This is even scarier

[RIJIMMY]

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

Is the Supreme Court playing with fire? - CNN.com

"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.

[nightfighter]

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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

[nightfighter]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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.

[Backbeach Jake]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[scottw]

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), 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

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

Pass the smelling salts! Obama `attacked’ SCOTUS! - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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/nation...3tS_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."

[Jim in CT]

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?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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 . 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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?