Judge pissed off by Obama's comments on health care law

[Immanuel]

well when the court members rule so obviously against the constitution then it troubles peopel who care about the constitution

Obviously that group would not include you.

Immie

 

[Listening]

Or in other words ...

"How dare the President freely voice his opinion."

Wonderfully ignorant comment.

If it is just an opinion, might we be able to say that our beloved Moron-In-Chief is, indeed, not a constitutional scholar ?

After all, what he expressed was a POV that is not consistent with anything and if he teaches that "opinion" to his students....he should be living in some other country.

Cause it don't fly here.

Is the Court unelected? Yes.
Is it Obama's opinion that striking down the law would be an overreach? Yes.

Where's the problem here exactly?

Well, I think I stated that pretty clearly.

He's obviously not the constitutional scholar that he says he is.

This one even has the left scratching it's collective head.

 

[koshergrl]

Or in other words ...

"How dare the President freely voice his opinion."

Wonderfully ignorant comment.

If it is just an opinion, might we be able to say that our beloved Moron-In-Chief is, indeed, not a constitutional scholar ?

After all, what he expressed was a POV that is not consistent with anything and if he teaches that "opinion" to his students....he should be living in some other country.

Cause it don't fly here.

Is the Court unelected? Yes.
Is it Obama's opinion that striking down the law would be an overreach? Yes.

Where's the problem here exactly?

The problem is that he realizes he's lying, and he knows that the law was unconstitutional.

He also knows that the court has the right to strike down the law, that's what the Supreme Court does. It strikes down unconstitutional laws. By stating that it's an overreach for them to do so, he's saying that his will should trump the power of the Supreme Court.

What a fascist pig he is.

 

[koshergrl]

Wonderfully ignorant comment.

If it is just an opinion, might we be able to say that our beloved Moron-In-Chief is, indeed, not a constitutional scholar ?

After all, what he expressed was a POV that is not consistent with anything and if he teaches that "opinion" to his students....he should be living in some other country.

Cause it don't fly here.

Is the Court unelected? Yes.
Is it Obama's opinion that striking down the law would be an overreach? Yes.

Where's the problem here exactly?

Well, I think I stated that pretty clearly.

He's obviously not the constitutional scholar that he says he is.

This one even has the left scratching it's collective head.

Yes, he is.

He's an anti-American, anti-Constitution piece of shit. This is who he has always been. He's a Constitutional scholar for one reason only....so he is better equipped to destroy it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wonderfully ignorant comment.

If it is just an opinion, might we be able to say that our beloved Moron-In-Chief is, indeed, not a constitutional scholar ?

After all, what he expressed was a POV that is not consistent with anything and if he teaches that "opinion" to his students....he should be living in some other country.

Cause it don't fly here.

Is the Court unelected? Yes.
Is it Obama's opinion that striking down the law would be an overreach? Yes.

Where's the problem here exactly?

The problem is that he realizes he's lying, and he knows that the law was unconstitutional.

He also knows that the court has the right to strike down the law, that's what the Supreme Court does. It strikes down unconstitutional laws. By stating that it's an overreach for them to do so, he's saying that his will should trump the power of the Supreme Court.

What a fascist pig he is.

I'm unfamiliar with the last time the Court struck down a Federal regulation of an industry calling it unconstitutional. Can you give me the case name so I can read up on it? Thanks.

 

[koshergrl]

Why would I do that?

I didn't say anything about federal regulation of industry. I said LAW.

I don't argue points I've never made.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Why would I do that?

I didn't say anything about federal regulation of industry. I said LAW.

I don't argue points I've never made.

You just make blanket statements and then don't back them up? Ok. Gotcha.

Well, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never struck down a Federal regulation on an industry calling it unconstitutional. If they strike this one down, it would be the first time in our history.

Kind of unprecedented, if you will.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I don't make blanket statements I don't back up.

Are you saying that the Supreme Court hasn't ever struck down an unconstitutional law? Because my statement was that it isn't unprecedented, that the supreme court has done exactly that.

Which means Obama was lying when he said it didn't.

 

[Liability]

Why would I do that?

I didn't say anything about federal regulation of industry. I said LAW.

I don't argue points I've never made.

You just make blanket statements and then don't back them up? Ok. Gotcha.

Well, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never struck down a Federal regulation on an industry calling it unconstitutional. If they strike this one down, it would be the first time in our history.

Kind of unprecedented, if you will.

Perhaps you'd do well to educate yourself a little before spouting off.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). The famed "sick chicken" case.

Hurry back when you want to misuse some other term as you just did with "unprecedented."

I also discovered that Justice Louis Brandeis, in commenting on the sick chicken case ruling, remarked to an aide of President Roosevelt that, “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States citing Harry Hopkins, “Statement to Me by Thomas Corcoran Giving His Recollections of the Genesis of the Supreme Court Fight,” April 3, 1939, typescript in Harry Hopkins Papers

Someone should so advise President Obama.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Why would I do that?

I didn't say anything about federal regulation of industry. I said LAW.

I don't argue points I've never made.

You just make blanket statements and then don't back them up? Ok. Gotcha.

Well, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never struck down a Federal regulation on an industry calling it unconstitutional. If they strike this one down, it would be the first time in our history.

Kind of unprecedented, if you will.

Perhaps you'd do well to educate yourself a little before spouting off.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). The famed "sick chicken" case.

Hurry back when you want to misuse some other term as you just did with "unprecedented."

I also discovered that Justice Louis Brandeis, in commenting on the sick chicken case ruling, remarked to an aide of President Roosevelt that, “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything." Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia citing Harry Hopkins, “Statement to Me by Thomas Corcoran Giving His Recollections of the Genesis of the Supreme Court Fight,” April 3, 1939, typescript in Harry Hopkins Papers

Someone should so advise President Obama.

What spouting off? I asked if it happened and said to my knowledge it hadn't. You provided a case. I'm now reading the case.

This is called having a discussion. Koshergirl should take notes.

 

[koshergrl]

He's just trying to pretend the argument is about something other than the unconstitutionality of the law, and Obama's attempt to intimidate the SCOTUS.

The best way to do that is to lie.

Meanwhile:

"

“It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, they do that on a regular basis so it’s not unprecedented at all,” Smith told Fox.​

"​

“What is unprecedented is for the President of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court," he added.

Appearing on Nebraska radio station KLIN, Senator Mike Johanns (R-NE) accused the President of threatening and intimidating the court.
“What President Obama is doing here isn’t right,” he said Tuesday. “It is threatening, it is intimidating.”​

Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama under fire for 'threatening' and 'intimidating' Supreme Court - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com Obama under fire for 'threatening' and 'intimidating' Supreme Court - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com​

​

​

 

[koshergrl]

"
"Ultimately, 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," Mr. Obama said.

Of course it wouldn't be unprecedented - the justices often overturn laws passed by Congress if the court believes the law to be unconstitutional. "

Obama court comments create stir - CBS News

It also wasn't passed by a strong majority, but at this point, it's pretty much recognized that every word that comes out of that thug's mouth is a lie anyway so why sweat the little stuff?

 

[DontBeStupid]

He's just trying to pretend the argument is about something other than the unconstitutionality of the law, and Obama's attempt to intimidate the SCOTUS.

No I'm not and what argument? I stated that I was not aware of any occurrence when the Court overturned regulations for being unconstitutional. It has apparently happened all of once, back in 1935, but I am still reviewing the ruling on the case. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, and have never claimed to be, so forgive me for not knowing that case off the top of my head.

After reading the specifics of the case, though, if the ruling was something else besides regulations and/or constitutionality, then Obama's comment stands as true and the Court overturning health insurance regulations would be unprecedented.

Kosher, this is called researching something BEFORE forming an opinion on it.

 

[Liability]

You just make blanket statements and then don't back them up? Ok. Gotcha.

Well, to my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never struck down a Federal regulation on an industry calling it unconstitutional. If they strike this one down, it would be the first time in our history.

Kind of unprecedented, if you will.

Perhaps you'd do well to educate yourself a little before spouting off.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). The famed "sick chicken" case.

Hurry back when you want to misuse some other term as you just did with "unprecedented."

I also discovered that Justice Louis Brandeis, in commenting on the sick chicken case ruling, remarked to an aide of President Roosevelt that, “This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything." Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia citing Harry Hopkins, “Statement to Me by Thomas Corcoran Giving His Recollections of the Genesis of the Supreme Court Fight,” April 3, 1939, typescript in Harry Hopkins Papers

Someone should so advise President Obama.

What spouting off? I asked if it happened and said to my knowledge it hadn't. You provided a case. I'm now reading the case.

This is called having a discussion. Koshergirl should take notes.

The phrase "to my knowledge" suggested that you had some basis OF knowledge. Since the "sick chicken" case is pretty basic stuff, I took your statement as you spouting off.

If you are actually a bit more open-minded than your phrasing suggested, that's good.

 

[koshergrl]

Law. We're talking about a law. Overturning a law. Not "overturning regulations"..the LAW is what is under scrutiny.

I'm sorry you're stupid and dishonest. It has to cause problems in your life.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The phrase "to my knowledge" suggested that you had some basis OF knowledge. Since the "sick chicken" case is pretty basic stuff, I took your statement as you spouting off.

If you are actually a bit more open-minded than your phrasing suggested, that's good.

Well, I don't think it's "basic stuff" but since you have one of the best signatures around here, I'll let that one go for now

Thanks for the info!

 

[Liability]

Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908)

The SCOTUS struck down a provision of the 1898 Erdman Act which would have prohibited railroads from requiring workers to agree not to join a labor union. (The Court addressed what "commerce" even meant.)

EDIT: The Court (in apparent response to FDR's heavy handed Court packing scheme) later reversed itself on the Adair case.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, 1922

The SCOTUS voided the 1919 federal law that levied a big ass tax on products produced by child labor.
It was a cool decision that you would be well to review since it addresses the NECESSITY of voiding Unconstitutional legislation and cites yet other cases (including at least one other alleged "commerce cause" -based Act):

It is the high duty and function of this court in cases regularly brought to its bar to decline to recognize or enforce seeming laws of Congress, dealing with subjects not intrusted to Congress, but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the states. We cannot avoid the duty, even though it require us to refuse to give effect to legislation designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self-government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a half.

Id. Words to remember.

Then of course, in Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., striking down yet another Act allegedly premised on the Commerce Clause authority, the SCOTUS also voided the Railroad Retirement Act. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935).

So much for "unprecedented."

 

[DontBeStupid]

Law. We're talking about a law. Overturning a law. Not "overturning regulations"..the LAW is what is under scrutiny.

I'm sorry you're stupid and dishonest. It has to cause problems in your life.

And what does the law, Law, LAW contain? Regulations. Which might be what Obama was referring to.

So chill out. Grab some decaf. let me read this court case (you might want to as well) and then we pick back up with you insulting me.

 

[Liability]

The phrase "to my knowledge" suggested that you had some basis OF knowledge. Since the "sick chicken" case is pretty basic stuff, I took your statement as you spouting off.

If you are actually a bit more open-minded than your phrasing suggested, that's good.

Well, I don't think it's "basic stuff" but since you have one of the best signatures around here, I'll let that one go for now

Thanks for the info!

My sig line is a slight modification of a comment first made by CrusaderFrank right here in a thread at USMB. (That's the "CF" reference in the siggy.) I thought his observation was so spot-on, I adopted it.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law | Political Headlines | Comcast

HOUSTON — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

Obama the Surpreme ruler has spoken-

I beat you to this, too. (sigh)

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