Guess who else admonished a Scotus decision?

[Truthmatters]

Bush v. Gore, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument


"Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case."

Why in the fuck would they be loathe to make broad precedents, its they reason they exsist?

 

[CMike]

State of the Union: President Obama, Justice Alito and Political Theater - ABC News


Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Reagan were the only three who really took aim at the Court specifically -- Harding to advocate the repeal of court decisions outlawing child labor in America (really); FDR to pressure the court to get out of the way of the New Deal; and Reagan to urge the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer.

Let me get this straight? Regan asked the Supreme Court to pass a constitutional amendment?

Nice editorial, it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[MaggieMae]

it was rude....he was sarcastic and rude several times in fact.....

No more Mr. Nice Guy, or haven't you gotten the memo yet.

are you talking about obama manu? I saw that a few times too. I decided to let it go.

Maggie its not very presidential to behave like that.

Huh? What are you talking about? I often feel like I miss a whole lot by not posting in the wee hours of the morning and doing something silly instead. Like sleeping.

 

[MaggieMae]

For another thing, the Supreme Court HAS become an activist body of secondary lawmakers. It is not charged with making law, which is what it did with this latest decision; they are charged with deciding whether EXISTING laws are constitutional or not, period.

You really should read more. There was not activism in the ruling on this matter. They basically did their job. They found that it was unconstitutional to not allow corps or unions to use their first amendment rights which to date are presiedent. Remove corporate personage and you will have a case, until then, the court ruled properly, even if you disagree with its outcome.

-TSO

Read more? If I read any more, my critics on this board would go into cardiac arrest. My issue with this current decision is that it was unnecessary, because there already exists restrictions on what corporations can do with respect to elections. So why was it necessary to create potential loopholes?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Read more? If I read any more, my critics on this board would go into cardiac arrest. My issue with this current decision is that it was unnecessary, because there already exists restrictions on what corporations can do with respect to elections. So why was it necessary to create potential loopholes?

The court found that some of those restrictions were unconstitutional. It's what the supreme court does. If congress and the president don't like it, they need to redraft restrictions that are constitutional. That's how the system was set up. Checks and balances.

-TSO

 

[MaggieMae]

Like no one ragged on the SC for Roe v Wade or Kelo.

The SC is not above criticism. If they screw up they should hear about it.

The difference is, it's not been done in front of the court in which the ruling was made. Yes president have disagreed with the court in a state of the union address, but not the specific justices that made the ruling. Big difference in my book.

-TSO

Tough. Even if it was wrong potocol, at least the issue got the proper attention. For one thing, how many people remember how RUDE Sam Alito was to Barack Obama when he was the only member of the court not to attend the courtesy invitation to all the justices after Obama was sworn in? Alito has never explained why (he could have made something up), but ironically was in the building that same morning. He was obviously pissed off that Obama didn't vote for his (Alito's) confirmation. Yeah, some impartial jurist we've got with that one. He's now joined the ranks of Scalia and Thomas.

 

[MaggieMae]

Read more? If I read any more, my critics on this board would go into cardiac arrest. My issue with this current decision is that it was unnecessary, because there already exists restrictions on what corporations can do with respect to elections. So why was it necessary to create potential loopholes?

The court found that some of those restrictions were unconstitutional. It's what the supreme court does. If congress and the president don't like it, they need to redraft restrictions that are constitutional. That's how the system was set up. Checks and balances.

-TSO

Interesting that they decided to piggyback "revisiting" the issue to the Hillary Clinton movie at the start of a mid-term election cycle. If they were that concerned, then they could have dragged out the existing law and tweaked that.

 

[Truthmatters]

State of the Union: President Obama, Justice Alito and Political Theater - ABC News


Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Reagan were the only three who really took aim at the Court specifically -- Harding to advocate the repeal of court decisions outlawing child labor in America (really); FDR to pressure the court to get out of the way of the New Deal; and Reagan to urge the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer.

Let me get this straight? Regan asked the Supreme Court to pass a constitutional amendment?

Nice editorial, it has nothing to do with reality.

Nope REAGAN asked them to pass an UNCONSTITUTIONAL amendment.

Have you not heard of the separation of church and state?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Interesting that they decided to piggyback "revisiting" the issue to the Hillary Clinton movie at the start of a mid-term election cycle. If they were that concerned, then they could have dragged out the existing law and tweaked that.

The supreme court doesn't tweak the law. That is the job of the Congress.

-TSO

 

[MaggieMae]

Interesting that they decided to piggyback "revisiting" the issue to the Hillary Clinton movie at the start of a mid-term election cycle. If they were that concerned, then they could have dragged out the existing law and tweaked that.

The supreme court doesn't tweak the law. That is the job of the Congress.

-TSO

I take it you forgot what you previously wrote:

The court found that some of those restrictions were unconstitutional. It's what the supreme court does. If congress and the president don't like it, they need to redraft restrictions that are constitutional. That's how the system was set up. Checks and balances.

 

[CMike]

State of the Union: President Obama, Justice Alito and Political Theater - ABC News


Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Reagan were the only three who really took aim at the Court specifically -- Harding to advocate the repeal of court decisions outlawing child labor in America (really); FDR to pressure the court to get out of the way of the New Deal; and Reagan to urge the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing school prayer.

Let me get this straight? Regan asked the Supreme Court to pass a constitutional amendment?

Nice editorial, it has nothing to do with reality.

Nope REAGAN asked them to pass an UNCONSTITUTIONAL amendment.

Have you not heard of the separation of church and state?

Focus!! The US Supreme Court doesn't pass amendments. They interpret them.

Reagan could not have admonished the US Supreme Court to pass an amendment, because they don't pass amendments.

Also, if the amendment hasn't been passed how do you know it was unconstitutional?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Interesting that they decided to piggyback "revisiting" the issue to the Hillary Clinton movie at the start of a mid-term election cycle. If they were that concerned, then they could have dragged out the existing law and tweaked that.

The supreme court doesn't tweak the law. That is the job of the Congress.

-TSO

I take it you forgot what you previously wrote:

The court found that some of those restrictions were unconstitutional. It's what the supreme court does. If congress and the president don't like it, they need to redraft restrictions that are constitutional. That's how the system was set up. Checks and balances.

Next time read the whole sentance you are quoting...

If congress and the president don't like it, they need to redraft restrictions that are constitutional

-TSO

 

[Truthmatters]

He admonished them to deside in favor of prayer in schools.

Yeap I stated it wrong.

My appologies.

He wanted them to side against the constitution in the case.

Obama stated his concern for the mess their decision created, I think its worse for a president to try and interfere with a decision than to comment on it afterwards.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Then Reagan was wrong to do what he did. It doesn't change the fact that Obama shouldn't have done what he did. The ole two wrongs adage.

-TSO

 

[Avatar4321]

First, if an amendment to the Constitution is passed, then it is, by definition, constitutional.

Second, please still note there hasnt been a single actual quotation to prove the OP and article's original claim.

 

[MaggieMae]

The supreme court doesn't tweak the law. That is the job of the Congress.

-TSO

I take it you forgot what you previously wrote:

Next time read the whole sentance you are quoting...

If congress and the president don't like it, they need to redraft restrictions that are constitutional

-TSO

So, in essence, what the USSC did was revise law that had not been previously written by Congress.

When the case was first argued last March, the court should have ruled on the merits of the case alone. It could have ruled that McCain-Feingold didn't apply to a group like Citizens United or that documentaries and PPV are not regulated by the law. Instead, in an unusual maneuver, the Supreme Court set the case for a second argument in September, and now we all know why.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, in essence, what the USSC did was revise law that had not been previously written by Congress.

When the case was first argued last March, the court should have ruled on the merits of the case alone. It could have ruled that McCain-Feingold didn't apply to a group like Citizens United or that documentaries and PPV are not regulated by the law. Instead, in an unusual maneuver, the Supreme Court set the case for a second argument in September, and now we all know why.

How exactly were the going to say that when McCain Fiengold clearly did apply to Citizens United?