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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[scottw]

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "I was totally unprepared because of the way people talked. I always thought, intellectually, it might be a problem but I never heard it discussed politically as a prospect, that they actually might get his major achievement just ripped off the books."

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER-"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,(I believe it was referred to as a "train wreck" on day one and a "plane wreck" after the final arguments)'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening.

"It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.

"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't as broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded.

fascinating stuff

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "I was totally unprepared because of the way people talked. I always thought, intellectually, it might be a problem but I never heard it discussed politically as a prospect, that they actually might get his major achievement just ripped off the books."

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER-"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,(I believe it was referred to as a "train wreck" on day one and a "plane wreck" after the final arguments)'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening.

"It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.

"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't as broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded.

fascinating stuff

I love The Hammer...

[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.

[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 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. 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. 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. 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.

[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 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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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.

Am I on mars? Does anyone here have a clue what the supreme court does? This isnt about policy. Its about the LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT.
A decision will not say we shouldnt have health care reform, it will say the US Govt CANNOT make you do something that was not intended in the constition.
Just curious, do folks think the SCOTUS was out of bounds when they legalized abortion? Ended Segregation? Do you you think prohibition should be LEGAL???????? I dont, its theirr ole to keep the executive and legislative branch in check.
For gods sake liberals are now trying to taint a processs that has worked in their favor for years. WTF is happening here?

[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]

Originally Posted by zimmy

, they almost always reject even hearing cases of settled law, so to say it is no big deal is a stretch. .

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.

The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

[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."