturned a law passed by democratically elected officials? That's not breathtakingly stupid?

The real question is whether the supreme court will overturn settled law. Many are obviously in favor of that.

The Supreme Court does that all the time. That's how slavery was abolished, and that's how abortion was legalized, the Supreme Court overturned what was, up to that point, settled law. Just because the President signs a bill into law, doesn't make it constitutional, as I suspect we will soon see.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "I was totally unprepared because of the way people talked. I always thought, intellectually, it might be a problem but I never heard it discussed politically as a prospect, that they actually might get his major achievement just ripped off the books."

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER-"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,(I believe it was referred to as a "train wreck" on day one and a "plane wreck" after the final arguments)'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening.

"It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.

"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't as broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded.

fascinating stuff:uhuh:

I love The Hammer...

Well, then it will pass, since it is constitutional based on precedent. The real question is whether the supreme court will overturn settled law. Many are obviously in favor of that.
Where is the precedent?

Many people point to car insurance which is completely unrelated.


Edit: Just stumbled across this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-judge-troubled-by-obamas-comments-on-high-courts-review-of-health-care-law/2012/04/03/gIQAicH3tS_story.html
I wouldn't doubt the possibility of Obama hurting his chances and changing a potential 5-4 decision in his favor into a 5-4 decision against him. Let's not forget that this is the second time Obama has called out the Supreme Court. There's a good chance that challenging the court results in at least one Justice's mentality turning into "you know what, F$#& him."

Spence? Yoo-hoo, Spence? No comment on the fact that Obama doesn't agree that the Supreme Court has the traditional authority to deem duly passed laws as un-constitutional? Spence, you have no comment on Obama's idiotic, outrageous statement?

Well, then it will pass, since it is constitutional based on precedent. The real question is whether the supreme court will overturn settled law. Many are obviously in favor of that.

from Zimmy, constitutional scholar. WTF man, seriously?
you better not beyotch then when the real scholars deliver an opinion.

and BTW - this whole "settled law" thing, thats what the supreme court does for a living. They confirm or overturn settled law as a course of their daily business. aint no big f'in deal if they do. Anyone remember "seperate but equal" ? They overturned their own ruling.

The interesting thing about the arguments in front of the SCOTUS is not whether they have the right to overturn laws that are unconstitutional. That is a given. It is the standard of review that is coming under question and the idea that Congress as the elected voice of the people (in theory) has the right to make policy and challenges to any law passed by Congress have a heavy burden to overcome. The conservative justices during the oral arguments felt that the weight of proof was on the Gov't to show that the legislation passed by the Congress allows the Gov't the ability to go into interstate commerce in this area. This would be a significant departure from Court precedent and you can argue that the Court has the right to move in whatever direction it sees fit. Forgetting about this particular law and whether you support it or not do you really want a group of judges that are appointed for life with very limited standard of review to start deciding matters of policy. I think that that would be a significant shift in the system of checks and balances we have in this country and it makes me uneasy.

Well I guess the fact that our elected officials passed the legislation despite the fact that it was highly unpopular. Then consequently lost the house because of it is not important. Just another situation where our officials think they need to tell us how we should live.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from Zimmy, constitutional scholar. WTF man, seriously?
you better not beyotch then when the real scholars deliver an opinion.

and BTW - this whole "settled law" thing, thats what the supreme court does for a living. They confirm or overturn settled law as a course of their daily business. aint no big f'in deal if they do. Anyone remember "seperate but equal" ? They overturned their own ruling.

Thank you. i appreciate your acknowledgement of my scholarship on the constitution :love::devil2:. My post was a bit of baiting, but as far as they overturn settled law, they almost always reject even hearing cases of settled law, so to say it is no big deal is a stretch. I agree with the fact that Obama was way out of line commenting on it and I beleive it almost certainly results in a 5-4 to overturn it. It's human nature. I would certainly feel like stickin it to him if I were a justice.

The precedent goes back at least as far as US v SEU in 1944. The auto insurance and fire insurance are relevant because operation of a vehicle requires a license and the vehicle must be insured. US v SEU dealt with the same issue in fire insurance. In the health insurance case, the reasonable expectation is that everyone will use medical services. The impact of the uninsured on interstate commerce (medical services) is clear. Lack of insurance is a driving froce in the cost of health care commerce. Congress has the power to legislate interstate commerce.

do you really want a group of judges that are appointed for life with very limited standard of review to start deciding matters of policy. I think that that would be a significant shift in the system of checks and balances we have in this country and it makes me uneasy.

Am I on mars? Does anyone here have a clue what the supreme court does? This isnt about policy. Its about the LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT.
A decision will not say we shouldnt have health care reform, it will say the US Govt CANNOT make you do something that was not intended in the constition.
Just curious, do folks think the SCOTUS was out of bounds when they legalized abortion? Ended Segregation? Do you you think prohibition should be LEGAL???????? I dont, its theirr ole to keep the executive and legislative branch in check.
For gods sake liberals are now trying to taint a processs that has worked in their favor for years. WTF is happening here?

Well I guess the fact that our elected officials passed the legislation despite the fact that it was highly unpopular. Then consequently lost the house because of it is not important. Just another situation where our officials think they need to tell us how we should live.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It isn't a question of telling us how to live. It is a question of what our system is and how a persons lack of health insurance affects that system. I really wonder what percent of the uninsured or are denied for pre-existing conditions are against the law . It is almost certainly people who all ready have good insurance that are bchng. As an insured person, I would really appreciate it if all the people in the ER for colds at 11 on a Saturday night had insurance and could see a gp. It would take much less time for the hook to get removed from my thumb.

, they almost always reject even hearing cases of settled law, so to say it is no big deal is a stretch. .

clueless


The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

News from Earth!

Supreme Court overturns anti-animal cruelty law in First Amendment case
Resize Print E-mail Reprints
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Supreme Court on Tuesday forcefully struck down a federal law aimed at banning depictions of dog fighting and other violence against animals, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and created a "criminal prohibition of alarming breadth."

The 8 to 1 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment's protection of even distasteful expression. Roberts called "startling and dangerous" the government's argument that the value of certain categories of speech should be weighed against their societal costs when protecting free speech.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation (http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx)

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

Simple terms....

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com (http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court)

"It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution."

Spence? Yoo-hoo, Spence? No comment on the fact that Obama doesn't agree that the Supreme Court has the traditional authority to deem duly passed laws as un-constitutional? Spence, you have no comment on Obama's idiotic, outrageous statement?

Sorry, have been working hard to try and keep the DOW above 13,000. The economic recovery is keeping me pretty busy :hihi:

I don't see you could interpret Obama's remark as stating the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority. Obama was simply using a bit of the Right's own poison against them.

It was a heavy handed political remark for sure, but the Administration didn't fare well in the media last week and so they have to tighten up their line.

Obama's comments if anything we to reassure the base he was fighting for their interests...Reagan did the same thing.

-spence

They were scared #^&#^&#^&#^& of Reagan, Jeff! They knew he had the balls to do whatever the situation called for. And they also knew he hated what they stoud for, pre-Gorbachov
The Soviets weren't scared of Reagan, they were scared of their own people as they saw communism falling apart.

Most of Reagan's tough talk was to appease Republicans here in the states. While Reagan was sabre rattling on the ABC nightly news he was working with Gorbachev to compromise on INF and START...

Remember, as much as Reagan hated communism he hated nuclear weapons more...remarking "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization."

People say Reagan couldn't get the GOP nomination today but I think that's crazy. He'd simply trot out the same story he told for 40 years which inspires and makes people feel good about their country, then quietly work behind the scenes to get the best deal he thought he could.

That's the Reagan legacy people should remember and respect.

-spence

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation (http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx)

"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations."

Simple terms....

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com (http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court)

"It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution."

wow, things are interesting on the planet you call earth

wow, things are interesting on the planet you call earth

I find it easier to understand you earthlings by walking amongst you...instead of gaining my understanding by deciphering the TV and Radio transmissions we have iintercepted in outer space

Sorry, have been working hard to try and keep the DOW above 13,000. The economic recovery is keeping me pretty busy :hihi:

I don't see you could interpret Obama's remark as stating the SCOTUS doesn't have the authority. Obama was simply using a bit of the Right's own poison against them.

It was a heavy handed political remark for sure, but the Administration didn't fare well in the media last week and so they have to tighten up their line.

Obama's comments if anything we to reassure the base he was fighting for their interests...Reagan did the same thing.

-spence \

Spence, i noticed you werent too busy to comment on this thread, earlier, yet dodge the issue I raised. So don't give me that, OK?

Spence, Obama said it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn a law passed by the legislature. "Unprecedented". The man taught constitutional law, and he doesn't think the court has ever, not once, overturned a law signed by congress?

You didn't present yourself any better than he did Spence...you shuold both be enbarassed.

Our president doesn't think that the Supreme Court has ever declared a law to be unconstitutional. Our Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat. Our vice president is an admitted plagiarist. Our Secretary Of State claimed that on an overseas trip she had to JUMP! into military vehicles because of sniper fire (turned out to be a lie, caught on video, her excuse for the lie was that she was tired, and because o fthat, she imagined that she had been shot at), and our attorney general thinks that (1) soldiers on the battlefield should "arrest" enemy combatants, and that (2) it was a good idea to give machine guns to Mexican drug runners.

Not exactly the 1927 Yankees, this inner circle we have...

US First Lady Michelle Obama appeared on Tuesday night's episode of "The Biggest Loser" to promote her campaign against obesity -- and has hosted the US diet reality show's first White House workout.

Maybe this foreshadows her husband's campaign?

US First Lady Michelle Obama appeared on Tuesday night's episode of "The Biggest Loser" to promote her campaign against obesity -- and has hosted the US diet reality show's first White House workout.

Maybe this foreshadows her husband's campaign?

Would that be his anti smoking campaign??:rotf2:.

clueless


The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available; the database may be updated in 2012) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.


I am suprised by the clueless comment from you.
Do you know what that is a percent of all the laws ever brought up for consideration? They receive 10,000 petitions per year. You do the math.

Zimmy, dont feel like playing 3yr old today.
You stated - " they almost always reject even hearing cases of settled law, so to say it is no big deal is a stretch."

Big Stretch? They have overturned 1,315 laws (thats overturned not heard! They uphold most of them!) That would make an average from 1808 through 2002 of 6.7 laws per year ruled unconstitutional. Thats a lot. Of course they receive thousands of requests but many do not make it to the SC.
you were trying to side with Obama and say that if the court overturns the health care its unprescedented which is has been proven over and over in this thread to be utter bull$hit.

Spence, Obama said it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn a law passed by the legislature. "Unprecedented". The man taught constitutional law, and he doesn't think the court has ever, not once, overturned a law signed by congress?
Obama's statement was in response to a question, not a prepared remark. That he left out some context is reasonable and when asked again he was more specific.

Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

I think Obama's assertion that the bill was passed by a big majority was certainly a stretch, but his comment that the SCOTUS hasn't mucked with economic policy in the modern era does appear to be accurate from what I've read.

This blabbering on that Obama doesn't know what the Supreme Court does is pretty absurd.

-spence

Zimmy, dont feel like playing 3yr old today.
You stated - " they almost always reject even hearing cases of settled law, so to say it is no big deal is a stretch."

Big Stretch? They have overturned 1,315 laws (thats overturned not heard! They uphold most of them!) That would make an average from 1808 through 2002 of 6.7 laws per year ruled unconstitutional. Thats a lot. Of course they receive thousands of requests but many do not make it to the SC.
you were trying to side with Obama and say that if the court overturns the health care its unprescedented which is has been proven over and over in this thread to be utter bull$hit.

Ok, then here is the math 6.7/10000 = 6/100ths of a percent. They uphold or reject 99.94% of petitions. I knew what the numbers were before I made my statement and I will stick with the statement you quoted. It is rare for them to overturn congress or to even hear what is considered settle by past precedent. Those aren't my opinions, they are facts established by the record.

you were trying to side with Obama and say that if the court overturns the health care its unprescedented which is has been proven over and over in this thread to be utter bull$hit.

I never said it was unprecented. I said it is rare. Trying to side with Obama? No, analyzing it as a legal question. Grouchy today, aren't you? :jump1:

by the way, acts of congress overturned since 1802 is about 160-170.

Ok, then here is the math 6.7/10000 = 6/100ths of a percent. They uphold or reject 99.94% of petitions. I knew what the numbers were before I made my statement and I will stick with the statement you quoted. It is rare for them to overturn congress or to even hear what is considered settle by past precedent. Those aren't my opinions, they are facts established by the record.

thats the equivalent of saying its rare for police officers to make arrests. They may respond to 25,000 calls but only arrest 10 people.
Thats not rare, its part of the process to prioritize.
It is commonplace that the supreme court hears cases on established law and will overturn them if deemed unconstutional. Its not rare at all. I will refer you to DadFs posting once again since its tough for you to grasp -

Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

"It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution

Obama's statement was in response to a question, not a prepared remark. That he left out some context is reasonable and when asked again he was more specific.



I think Obama's assertion that the bill was passed by a big majority was certainly a stretch, but his comment that the SCOTUS hasn't mucked with economic policy in the modern era does appear to be accurate from what I've read.

This blabbering on that Obama doesn't know what the Supreme Court does is pretty absurd.

-spence

"Obama's statement was in response to a question, not a prepared remark."

Oh, I see. So even you, his biggest fan, expect idiotic, demonstrably false jibberish to come out of his mouth when he's not reading a rehearsed speech? I keep hearing how refreshing it is to have an intellectual in the Oval Office. You can't have it both ways, Spence.

You're saying that we should all expect him to say idiotic things when he's not reading a prepared speech, and we should therefore forgive him. That's not what Obama fans did to Palin when she said atupid things.

"That he left out some context "

Spence, he said it would be "unprecedented" if the Court deemed his healthcare law illegal. PLEASE PUT THAT IN ANY CONTEXT YOU WANT. That answer would get a rishly deserved "F" in any 7th grade civics class. This is what Harvard Law School produces? He's completely, 100% ignorant about the core function of one-third of our federal government?

"This blabbering on that Obama doesn't know what the Supreme Court does is pretty absurd"

No. What's absurd is that he doesn't know what the Suprene Court does. Spence, the word "unprecedented" is not ambiguous, it's not open for interpretation. I'm not spinning anything, I'm not putting words in his mouth, I'm not taking anything out of context. He used the word "unprecedented". I'm sorry your hero put his foot in his mouth on a big stage. Don't take your frustration out on me, it's not my fault that this emperor has no clothes.

"his comment that the SCOTUS hasn't mucked with economic policy in the modern era does appear to be accurate from what I've read."

But that's not what he said. Read the quote, The word "economics" appears nowhere. You are now making things up to make him look less idiotic.

""I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

Where is Obama saying that what he's talking about is economic policy? Where, exactly? Spence, point that out for me please?

Forget about what you think he meant. Look at what he said. Liberals had no problem holding Palin accountable for what she said, so let's hold Obama to the same standard, unless that's unfair for some reason?

Not a good day for you Spence, not a good day. Just once, you could have said "jeez, i can't imagine what he was thinking when he said that, that's a stupid thing to say".

Ok, then here is the math 6.7/10000 = 6/100ths of a percent. They uphold or reject 99.94% of petitions. I knew what the numbers were before I made my statement and I will stick with the statement you quoted. It is rare for them to overturn congress or to even hear what is considered settle by past precedent. Those aren't my opinions, they are facts established by the record.

Zimmy, if Obama said it's "rare" to overturn a law, then your figures would have some valid place here. He didn't, so they don't. If something has been done more than 1,000 times, it's not "unprecedented". There's lots of "precedent".

That comment, coming from a professor of constitutional law, is as shockingly ignorant as anything Palin ever said.

How completely brainwashed are you and Spence anyway? Do you hear yourselves? Do you really, genuinely believe what you're saying? Would your heads explode if you said "the guy's brilliant, but boy that was a dumb thing to say".

May I suggest everybody take a deep breath and relax....

I'm pretty sure Bossman wants everybody to play nice in the Sandbox :hihi:

\

Spence, Obama said it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn a law passed by the legislature. "Unprecedented". The man taught constitutional law, and he doesn't think the court has ever, not once, overturned a law signed by congress?


That's OK, Joe Biden stated Obama's call on Bin Laden was the most audacious thing in 500 years of history :rotf2:

(and it was Audacious, just not in the top 500 of the last 500)

May I suggest everybody take a deep breath and relax....

I'm pretty sure Bossman wants everybody to play nice in the Sandbox

And, yes, he does.

Its not rare at all. I will refer you to DadFs posting once again since its tough for you to grasp -



:rotf2::rotf2: What I said is most of the time, they won't even hear the cases that have precedent in the law. 99.64 % of the time is most of the time. 10/25000 would be that they rarely arrest people relative to the calls. Simple math. Classy responses today Jimmy.

What Obama should have said:
"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it...I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet...I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

That comment, coming from a professor of constitutional law, is as shockingly ignorant as anything Palin ever said.
Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate.

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no?

-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

thats the equivalent of saying its rare for police officers to make arrests. They may respond to 25,000 calls but only arrest 10 people.
Thats not rare, its part of the process to prioritize.
It is commonplace that the supreme court hears cases on established law

I have been thinking about how it can be that you can be arguing so strongly against my statements about settled law. Now I see the problem. Settled law specifically is covered by Stare decisis. You didn't know what settled law means in legal terms. "Established law" is not what I am talking about. Of course the supreme court rules on rules that are established. What they do not typically due is rule on settled law. That is a basic rule of the supreme court. You're calling me clueless really was baffling, but in the context that you didn't know what I was talking about, ironically, it makes sense. Whether it is settled law is debatable point. Whether the supreme court is resistant to even hearing cases related to settled law is not.

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate.

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no?

-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

"The reality is that his remark was incomplete"

OK, so was Palin's comment about seeing Russia...she should have ended her comment with "if I'm looking thriough the Hubble telescope". Therefore, since it wasn't stupid but incomplete, you cannot use it against her. Sound reasonable?

His remark was not imcomplete. It was demonstrably false, it was erroneous, not incomplete.

"it was a response to a question"

So what? So was Dan Quayle when he mis-spelled potato or whatever mistake he made, and people held that against him. Spence, where is it written that you caan only judge Obama's intelligence by his ability to read things off his teleprompter, things that others wrote for him? Was Palin's comment about seeing Russia a response to a question? If so, you're saying that you won't use it against her?

If anything, his unscripted responses are much more revealing than his regurgitation of someone else's words, right?

"The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant" Hold on. You didn't ask Palin what she meant, you called her stupid for saying a stupid thing. Why can't you hold Obama to the same standard as Palin? Why can't Obama handle the same scrutiny? Why must we give Obama time to re-group, and then come back and tell us what he "meant to say"?

You're being very selective here, Spence. When Palin says something stupid, you take it to mean she's stupid. Fair enough. But when Obama says something equally stupid, you dismiss it, and instead give him a pass, because you'rs sure he really meant to say something eloquent and brilliant.

Do I have that right? IS that about right? You see nothing unfair in your system?

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said.


-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

snopes.com: I Can See Alaska from My House (http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp)

The basis for the line was Governor Palin's 11 September 2008 appearance on ABC News, her first major interview after being tapped as the vice-presidential nominee. During that appearance, interviewer Charles Gibson asked her what insight she had gained from living so close to Russia, and she responded: "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska"I think this is geographically accurate


Two days later, on the 2008 season premiere of Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler appeared in a sketch portraying Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, during which Fey spoofed Governor Palin's remark of a few days earlier with the following exchange:

FEY AS PALIN: "You know, Hillary and I don't agree on everything . . ."

POEHLER AS CLINTON: (OVERLAPPING) "Anything. I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy."

FEY AS PALIN: "And I can see Russia from my house."
...........................

From the Thursday, September 11, 2008, World News:

CHARLES GIBSON: Let me ask you about specific national security situations. Let's start, because we are near Russia. Let's start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said, we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

SARAH PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. And we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked?

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked. And we have got to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska

GIBSON: You in favor of putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously he thinks otherwise.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean that is the agreement. When you are a NATO ally, is, if another country is attacked, you are going to be expected to be called upon and help.




what the President did the other day, he has done routinely during his tenure and as usual his supporters struggle to make excuses for his arrogance, ignorance and infantile behaviour

Spence, you know that Saturday Night Live isn't "real life" just because it says "live"...right?

can we cross this off her list of "shockingly ignorant things" said?

Completely missing the point...again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

even the Obama friendlies were shocked:uhuh:

By Editorial Board
Published: April 3
The Washington Post

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S comments Monday about the Supreme Court were jarring.

As we said last week, after the oral arguments had concluded, it is troubling that some liberal supporters of the law are preemptively trying to delegitimize a potential defeat, as if no honest justice could possibly disagree with the mandate’s constitutionality. The president’s initial remarks added unnecessary fuel to this contention. Given the power of the bully pulpit, presidents are wise to be, well, more judicious in commenting about the high court.



Mr. Obama tones down his Supreme Court rhetoric - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-obama-tones-down-his-supreme-court-rhetoric/2012/04/03/gIQAC9fwtS_story.html)

Completely missing the point...again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's "Spence" for, I've been outed with completely wrong misinformation and don't know what to say:)...again

Completely missing the point...again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's deal directly with you "point". Your "point" was that since Obama's idiotic statement was an answer to a question (instead of a prepared remark), that we can't hold Obama accountable for what he says (you must really hold him in low regard if you feel that way, BTW). Yet when Palin gives an idiotic answer to a question, you label her an idiot.

Why the double-standard Spence? How come Obama's answers to a question don't say anything about his intelligence, but Palin's answers to questions do say something about her intelligence?

I'm really curious what you come up with for an answer...

Let's deal directly with you "point". Your "point" was that since Obama's idiotic not necessarily idiotic and more likely intentional and meant to be quite divisive
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/4/curl-divide-and-conquer-obama-knows-exactly-what-h/?page=1
and follows the same Alynski model that we've routinely seen from this Pres. when he is displaying contempt statement was an answer to a question (instead of a prepared remark), that we can't hold Obama accountable for what he says no, we must look to the spin released afterward to know what they want us to think about what he may or may not have said despite what he actually said...they think for us... they however, may hold others to things that they never said...see how it works? (you must really hold him in low regard if you feel that way, BTW). Yet when Palin gives an idiotic answer to a question, you label her an idiot. even if it wasn't her..which is quite a feat

Why the double-standard Spence? cause that's the essence of the game How come Obama's answers to a question don't say anything about his intelligence cause he can't be anything but brilliant, anything else would be unnaceptable even if true, but Palin's answers to questions do say something about her intelligence?

I'm really curious what you come up with for an answer...just check with Jay Carney

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
That comment, coming from a professor of constitutional law the facts as to his status as having been a "professor of constitutional law " are debatable..

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in "undermining?" constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "]"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Palin has said some shockingly ignorant things...but I don't see Obama's remark on the "I can see Russia from my house" level or what ever she said. yes, "whatever", or whatever you think she said which was actually said by a comedian portraying her in a skit

The reality is that his remark was incomplete. it was only "incomplete" when his team realized/reacted to the fact that he'd shown his true colors while off-teleprompter either intentionally or unintentionally and either scrambled or had prepared "damage control" to guide the intentional/unintentional damage done into damage that will benefit them politically down the road by trying to drive a wedge between a portion of the American public and their judicial system It was not a policy position, it was a response to a question. it revealed quite a bit :uhuh: To place it in a box is a deconstructive response not intended to further the debate. there's really not much debate as to how far out of line the President's comments were....there are a small cadre of loyalists that will shamelessly tow the line for the administation but that's about it on this one:)

The constructive action would be to ask what he really meant, you should apply this :uhuh: comments which another reporter did and what I've posted above as Obama's response.

That's what you should be reacting to no? the reaction is to very clear pattern by this President, in this case he caused the jaws of many on his own side to hit the floor
-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

I'm sure the President fancies himself "super cool and non-inflammatory"...but nothing could be further from the truth....

OBAMA- "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

I'd forgotten about this one...this was a good one:uhuh:

The interesting thing about the arguments in front of the SCOTUS is not whether they have the right to overturn laws that are unconstitutional. That is a given. It is the standard of review that is coming under question

What do you mean by "the standard of review"? The standard used FOR review would be the Constitution, no? The review is to determine if the law is Constitutional, no? Does the standard OF review differ? Do you mean strict scrutiny or loose scrutiny? Do you mean textual or some originalist interpretation which determines if the law is within congressional powers as enumerated, or an instrumentalist view to bring about social change regardless of constitutional authority to do so? And under whose question is the standard coming? Is the government questioning what standard the court is using, and if so, what specifically is its question? Is the government pleading that the Court MUST follow a precedent? And that precedent is that all economic activity falls under its power to regulate commerce? There may have been such an assumption on the part of Congress that it had unlimited powers to do whatever it wished under the Commerce Clause, but that was never stated as such nor assumed by the SCOTUS. And since no such power is given in the Constitution, nor was ever explicitly stated as such by the Court, there has always been a judicial assumption of limits to government power under that clause, or any other clause, no matter under what "standard of review" justices used. The plaintiffs and the "conservative" justices questioned if the limits had been reached by the mandate. The justices questioned if there was a limiting principle that would confine the government's power to require an individual to buy something only to this health care law and not apply this power to any other legislation such as mandating the purchase of broccoli or funeral insurance. The Government could not define or say what would limit it. In essence, if the Government were granted such a power by the Court, it's power would reach beyond any assumed limitation by the Commerce Clause, and it could, indeed, do anything it wished. Does that make you "uneasy" even a little bit?

and the idea that Congress as the elected voice of the people (in theory) has the right to make policy and challenges to any law passed by Congress have a heavy burden to overcome.

Congress has the right to make policy because, and only because, the Constitution grants that power. But the Constitution constrains Congress severly (in theory) to make policy ONLY within the limits enumerated. And it should be a light burden, indeed, to challenge a law passed by Congress if it goes beyond its constitutional authority. Does it not make you a bit "uneasy" to envision a Congress that oversteps its authority and the "burden" to challenge it were made "heavy"?

The conservative justices during the oral arguments felt that the weight of proof was on the Gov't to show that the legislation passed by the Congress allows the Gov't the ability to go into interstate commerce in this area.

Is it truly interstate commerce when you visit your doctor?

This would be a significant departure from Court precedent and you can argue that the Court has the right to move in whatever direction it sees fit.

This would be a "significant departure" from which Court precedent? The Court has already departed from various precedents. The precedent to which you refer, whatever it is, is probably a departure from previous precedent. The Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the past 70+ years has been an extremely significant departure from that of the previous 150 years. Precedent can be used in law as an aid, but precedent should not be binding and certainly not merely for convenience.

Forgetting about this particular law and whether you support it or not do you really want a group of judges that are appointed for life with very limited standard of review to start deciding matters of policy. I think that that would be a significant shift in the system of checks and balances we have in this country and it makes me uneasy.

No, deciding matters of policy, if that means legislating, is exactly what SCOTUS should not do. What SCOTUS should do is determine if policy is constitutional. That is the very essence of the original checks and balances. When the Court abandons its function and duty and merely steps aside to allow Congress unlimited, unconstitutional power, what, exactly is the check and balance there?

the seed that Obama planted in his statements was to attempt to redefine "judicial activism" as SCOTUS acting within it's authority to strike down a law(that he happens to desire) that it finds Unconstitutional....as usual..turning logic on it's head

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."

the activist judges that the right have railed about for years are judges that legislate from the bench and attempt to create public policy and even law, often with the approval of law makers and these have tended to be liberal minded judges who do not feel constrained by the Constitution or any limits placed on their office. There are countless examples.....

the ultimate decision will be that of some number of judges ruling based on the Constitutionality of the law and it's mandates which is prefectly within their purview and the other number of judges "will allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions" disreguarding any obvious conflicts with the Constitutional boundaries placed on the Federal Government and preferring to assist in creating public policy and law clearly outside of those boundaries....there is little argument that the 4 liberal minded "activists" on the court will vote in lock step because they either do not feel constrained by the Constitution or they will "find" something in the Constitution or point to precedent that will support their public policy beliefs....(perhaps, in the case of Justice Breyer, he will point to some precedent in "foreign law" or among the "positive liberties":uhuh: not yet defined in the Constitution..there it is again....to support his notion)

The second Berlinian concept – to Berlin*, "positive liberty" – is the "freedom to participate in the government;" In Breyer's terminology, this is the "active liberty," which the judge should champion. Having established this premise of what liberty is, and having posited the primary importance of this concept over the competing idea of "Negative Liberty" to the Framers, Breyer argues a predominantly utilitarian case for judges making rulings that give effect to the democratic intentions of the Constitution.


*Isaiah Berlin (Latvia/United Kingdom, 1909–1997) is most famous for his attempt to distinguish 'two conceptions of liberty'. Berlin argued that what he called 'positive' and 'negative' liberty were mutually opposing concepts. Positive conceptions assumed that liberty could only be achieved when collective power (in the form of church or state) acted to 'liberate' mankind from its worst aspects.** These, Berlin felt, tended towards totalitarianism. Negative conceptions, by contrast, argued that liberty was achieved when individuals were given maximal freedom from external constraints (so long as these did not impinge on the freedom of others to achieve the same condition).

** you should also investigate how this relates to Liberation Theology and "Collective Salvation"... with regard to this President :uhuh:

Spence, I'm still waiting...you said that we can't hold Obama accountable for spontaneous answers to questions asked, but yet you did just that with Palin. Why the double-standard?

I'm all ears...

Spence, I'm still waiting...you said that we can't hold Obama accountable for spontaneous answers to questions asked, but yet you did just that with Palin. Why the double-standard?

I'm all ears...

Spence? Anything?

Cut him some slack(s)

TJ Maxx and Marshalls are both having sales today

Cut him some slack(s)

TJ Maxx and Marshalls are both having sales today

OK, I'm saving that for next year when JohnR asks for funny stuff from the past year because that's hilarious :rotf2::kewl:

Palin was defending her foreign policy experience by saying that you could se Russia from Alaska. Not that she's even ever seen it, but if you take a boat into the middle of the straight there's a little island where you can see another little island in russia.

No amount of context is going to remedy that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=scottw;931458]Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT


A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

I'm sure the President fancies himself "super cool and non-inflammatory"...but nothing could be further from the truth....

OBAMA- "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.I'd forgotten about this one...this was a good one:uhuh

[QUOTE]

Acording to Jodi Kantor, NYT, " While most colleagues published by the pound,
he never completed a single work of legal scholarship."
"At a formal institute Barak Obama was a loose presence, joking with students
about their romantic prospects, using first names, referring to case law one moment, and the Godfather the next. He was also an engimatic one, often leaving other faculty members guessing about his precise views."

Somethings haven't changed, may think he's Super cool for sure, a regular "Welcome back Kotter", just what we need in a Commander in Chief.

Palin was defending her foreign policy experience by saying that you could se Russia from Alaska. Not that she's even ever seen it, but if you take a boat into the middle of the straight there's a little island where you can see another little island in russia.

No amount of context is going to remedy that statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, sir, that dog ain't gonna hunt.

You said Obama is not to be judged for unrehearsed answers to questions. You pointed out that his idiotic comment was not a prepared remark. Palin's comment about Russia was also not a prepared remark.

Spence, if it's good for the goose...

Spence, if it makes it easier for you...every single person here knows why you have such a glaringly obvious double-standard. So it's OK if you admit it...

Whenever Obama says something stupid, his worshippers, like you, try to deflect attention from what he said, and tell us to focus on what he "meant". Like any cult leader, you will never admit he's wrong, even though this mistake is provable with any 8th grade civics text. His error would be depressing enough from a high school senior. That it came from the mouth of a Harvard Law grad who taught constitutional law is breathtaking, and it shows just how vulnerable the megalomaniac-in-chief is without hs precious teleprompter.

Whenever Obama says something stupid, his worshippers, like you, try to deflect attention from what he said, and tell us to focus on what he "meant".

"stupid"...only in the context that his comments are completely offensive to anyone who really understands what he presumes to be speaking about and is not a radical leftist..."brilliant" if you are a Spence type because they are indeed calculated and intended to denigrate the institution and it's power relative to his own, intended to drive a wedge between the American people and the institution should the decision not go his way and begin to imply that Americans ought lose faith in that institution and place more faith in him...his "followers" running around telling us what he meant is simply the follow up on a calculated attack, they are organized, they all say exactly the same thing whether it makes any sense or not because they understand propaganda...

"stupid"...only in the context that his comments are completely offensive to anyone who really understands what he presumes to be speaking about and is not a radical leftist..."brilliant" if you are a Spence type because they are indeed calculated and intended to denigrate the institution and it's power relative to his own, intended to drive a wedge between the American people and the institution should the decision not go his way and begin to imply that Americans ought lose faith in that institution and place more faith in him...his "followers" running around telling us what he meant is simply the follow up on a calculated attack, they are organized, they all say exactly the same thing whether it makes any sense or not because they understand propaganda...
He did nothing of the sort, it was simply a challenge to not let politics into the judicial process. The fact that three conservative judges as Jeffrey Toobin noted was a hissy fit (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74864.html) took the bait so easily proved Obama's point.

-spence

Hissy fit.....toobin

Really Spence....obama is/was trying to steer the supreme court to vote for it regardless of being constitutional or not. He is as guilty of that as was jennefer on Idol trying to steer voters to vote for the long hair kid that got booted last night.

And toobin of all people....I would have believed more if U said pelosi

Hissy fit.....toobin

Really Spence....obama is/was trying to steer the supreme court to vote for it regardless of being constitutional or not. He is as guilty of that as was jennefer on Idol trying to steer voters to vote for the long hair kid that got booted last night.

And toobin of all people....I would have believed more if U said pelosi

The funny thing, I believe the Court had already voted on it before Obama opened his mouth (they voted Monday, we won't know the results until June). My guess, and it's a damned good guess if I do say so myself, is that Obama is expecting it to get overturned, and he's trying to paint the Court as a bunch of Republican activists who should not be trusted. Of course, Obama is also asking this same court to overturn the Dfense Of Marriage laws, so it's OK when they overturn laws, as long as he requests it.

So, when the court overturns laws that Obama does not like, the justices are being responsible jurists. When they overturn laws that Obama likes, they are a bunch of out-of-control tea baggers.

The timing will be awful for Obama. The decision will be announced in June. Meaning, right about the time people notice that gas is $5 a gallon, they will also see that Obama's one significant legislative achievement will be deemed illegal. All happening this summer, right when people are starting to think about the November election.

I think Obama will win re-election, but he's very, very vulnerable. It all comes down to how he does with independents in 5 or 6 states. I suspect those independents are not going to like paying $5 a gallon for gas. I'm not blaming Obama for that, but I suspect they will.

Really Spence....obama is/was trying to steer the supreme court to vote for it regardless of being constitutional or not.
I don't think Obama was trying to steer the court, he knows that's not going to happen.

This was a message for the base as I said before.

-spence

He did nothing of the sort, it was simply a challenge to not let politics into the judicial process. The fact that three conservative judges as Jeffrey Toobin noted was a hissy fit (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74864.html) took the bait so easily proved Obama's point.

-spence

really?

Obama setting up Supreme Court as a campaign issue

"We haven't seen the end of this," said longtime Supreme Court practitioner Tom Goldstein, who teaches at Stanford and Harvard universities. "The administration seems to be positioning itself to be able to run against the Supreme Court if it needs to or wants to."..........

"The constitutional issue aside, Obama made it clear that the thrust of his argument is political. He ticked off popular elements of the law that are already in force, and said the consequences of losing those protections would be grave for young people and the elderly, in particular."



News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_COURTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-04-05-18-04-07)

................................

It appears to be unprecedented, however, for a U.S. president to have attacked the Supreme Court before it handed down its decision. Some think Mr. Obama and his progressive infantry are trying to intimidate the Justices, specifically Justice Anthony Kennedy. But most legal commentary has said the president's attack is likely to anger the justices, perhaps including some of the court's liberals. Mr. Obama's notion of judicial review diminishes all the members of any court, not just its conservatives. It doesn't help the always difficult struggle for an independent judiciary in other countries if an American president is issuing Venezuela-like statements on U.S. courts.

Henninger The Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court Lands in Oz - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577323802316101544.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)


for many of the Justices this is entirely "judicial process" and a question of Constitutionality...for a few this is a political process and "public policy decision" that will be rendered with little regard to Constitutionality by "activists"...maybe that's who he was "reminding/challenging"...particlarly now that the Constitutionality is so dubious as shown by the arguments before SCOTUS..

we are now reduced to "baiting" members of the judiciary to make points and score points with the base?????

is this "Presidential" ????

no, not trying to "steer" the court(or one particular swing Justice) with public and political pressure regarding his signature accomplishment wrapped in some of the most outrageous and demonstrably wrong comments by any American President...but rather, comments however troubling, that were actually intended as a "message" to his base because he realizes that his signature accomplishment is Unconstitutional no matter how much he wishes it weren't and so he will fire up the base by laying the groundwork for an assualt on the institution and it's Conservative members just as he will run against Congress.. and claim that SCOTUS has taken away his base's Lollipop's and Congress will take away their Twizzlers and Romney will take away their access to healthy food, clean air and water and a host of freebies that he will happily provide if they will just reelect him....great timing:uhuh:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/van-jones-group-plans-american’s-“arab-spring”-revolt/453666

“we were all inspired by the protesters of the Arab Spring who stood up to totalitarian governments, and inspired the Occupy movement here in America.”

The plan for now is to hold protest training sessions around the nation next week. Over 900 are scheduled so far.

Once ready, the group and dozens of others, notably MoveOn.org and labor unions, will launch the “99 Percent Spring” offensive against government and financial centers.

Hissy fit.....toobin

And toobin of all people....I would have believed more if U said pelosi

WIKI-Toobin

Toobin is a longtime friend of Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan, having met her while the two were students at Harvard Law School. He has described Chief Justice John Roberts as "very, very conservative." Regarding Justice Clarence Thomas, Toobin has said that Thomas' legal views were "highly unusual and extreme", called him "a nut," and said that he was "furious all the time."

I don't think Obama was trying to steer the court, he knows that's not going to happen.

This was a message for the base as I said before.

-spence

It's not the first time he has shown utter disrespect for the Supreme Court. That is what is unprecedented for a POTUS!!

He is a punk.

It's not the first time he has shown utter disrespect for the Supreme Court. That is what is unprecedented for a POTUS!!

He is a punk.
If Bush said the same thing you'd give him props for being a tough guy.

-spence

Most president's showed similar disdain, it's not an unusual event

If Bush said the same thing you'd give him props for being a tough guy.

-spence

He would never have!!!

He would never have!!!
Nonsense. Bush had no problem attacking judges striking down bans on gay marriage.

The funny thing about judicial activism is that it flips 180 degrees pretty quickly.

-spence

He is a punk.

More classlessness out of the conservatives.

Really Spence....obama is/was trying to steer the supreme court to vote for it regardless of being constitutional or not.

So how exactly can the pres. exert influence over the SC?

This was a message for the base as I said before.



That is exactly what it was.

He would never have!!!

President Bush Delivers Remarks at Federalist Society's 25th Annual Gala (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-14.html)

"For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop."

President Bush Delivers Remarks at Federalist Society's 25th Annual Gala (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-14.html)

"For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop."

And how is this wrong?

More classlessness out of the conservatives.

:rotf2: Your killing me:rotf2:

This thread was about Obama calling out the Supreme Court ....and also not understanding the role of the Supreme Court And you said...

It's not the first time he has shown utter disrespect for the Supreme Court. That is what is unprecedented for a POTUS!!

He is a punk.

Spence replied that If Bush had done something like that it would have been fine.....

If Bush said the same thing you'd give him props for being a tough guy.

-spence

You Said Bush would Never have done something like that....

He would never have!!!

Well.....he did

President Bush Delivers Remarks at Federalist Society's 25th Annual Gala (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-14.html)

"For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop."

and I never said the statement he made was wrong....just pointing out that Bush also called out the supreme court.....Is this not "Disrespecting Them" the same way?

And how is this wrong?

This thread was about Obama calling out the Supreme Court ....and also not understanding the role of the Supreme Court And you said...



Spence replied that If Bush had done something like that it would have been fine.....



You Said Bush would Never have done something like that....



Well.....he did



and I never said the statement he made was wrong....just pointing out that Bush also called out the supreme court.....Is this not "Disrespecting Them" the same way?

It's not the same at all.

It's not the same at all.

How is what Barack Obama said "utter disrespect for the Supreme Court"

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"


and What George Bush said Not :huh:

"For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it's the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy -- and it needs to stop."

How is what Barack Obama said "utter disrespect for the Supreme Court"



and What George Bush said Not :huh:

Bush speaks of upholding The Constitution, Obama chooses to ignore it. Obama would like to do what Bush challenges the court not to do.

Could also be that Bush wasn't happy with a previous ruling by the Supreme Court and was throwing out a little dig at them too.....you really think there is nothing disrespectful about using the term "Judicial Lawlessness" when referring to the SCOTUS.

like I said...I don't disagree with the statement....but I definitely think they were both making their shots at the SCOTUS for their own reasons.

DadF - bush was not commenting on the SCOTUS, he was commenting on judges "making law"

Mostly the federal courts deciding on cases which established precedence where no law existing - effectively creating a law.
Its a big difference. Obama directly addressed the SCOTUS in particular reference to the health care law. Challenging them directly.

Please note, some of the supreme court judges where in attendance at Bush meeting and applauded.

DadF - bush was not commenting on the SCOTUS, he was commenting on judges "making law"

Mostly the federal courts deciding on cases which established precedence where no law existing - effectively creating a law.
Its a big difference. Obama directly addressed the SCOTUS in particular reference to the health care law. Challenging them directly.

Please note, some of the supreme court judges where in attendance at Bush meeting and applauded.

He was talking about the Judicial Branch of Government, referring to Unelected officers serving for life....isn't that the SCOTUS?

and the 3 Justices in attendance were also the 3 that voted with him on the Miltary Tribunal decision the previous year.....so they may have enjoyed the little dig as well.

all fed judges are appointed for life not just the sc

He was talking about the Judicial Branch of Government, referring to Unelected officers serving for life....isn't that the SCOTUS?

and the 3 Justices in attendance were also the 3 that voted with him on the Miltary Tribunal decision the previous year.....so they may have enjoyed the little dig as well.

I don't recall any off them mouthing the words "you lie" during a State of the Union speach.

all fed judges are appointed for life not just the sc

I Know that....I just don't see how 1 is a Completely Disrespectful comment and the other is No Big Deal...just not seeing it.

My point I guess is that they all do it....they all make there off the mark comments...with the intention to Inflame one side and/or pander to the other....

I don't recall any off them mouthing the words "you lie" during a State of the Union speach.

so you're saying that there is nothing disrespectful about a justice calling the president a liar.....but its completely disrespectful for the president to challenge the SCOTUS.

Look...I'm not trying to stick up for Obama and I'm not trying to slam Bush....I'm just saying they all do it. and it doesn't make it better just because they belong to one side or another.

I Know that....I just don't see how 1 is a Completely Disrespectful comment and the other is No Big Deal...just not seeing it.

My point I guess is that they all do it....they all make there off the mark comments...with the intention to Inflame one side and/or pander to the other....



so you're saying that there is nothing disrespectful about a justice calling the president a liar.....but its completely disrespectful for the president to challenge the SCOTUS.

Look...I'm not trying to stick up for Obama and I'm not trying to slam Bush....I'm just saying they all do it. and it doesn't make it better just because they belong to one side or another.

"I just don't see how 1 is a Completely Disrespectful comment and the other is No Big Deal...just not seeing it. "

Bush's and Obama's comments are similar. But true judicial activism is different from a court saying the the Feds are overreaching with, say, the healthcare law. For example, in some states the people have voted against gay marriage, and then the courts overturn that. That's true judicial activism, that's true legislating from the bench. If SCOTUS throws out the individual mandate, it's not "legislating", that's saying that the feds are trying to do something that the Constitution doesn't give them the authority to do. Maybe it's a subtle difference at best.

"nothing disrespectful about a justice calling the president a liar."

Alito didn't call him a liar, he said that Obama was wrong. Being wrong and lying aren't even remotely the same thing. In that case, the atrocity wasn't that Alito talked back. The atrocity is that Obama knows the Supreme Court Justices are sitting right in front of him, and he feels justified to trash them in his speech, knowing they don't have the opportunity to refute Obama. I have never seen a President do that before, but Obama does it all the time. He trashed Bush at his inauguration speech, with Bush standing right there. He did it to Paul Ryan at a speech about the economy. Obama displays no class towards those who don't kiss his ring, none at all.

"Alito didn't call him a liar, he said that Obama was wrong. Being wrong and lying aren't even remotely the same thing.

My Bad on that one I mis-understood the post by Buckman.

I'm also not arguing the merits of the arguments of either person....just don't see the "Disrespect" issue.

I don't think Obama's comment was disrespectful...dumb thing to say yes...but Disrespectful....not seeing it.

I don't think Bush was trying to be disrespectful either....but the Comments are very similar and how one can be disrespectful and the other not....again...just not seeing it

no one in the Bush camp had to write a letter on behalf of the president acknowledging the courts authority. This is a first

Holder: Obama recognizes Supreme Court's authority - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/us/obama-judges/index.html?iref=allsearch)

no one in the Bush camp had to write a letter on behalf of the president acknowledging the courts authority. This is a first



What exactly did the Pres. do that required the courts to get involved?

DadF - bush was not commenting on the SCOTUS, he was commenting on judges "making law"

Mostly the federal courts deciding on cases which established precedence where no law existing - effectively creating a law.
Its a big difference. Obama directly addressed the SCOTUS in particular reference to the health care law. Challenging them directly.



EXACTLY......:claps:

this is pretty good..

Obama’s selective memory of Supreme Court history
Josh Hicks , 04/09/2012 TheWashingtonPost

Obama’s selective memory of Supreme Court history - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-selective-memory-of-supreme-court-history/2012/04/08/gIQARSnK4S_blog.html#pagebreak)

"The Pinocchio Test

Ordinarily, we would not expect a president to know the intricacies of Supreme Court cases, but we hold Obama to a high standard because he used to teach law and because in his remarks he tossed around references to particular cases (“at least since Lochner”).

First of all, the president has a rather distorted view of what constitutes a “strong majority” if he thinks the Affordable Care Act vote makes the cut. Not only was the victory achieved by a margin of just a few votes in the House, but the supporters were from only one political party—his own.

Second, Obama’s remarks implied that the Supreme Court would be acting in extreme fashion by overturning the health-care law. That isn’t necessarily true. Some would say that invalidating an economic regulation isn’t extraordinary at all.

In fact, the president delivered a sort of factual history lesson on Constitutional law, which he then used as the basis for his argument about judicial overreach. When all was said and done, he had suggested twice that the justices are in danger of becoming the next despicable group of activist judges — like the so-called Lochner court."

I'm pretty sure that the President earned a "couple two, three" Pinnochios for the statement that cause Alito to mouth the words "not true" in the State of the Union Address that you guys keep bringing up too...