This is even scarier

[spence]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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]

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

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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...

[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??.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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?

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

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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".

[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".

[The Dad Fisherman]

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

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

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

\

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

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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[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."

[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)

[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 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.

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?

[scottw]

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.


-spence (super cool non-inflammatory poster here)

snopes.com: I Can See Alaska from My House

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?

[spence]

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

[scottw]

even the Obama friendlies were shocked

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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/20...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, [COLOR="Blue"]"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 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 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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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?

[scottw]

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" 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