Court orders DOJ to explain President Obama's comments on their authority.

[iamwhatiseem]

Looks like Obama will have to answer for his immature remarks he made Monday about the health care law and questioning the supreme courts ability to carry out their duty.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
..."That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

 

[Sallow]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

 

[Stephanie]

About TIME someone started slapping down the thug in chief for his insulting and divisive rhetoric..

can't wait to see this community Agitator pretending to be a President, GONE

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

King Obama is accountable to no man. He will not be filing that report. Book it.

 

[Sallow]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

 

[SniperFire]

 

[dblack]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

Ensuring government remains within its constitutional constraints is the most important role of the Supreme Court - a role they've largely neglected since FDR. It's about time they start taking their job seriously again.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

That is your opinion. And as a citizen of this country it is both your right and duty to question authority. But your not the President. That is the crux. A sitting President cannot make a general statement questioning the authority and integrity of another branch without very specific claims. And even then it should be done in proper channels and not on camera to promote himself.
It was outrageous and stinks of Nixon'sm.

 

[dblack]

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

That is your opinion. And as a citizen of this country it is both your right and duty to question authority. But your not the President. That is the crux. A sitting President cannot make a general statement questioning the authority and integrity of another branch without very specific claims. And even then it should be done in proper channels and not on camera to promote himself.
It was outrageous and stinks of Nixon'sm.

It might be good to see a full blown pissing match between the Court and the White House. It could at least give more people the opportunity to reflect on what unlimited executive (or congressional) power would mean.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Looks like Obama will have to answer for his immature remarks he made Monday about the health care law and questioning the supreme courts ability to carry out their duty.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
..."That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

I beat you to it. My thread was posted at 7:06.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/216412-court-to-obama-put-up-or-shut-up.html

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

That is your opinion. And as a citizen of this country it is both your right and duty to question authority. But your not the President. That is the crux. A sitting President cannot make a general statement questioning the authority and integrity of another branch without very specific claims. And even then it should be done in proper channels and not on camera to promote himself.
It was outrageous and stinks of Nixon'sm.

It might be good to see a full blown pissing match between the Court and the White House. It could at least give more people the opportunity to reflect on what unlimited executive (or congressional) power would mean.

Exactly. I don't think anyone wants to return to governance as it was under FDR who ballooned the power of the executive branch exponentially. And with his popularity - he virtually did anything he wanted.
The same people who complained about Reagan having too much power, and also complained about Bush overstepping authority -- must also have the same ill opinion now when it is a President they agree with. If not - they are disingenuous.
IMO - both the legislative and executive branches have been overstepping their roles for decades. The legislative branch in particular - which is nearly wholly corrupt. But they get away with it over and over because all they have to do to convince their supporters is blame the other guy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Looking at Obama's comments - there are parts of it that carry a significant concern no matter what side you are on. Specifically that the court should defer decisions in favor of elected officials on certain matters. In other words...just rubber stamp it if the legislative branch thinks it is important.
That is not how our government works - and nor should it.
I think everyone can agree that the congress and senate are very, very corrupt and act in their own self interest so to say we should assume they have our best interest at heart and the USSC should defer their authority is an unbelievable statement to make. One that I guarantee Obama would not have made while Bush was President.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So, Obama got called to task for being an idiot finally. All moot though to be honest.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Looks like Obama will have to answer for his immature remarks he made Monday about the health care law and questioning the supreme courts ability to carry out their duty.

Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress."
..."That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority," Smith said. "And that's not a small matter."

Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

I beat you to it. My thread was posted at 7:06.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/216412-court-to-obama-put-up-or-shut-up.html

I actually posted this yesterday. The search function really is a wonderful tool......

 

[Lonestar_logic]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

On what authority does the President have that right?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I am beginning to think this man simply has no respect for process if it conflicts with his opinion. He has made some truly remarkable statements in the last 72 hours that should raise everyone's eyebrows.
People have to remove their blinders, they have to step back and make themselves more objective. We have a President that is outright questioning the courts authority, accusing them of making such a huge decision based on personal opinion rather than legal constitutionality if that decision isn't the one he thinks it should be.
This is outrageous. This shows a level of arrogance that I don't believe we have seen out of a President since Nixon. Nixon believed he was right about everything. He also believed that as President he was above the law - and said so. I am truly beginning to see that Obama just may very well be the same - that laws should be bent if it conflicts with what you think is best.
That is not a Republic.

 

[Jackson]

King Obama is accountable to no man. He will not be filing that report. Book it.

He certainly won't be accountable to anyone if he gets another term!

 

[kwc57]

They don't have the standing to do that. And Obama's remarks were hardly immature.

Of course it was immature.
We have very specific checks and balances in our system of governance that has been in play since the dawn of America after the revolution.
Obama can't stand to have someone step over his authority and he threw a temper tantrum on camera that in effect, questions the authority of the Supreme Court.
He is the President Sallow. And when a President questions the authority or integrity of another branch - that is a very, very big deal.

Checks and balances include the court. If the court is engaging in partisan politics as opposed to valid Judicial prudence..then the President is well within his rights to say so.

The court has proven itself to be very radical, partisan and abusive of it's role in government over the last decade.

Yeah.......IF. They aren't. They are doing their job of determining whether the law is constitutional or not since many cases were filed in lower courts saying it wasn't. It's how the judicial process works. Liberals don't understand what "judicial activism" is.....even though they engage in it. Judicial activism is when a judge legislates from the bench. It's when they circumvent the legislative process and declare their own law that must be followed. The SCOTUS actually hearing a case based on whether or not a law is constitutional is exactly what their job is. There is no partisan politics involved.......unless they are legislating from the bench. They are not.

 

[Truthmatters]

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


11 of them were appointed by republicans.