Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

[mudwhistle]

I've been reading about it and hearing it in a number of places. Obamawants to play smackdown...so the Court has said fine...we'll play...now explain yourself...Obama is getting another come-uppance.

One of Obama's former students appeared on Fox this morning, who himself is a law professor at the Unv. of Missouri. He said he was taken aback at his comments because Obama knows that the SCOTUS has the obligation to follow the constitution regardless of what the politics are and has done so many times in the past. He said it appears that Obama is trying to influence the court. He said Obama is trying to guilt the swing justices like Justice Kennedy to rule in favor of his bill, in hopes not to appear illegitimate. He also said that he clerked for the federal judge that put Obama on the spot this week. He said what he did was pretty interesting and very appropriate.

Obama is attempting to lecture lawyers that are much more accomplished in the law than himself and they're slapping him down. Lawyers have a responsibility to defend and uphold the law. If anyone steps out of line in their jurisdiction and tries to skirt the law they are obligated to do something about it.

I personally would rule against him for that very reason among several others that already existed.

Obama is trying a different way to bully the court, but he's not much different from Al Sharpton. He's suggesting that the court would be untrustworthy if they ruled against him. If you talk to most legal scholars they feel the opposite is true. Ruling for Obama would establish new precedence and totally change the legal landscape.....thus using judicial activism to make law that doesn't exist.

Think your right but personally I think Barry is rather flabbergasted that the SC isn't falling all over his clusterfuck of a bill. As a "Law Professor" he must have known the bill would end up in front of the SC. If he thought it wouldn't happen then he's a fool.

I doubt he deals well with those who don't worship him and his oh so wonderful ideas.

Anyone who comments on this in the legal community wants to appear pragmatic. They don't want to think the worst of Obama. However I think that is how Obama gets away with so much. He is capable of doing some pretty snarky things if not very unethical things. Some of the actions of the Obama Administration sound so outrageous that people just wouldn't believe it's possible, and some simply refuse to.

 

[Liability]

"Threatening the Supreme Court justices"?

My gawd that's pathetic. He commented. He didn't threaten. He can't remove them, he can't intimidate them, he can't shoot them. He gave comment.

I love when so-called conservatives get all worked up about the potential of the SCOTUS not being activist. Remember how they responded to Kelo?

If the mere comment comes with even the first hint of a glimmer of a suggestion of a notion of a threat, it might still constitute a threat.

But the first word there is "if." And I don't know that our illustrious President has yet taken even the first step down that road.

Your last sentence makes no sense. There is STILL a difference ( a huge meaningful difference) between judicial review and judicial activism. Kelo was not just decided wrongly, it borders on activism (if it doesn't cross over) since it so badly failed to be guided by what the Constitution requires.

 

[8537]

"Threatening the Supreme Court justices"?

My gawd that's pathetic. He commented. He didn't threaten. He can't remove them, he can't intimidate them, he can't shoot them. He gave comment.

I love when so-called conservatives get all worked up about the potential of the SCOTUS not being activist. Remember how they responded to Kelo?

If the mere comment comes with even the first hint of a glimmer of a suggestion of a notion of a threat, it might still constitute a threat.

There was no threat.

Your last sentence makes no sense. There is STILL a difference ( a huge meaningful difference) between judicial review and judicial activism. Kelo was not just decided wrongly, it borders on activism (if it doesn't cross over) since it so badly failed to be guided by what the Constitution requires.

In other words, a decision I didn't like = activism. And therefore, threatening justices (not commenting, actual threatening!) is justified.

 

[Liability]

"Threatening the Supreme Court justices"?

My gawd that's pathetic. He commented. He didn't threaten. He can't remove them, he can't intimidate them, he can't shoot them. He gave comment.

I love when so-called conservatives get all worked up about the potential of the SCOTUS not being activist. Remember how they responded to Kelo?

If the mere comment comes with even the first hint of a glimmer of a suggestion of a notion of a threat, it might still constitute a threat.

There was no threat.

Your last sentence makes no sense. There is STILL a difference ( a huge meaningful difference) between judicial review and judicial activism. Kelo was not just decided wrongly, it borders on activism (if it doesn't cross over) since it so badly failed to be guided by what the Constitution requires.

In other words, a decision I didn't like = activism. And therefore, threatening justices (not commenting, actual threatening!) is justified.

If the threat was implicit -- no matter how veiled -- then there may have been a threat.

And no. A decision i dislike does not make the decision "activism." And that's not what I said. Indeed, I suggested quite the contrary analysis would be appropriate.

On the other hand, lefties tend to worship the deity of the SCOTUS when the decisions manage to say shit the left likes. Judicial infallibility! Amen. EXCEPT, when the decision actually limits the agenda of the left and denies the government the authority to do whateverthefuck the left WANTS the government to do, THEN, suddenly, the court is all ideologically and politically motivated and entirely fucked up.

I disapprove of threatening justices at all. On the other hand, I do think there needs to be a check on the Judicial Branch beyond impeachment of Constitutional Amendment.

 

[8537]

If the mere comment comes with even the first hint of a glimmer of a suggestion of a notion of a threat, it might still constitute a threat.

There was no threat.

Your last sentence makes no sense. There is STILL a difference ( a huge meaningful difference) between judicial review and judicial activism. Kelo was not just decided wrongly, it borders on activism (if it doesn't cross over) since it so badly failed to be guided by what the Constitution requires.

In other words, a decision I didn't like = activism. And therefore, threatening justices (not commenting, actual threatening!) is justified.

If the threat was implicit -- no matter how veiled -- then there may have been a threat.

There was no threat, implicit or otherwise. The President doesn't even have any authority to threaten them with - short of shooting them, he can't affect their tenure or their decisions.

And no. A decision i dislike does not make the decision "activism." And that's not what I said. Indeed, I suggested quite the contrary analysis would be appropriate.

So you think Kelo was judicial activism based on what, exactly? Did it unduly overturn precedent (that's a rhetorical question - the answer is "no".)

 

[Liability]

* * * *

There was no threat, implicit or otherwise. * * * *

You saying that (and repeating it) doesn't make it so. There may have been a message being sent.

And no. A decision i dislike does not make the decision "activism." And that's not what I said. Indeed, I suggested quite the contrary analysis would be appropriate.

So you think Kelo was judicial activism based on what, exactly? Did it unduly overturn precedent (that's a rhetorical question - the answer is "no".)

I also didn't say that I think Kelo was activism. I do think it was a crappy decision, as I noted earlier. I also didn't say it overruled jack or shit. But that latter point is, as you know, irrelevant. For overruling precedent does not automatically constitute "activism" either.

If someday the Court sees fit to overturn their own Kelo decision, I will not be complaining about activism on that day, either. I deem it commendable, in fact, to correct mistakes.

 

[The T]

I've been reading about it and hearing it in a number of places. Obamawants to play smackdown...so the Court has said fine...we'll play...now explain yourself...Obama is getting another come-uppance.

One of Obama's former students appeared on Fox this morning, who himself is a law professor at the Unv. of Missouri. He said he was taken aback at his comments because Obama knows that the SCOTUS has the obligation to follow the constitution regardless of what the politics are and has done so many times in the past. He said it appears that Obama is trying to influence the court. He said Obama is trying to guilt the swing justices like Justice Kennedy to rule in favor of his bill, in hopes not to appear illegitimate. He also said that he clerked for the federal judge that put Obama on the spot this week. He said what he did was pretty interesting and very appropriate.

Obama is attempting to lecture lawyers that are much more accomplished in the law than himself and they're slapping him down. Lawyers have a responsibility to defend and uphold the law. If anyone steps out of line in their jurisdiction and tries to skirt the law they are obligated to do something about it.

I personally would rule against him for that very reason among several others that already existed.

Obama is trying a different way to bully the court, but he's not much different from Al Sharpton. He's suggesting that the court would be untrustworthy if they ruled against him. If you talk to most legal scholars they feel the opposite is true. Ruling for Obama would establish new precedence and totally change the legal landscape.....thus using judicial activism to make law that doesn't exist.

Think your right but personally I think Barry is rather flabbergasted that the SC isn't falling all over his clusterfuck of a bill. As a "Law Professor" he must have known the bill would end up in front of the SC. If he thought it wouldn't happen then he's a fool.

I doubt he deals well with those who don't worship him and his oh so wonderful ideas.

Actually? I think he's so narcissistic, so used to getting his way (or else)...that he said what he said to vent...all the while knowing better.

He's in trouble and he knows it.

 

[regent]

I think a number of citizens would be suprised at some of the Supreme Court decisions. The concept many people have of the Court is that the Court is interested in only one thing justice as per the Constitution, but most of the time it is justice as per their political party. Politics is very much a part of the Supreme Court.

 

[Liability]

I think a number of citizens would be suprised at some of the Supreme Court decisions. The concept many people have of the Court is that the Court is interested in only one thing justice as per the Constitution, but most of the time it is justice as per their political party. Politics is very much a part of the Supreme Court.

Which has long been PERFECTLY ok with you and folks of your ilk and stripe as long as the ruling adhered to the orthodoxies of modern American liberalism.

 

[The T]

I think a number of citizens would be suprised at some of the Supreme Court decisions. The concept many people have of the Court is that the Court is interested in only one thing justice as per the Constitution, but most of the time it is justice as per their political party. Politics is very much a part of the Supreme Court.

Can YOU explain to us WHY they get lifetime appointments?

 

[mudwhistle]

One of Obama's former students appeared on Fox this morning, who himself is a law professor at the Unv. of Missouri. He said he was taken aback at his comments because Obama knows that the SCOTUS has the obligation to follow the constitution regardless of what the politics are and has done so many times in the past. He said it appears that Obama is trying to influence the court. He said Obama is trying to guilt the swing justices like Justice Kennedy to rule in favor of his bill, in hopes not to appear illegitimate. He also said that he clerked for the federal judge that put Obama on the spot this week. He said what he did was pretty interesting and very appropriate.

Obama is attempting to lecture lawyers that are much more accomplished in the law than himself and they're slapping him down. Lawyers have a responsibility to defend and uphold the law. If anyone steps out of line in their jurisdiction and tries to skirt the law they are obligated to do something about it.

I personally would rule against him for that very reason among several others that already existed.

Obama is trying a different way to bully the court, but he's not much different from Al Sharpton. He's suggesting that the court would be untrustworthy if they ruled against him. If you talk to most legal scholars they feel the opposite is true. Ruling for Obama would establish new precedence and totally change the legal landscape.....thus using judicial activism to make law that doesn't exist.

Think your right but personally I think Barry is rather flabbergasted that the SC isn't falling all over his clusterfuck of a bill. As a "Law Professor" he must have known the bill would end up in front of the SC. If he thought it wouldn't happen then he's a fool.

I doubt he deals well with those who don't worship him and his oh so wonderful ideas.

Actually? I think he's so narcissistic, so used to getting his way (or else)...that he said what he said to vent...all the while knowing better.

He's in trouble and he knows it.

A lot of his supporters in Hollywood are saying that they felt he would be this great healer when they voted for him........and instead he turned into this petulant child that does everything he can to cause divisions.

In one month he started a war on women, a race war, and now he's trying to cast aspersions on the highest court in the land.

What a troublemaker he turned out to be.

This is what his supporters are seeing and they're not happy, but what did they think a community organizer did for a living. (see Al Sharpton)

 

[JRK]

Think your right but personally I think Barry is rather flabbergasted that the SC isn't falling all over his clusterfuck of a bill. As a "Law Professor" he must have known the bill would end up in front of the SC. If he thought it wouldn't happen then he's a fool.

I doubt he deals well with those who don't worship him and his oh so wonderful ideas.

Actually? I think he's so narcissistic, so used to getting his way (or else)...that he said what he said to vent...all the while knowing better.

He's in trouble and he knows it.

A lot of his supporters in Hollywood are saying that they felt he would be this great healer when they voted for him........and instead he turned into this petulant child that does everything he can to cause divisions.

In one month he started a war on women, a race war, and now he's trying to cast aspersions on the highest court in the land.

What a troublemaker he turned out to be.

This is what his supporters are seeing and they're not happy, but what did they think a community organizer did for a living. (see Al Sharpton)

Whats sad with your post is it is true
The left would call this an attack or biased politics
Just simple information, based on events as they have occured

 

[regent]

The highest court in the land consists of nine politicians appointed for life by presidents that expect them to vote as expected. Their saving grace is that on rare occassion justices have been known to vote for the good of America and not their political sponsors. The Court is now divided five to four and is there any doubt how most will vote, was there any doubt how most of them would vote before the Court even took the case? Was there any doubt how most of them would vote even before being confirmed by the Senate? But they go through the charade as if they read the briefs carefully, listen to the arguments and then put a great deal of thought into both the issue and the Constitution and then bingo vote as expected. Someday perhaps a computer can take over the job and we will have better decisions. But as I say some justices do try and we've had some good ones, but why are they so rare?

 

[Too Tall]

Threatening the Justices?

Obviously not.

Setting the stage to take full political advantage should the Health Care bill be declared unconstitutional.

Yes.

Funny thing 'bout this situation...whichever side wins the case, loses politically and visa versa.

If the bill is declared unconstitutional, liberals will be pissed! This bill will become their holy grail. They'll be out at the polls on election day en masse...the GOP will be slaughtered!

And if the bill is upheld, Romney may actually do a tinnie tiny bit better than McCain did in 2008!

What planet do you live on?

Poll: Democrats drive declining approval of Obamacare
posted at 12:45 pm on October 28, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Far from becoming more popular as it begins to be implemented, Obama’s signature legislative achievement draws ever lower levels of approval and support as more and more Americans “find out what’s in it.” According to a tracking poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, just 34 percent of Americans view the law favorably — the lowest level of approval since Obama signed the legislation into law in March of last year.

Interestingly, waning approval among Democrats drove this. In October, just 52 percent of Democrats viewed Obamacare positively, compared to 65 percent who liked the law a month ago. Support among independents and Republicans dropped, too, but not nearly so drastically — from 36 percent to 32 percent and from 14 percent to 11 percent, respectively.

 

[The T]

Think your right but personally I think Barry is rather flabbergasted that the SC isn't falling all over his clusterfuck of a bill. As a "Law Professor" he must have known the bill would end up in front of the SC. If he thought it wouldn't happen then he's a fool.

I doubt he deals well with those who don't worship him and his oh so wonderful ideas.

Actually? I think he's so narcissistic, so used to getting his way (or else)...that he said what he said to vent...all the while knowing better.

He's in trouble and he knows it.

A lot of his supporters in Hollywood are saying that they felt he would be this great healer when they voted for him........and instead he turned into this petulant child that does everything he can to cause divisions.

In one month he started a war on women, a race war, and now he's trying to cast aspersions on the highest court in the land.

What a troublemaker he turned out to be.

This is what his supporters are seeing and they're not happy, but what did they think a community organizer did for a living. (see Al Sharpton)

Obama ALWAYS has been a trouble maker...his enablers KNOW IT...and will protect him despite the damage HE is doing to this Republic. It's precisely what they want.

 

[AquaAthena]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

Subliminally, yes of course......

 

[The T]

Obama warns justices against 'activism' on health law

President Obama said today he is confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law -- and basically warned the justices against striking down the law by practicing what he called "judicial activism."

"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint," Obama said during a joint news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Obama defined activism by saying "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted passed law -- well, here's a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Obama taking his politics to the SCOTUS?

The case is over...they voted...they know the outcome...Is Obama trying to influence thier decision?

Video in the story...

Subliminally, yes of course......

The O knows it's doomed. He has two insiders that have already told him...thus his THREAT to the Court.

 

[percysunshine]

An Obama threat is sort of like intestinal gas. You know that it is a temporary problem which can stink up a room for everyone.

 

[ecinicola]

He not only is threatening the supreme court.....He has also hired a Spanish company here to count votes in the election........Obama is setting himself up in any crooked way he can to get re elected.......the same as he appointed Kagan to the supreme court, he is giving jobs to people that will do what he needs done. Sneaky and crooked.

 

[The T]

He not only is threatening the supreme court.....He has also hired a Spanish company here to count votes in the election........Obama is setting himself up in any crooked way he can to get re elected.......the same as he appointed Kagan to the supreme court, he is giving jobs to people that will do what he needs done. Sneaky and crooked.

If you have a link to this? I'd like to see it...

Obama...the petulant Boy Blunder has yet to grow up.