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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

"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...