More blowback from Obama's Supreme Ct. threat

[SniperFire]

'So earlier this week, the President did something that as far as I know is completely unprecedented: he not only tried to publicly pressure the Court into deciding a pending case in the way he wants it decided; he also questioned its very authority under the Constitution.'

Now, the President’s words were particularly troubling given his past treatment of the Court. Two years ago, he used a State of the Union Address to publicly chastise the Court for its decision in another case he didn’t like — with members of the Court sitting just a few feet away.
He looked at the line that wisely separates the three branches of government, and stepped right over it. But what the President did this week went even farther. With his words, he was no longer trying to embarrass the Court after a decision; rather, he tried to intimidate it before a decision has been made. And that should be intolerable to all of us.'

McConnell to Obama: Back off SCOTUS - POLITICO.com


Would be nice if we could just impeach out POS POTUS and get move on.

 

[TorJohnson]

Yeah, then there's a nonpartisan legal analyst on CNN who says it's a "judicial hissy fit"

Gee...who you gonna believe. Turtle man with an axe to grind or an independent analysis?

Were you trying to post this as some sort of PROOF of something OTHER than Mitch McConnell's OPINION?

Do you think being intellectually dishonest makes you any points or does the cause of conservatism any good?


When you morons screech about every little thing that Obama does like it's the frickin end of the world, it makes Republicans look desperate. Success is self evident and we've got very little to show.

Why don't you try being honest for once? Many states REQUIRE that if you use the roads, you have to be insured. How is that ANY DIFFERENT than requiring people who use medical services to be insured ?
Oh, I suppose one could opt out of owning a car. Can one opt out of medical care? Is it in our interest to let people opt out of medical care? Court cases forcing parents to seek medical treatment for their sick children OVER the parents' religious beliefs tend to reinforce the precedent that the government CAN compel care for someone if it's in their best interests.

So not only are mandates already established with precedents, but so is government telling you, you have to receive care if your life is in danger.

Making a mountain out of a molehill only means that by the time the election rolls around, no one will believe you when you really do mean it when you cry wolf.

 

[SniperFire]

Gee...who you gonna believe. Turtle man with an axe to grind or an independent analysis?
.

I'll take a Senate leader's opinion vs. your Lefty mouthpiece.

 

[Conservative]

Yeah, then there's a nonpartisan legal analyst on CNN who says it's a "judicial hissy fit"

Gee...who you gonna believe. Turtle man with an axe to grind or an independent analysis?

Were you trying to post this as some sort of PROOF of something OTHER than Mitch McConnell's OPINION?

Do you think being intellectually dishonest makes you any points or does the cause of conservatism any good?


When you morons screech about every little thing that Obama does like it's the frickin end of the world, it makes Republicans look desperate. Success is self evident and we've got very little to show.

Why don't you try being honest for once? Many states REQUIRE that if you use the roads, you have to be insured. How is that ANY DIFFERENT than requiring people who use medical services to be insured ?
Oh, I suppose one could opt out of owning a car. Can one opt out of medical care? Is it in our interest to let people opt out of medical care? Court cases forcing parents to seek medical treatment for their sick children OVER the parents' religious beliefs tend to reinforce the precedent that the government CAN compel care for someone if it's in their best interests.

So not only are mandates already established with precedents, but so is government telling you, you have to receive care if your life is in danger.

Making a mountain out of a molehill only means that by the time the election rolls around, no one will believe you when you really do mean it when you cry wolf.

Really? If I walk on the road, thus using it, I must have insurance of some kind? OR, if I am a passenger in a car, or riding a bus, thus using the road, I must have insurance?

Please. Learn prior to speaking. You'll look less foolish.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/mandatory-health-insurance-is-not-like-mandatory-auto-insurance/7996

 

[BlindBoo]

Obviously with audio tape of the proceedings being released the veneer has been stripped off the Supreme Court. They are people, fallible like all the rest of us. The partisan divide is apparent. With that said the President has every right to say what he said.

Lets open up the show to videos!

 

[SniperFire]

Obviously with audio tape of the proceedings being released the veneer has been stripped off the Supreme Court. They are people, fallible like all the rest of us. The partisan divide is apparent. With that said the President has every right to say what he said.

Lets open up the show to videos!

A sitting POTUS threatening the SCOTUS before a verdict is rendered is just plain wrong.

Obama needs to grow one of those little totalitarian mustaches to complete the effect.

 

[SniperFire]

Former student of President Obama's law class cant believe what he is hearing from the President on SCOTUS.

=========

My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review



By Thom Lambert

Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/thom-lambert-bo-taught-me-con-law.php

 

[Papageorgio]

Obviously with audio tape of the proceedings being released the veneer has been stripped off the Supreme Court. They are people, fallible like all the rest of us. The partisan divide is apparent. With that said the President has every right to say what he said.

Lets open up the show to videos!

Where does the authority come from to require a citizen of the United States to purchase a service to remain in good standing of this country?

What is the origin of debt that requires one person to pay for another persons health care?

If one person is granted free health care and another person is fine for not purchasing health care, where is the equal protection under the law?

 

[bodecea]

'So earlier this week, the President did something that as far as I know is completely unprecedented: he not only tried to publicly pressure the Court into deciding a pending case in the way he wants it decided; he also questioned its very authority under the Constitution.'

Now, the President’s words were particularly troubling given his past treatment of the Court. Two years ago, he used a State of the Union Address to publicly chastise the Court for its decision in another case he didn’t like — with members of the Court sitting just a few feet away.
He looked at the line that wisely separates the three branches of government, and stepped right over it. But what the President did this week went even farther. With his words, he was no longer trying to embarrass the Court after a decision; rather, he tried to intimidate it before a decision has been made. And that should be intolerable to all of us.'

McConnell to Obama: Back off SCOTUS - POLITICO.com


Would be nice if we could just impeach out POS POTUS and get move on.

Oh good lord! Look! The Righties are crying again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Larry Tribe said Obama's a fucking moron

 

[Liability]

Larry Tribe said Obama's a fucking moron

Which is kind of insulting.

To those poor morons.

 

[Oddball]

Why don't you try being honest for once? Many states REQUIRE that if you use the roads, you have to be insured. How is that ANY DIFFERENT than requiring people who use medical services to be insured ?

Asinine yapping point of the committed leftist hack...Nobody forces anyone to buy an automobile, nor is anyone forced to purchase auto insurance if they don't drive.

Ironic that you'd chastise others for being dishonest when you're such a transparent liar.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, then there's a nonpartisan legal analyst on CNN who says it's a "judicial hissy fit"

Gee...who you gonna believe. Turtle man with an axe to grind or an independent analysis?

Were you trying to post this as some sort of PROOF of something OTHER than Mitch McConnell's OPINION?

Do you think being intellectually dishonest makes you any points or does the cause of conservatism any good?


When you morons screech about every little thing that Obama does like it's the frickin end of the world, it makes Republicans look desperate. Success is self evident and we've got very little to show.

Why don't you try being honest for once? Many states REQUIRE that if you use the roads, you have to be insured. How is that ANY DIFFERENT than requiring people who use medical services to be insured ?
Oh, I suppose one could opt out of owning a car. Can one opt out of medical care? Is it in our interest to let people opt out of medical care? Court cases forcing parents to seek medical treatment for their sick children OVER the parents' religious beliefs tend to reinforce the precedent that the government CAN compel care for someone if it's in their best interests.

So not only are mandates already established with precedents, but so is government telling you, you have to receive care if your life is in danger.

Making a mountain out of a molehill only means that by the time the election rolls around, no one will believe you when you really do mean it when you cry wolf.

So you are good with the government tellin you what you can and cannot buy? Would you be okay if a future GOP President and Congress telling you that under the general welfare clause that you won't e able to buy or watch porn?

 

[Liability]

Why don't you try being honest for once? Many states REQUIRE that if you use the roads, you have to be insured. How is that ANY DIFFERENT than requiring people who use medical services to be insured ?

Asinine yapping point of the committed leftist hack...Nobody forces anyone to buy an automobile, nor is anyone forced to purchase auto insurance if they don't drive.

Ironic that you'd chastise others for being dishonest when you're such a transparent liar.

Plus, states CONDITION a privilege (a driver's license is not a right) on something quite obviously valid for all: insurance so that in the statistically probable occasion of a traffic accident, there WILL necessarily be funds available for medical care, etc.


How is putting a valid condition on a privilege administered by a State in ANY way analogous to mandating that everybody BUY a specific product which is conditioned on -- what exactly? Breathing?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

 

[Peach]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

Where is the threat?

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no threat.

There is no pressure.

The guy is setting the stage in the event that the nutters on the court, some of whom made a mockery of the court last week, decide to do something stupid.

And McConnell is a human/turtle hybrid who does not have the interests of the country at heart.

 

[Jarhead]

There is no threat.

There is no pressure.

The guy is setting the stage in the event that the nutters on the court, some of whom made a mockery of the court last week, decide to do something stupid.

And McConnell is a human/turtle hybrid who does not have the interests of the country at heart.

see how well Obama has you trained?

Unless those "nutters" on the court" decide to do something stupid.....

Everyone of those "nutters" that Obamna is proud to have you calling them were confirmed bi partisantly.

Those "nutters" are some of the most5 accomplished legal minds in the country.

And of course...YOU are so smart you can determine when one or two or three of them decide something stupid.

And, of course....what would a stupid thing be in your eyes?

Something you dont agree with.

How arrogant of you.

LMAO...they are Supreme Court Justices and you have nothing better to do than to post on this board....BUT YOU ARE SMARTER than they are.

Sure you are....sure you are.

Dam......Obama has you trained well.

 

[Jarhead]

Here we go again. Another thread about Obama "threatening" the Court, while providing no quote of Obama actually threatening the Court.

You guys are consistent. I'll give you that.

Where is the threat?

Threat is by no means the appropriate word.....but if you have some intelligence, and I know you do, then you would know what he means by the word threat....

The President laid the goundwork for the people to ralley against the decision of the Supreme Court. In a way he has threatened (there is that word again) the intergity of the Supreme Court.

Our three branch system is set up with an understanding theat thge Supreme Court is the last word...the final word...the most respected word.

Our President wants to change that....he already did when he siad the SCOTUS "got it wrong" during the SOTUA...

And now he is doubling down on that.

And why?

Becuase you, and others on the left...and the media....let him get away with it the first time with no negative backlash at all.

Yep...he said it...he wants to fundamentally change America.

At least he is true to his word on that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Scalia and Thomas are nutters. Period.