This is even scarier

[Jim in CT]

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

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...

[RIJIMMY]

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Jackbass]

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jackbass

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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 Dad Fisherman]

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"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

"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."

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

"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

"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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[RIJIMMY]

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?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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??.

[RIJIMMY]

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

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.

[zimmy]

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."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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".

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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)