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

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.

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.

"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 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

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.

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

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

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

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


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/politi...-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.

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."

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

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

More classlessness out of the conservatives.

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

That is exactly what it was.

President Bush Delivers Remarks at Federalist Society's 25th Annual Gala

"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?

: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...

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.

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.