More blowback from Obama's Supreme Ct. threat

[Katzndogz]

What happens if the health care bill is sunk by a unanimous decision?

 

[DontBeStupid]

I explained it in post 32 and you ignoired it.

Questioning is not threatening.

Try again.

either you did not read my post or you did not understand it.

When one branch questions the integrity of another branch it threatens the credibility of that branch in the eys of the people.

We saw it with congress and Bush...making it difficult for Bush to govern efficiently

We see it with congress and Obama....making it difficult for Obama to govern efficiently.

However......we can NOT have it with the Supreme Court for they are the final word.

Oh ... so you think the Supreme Court is above the other branches?

Funny. I don't remember that from my Government classes.

 

[DontBeStupid]

What happens if the health care bill is sunk by a unanimous decision?

It would raise the credibility of this court immensely.

 

[Jarhead]

Questioning is not threatening.

Try again.

either you did not read my post or you did not understand it.

When one branch questions the integrity of another branch it threatens the credibility of that branch in the eys of the people.

We saw it with congress and Bush...making it difficult for Bush to govern efficiently

We see it with congress and Obama....making it difficult for Obama to govern efficiently.

However......we can NOT have it with the Supreme Court for they are the final word.

Oh ... so you think the Supreme Court is above the other branches?

Funny. I don't remember that from my Government classes.

Where did I say that?

The supreme court is the final word on the consitutionality of a law....IF that law is brought ot the court.

If the court were ABOVE the other branches, it would have the right to review and decide on a law by choice....but it cant....it can only decide on one brought to it.

And why is it borught to it?

Becuase it is the final word on the law.

I dont think you took government courses....for if you did you would have known exactly what I meant when I said "the final word on a law"

"The final word on a law" is commonplace language in upper level government courses.

Now...enough diversion from my explanation...it is a valid explanation...

When one with a voice and the ears of listeners questions the integrity of something it threatens the credibility of that thing in the eyes of listeners.

Enough siad. You may disagree with it if you wish...but it is basic logic.

Cyas <S>

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Should Obama sue Harvard for a refund?

 

[Liability]

Should Obama sue Harvard for a refund?

The counter suit might involve a claim concerning how badly HE has ruined THEIR reputation.

 

[BluePhantom]

Well.....here's kind of what I think. I think Obama's comments were fucking stupid but I think more is being made of them than is necessary. i theorize that the reason why it's blowing up in his face is because Republicans have an opportunity to portray Obama as launching a vicious assault on the Supreme Court in the hopes that a justice on the fence will say: "oh you think we can't strike it down? Watch this mother fucker"

So I think the media explosion is an attempt to try to get the court to flex their muscles in defiance as they consider Obamacare. It's great strategy actually because the courts are very protective of their authority.

Now that's not to say that I don't find Obama's comments to be stupid as hell; it was a major tactical blunder at the worst possible time and brought further suspicion about exactly how well this "constitutional law professor" actually understands the constitution, history, or the law. But I do think more is being made of this than is really warranted.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

O's words:

"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."

False. Overturning unconstitutional laws has been the job of the SC for two hundred years.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

Do tell. What did the President threaten them with? Harse word that he co-opt from the republicans?

"

The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them. "

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

F Obama and his threats to our Separation of Powers.

 

[koshergrl]

The latest from Carney...

Obama was misunderstood cuz he's just too smart...he was speaking Harvard Professor Shorthand and we all missed what he REALLY meant...

"Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand."

"http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/05/carney_obama_not_understood_because_he_spoke_in_shorthand_since_he_is_a_law_professor.html

Not only that, that was in response to Obama's law professor telling the world that Obama was wrong....

 

[Liability]

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.

Do tell. What did the President threaten them with? Harse word that he co-opt from the republicans?

"

The Roberts Court&#8217;s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them. "

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

The dutiful pitbulls of the ObamaMessiah are laying the foundation.

But there's no "threat" here. Sure.

Thankfully, the "threat" of impeachment is utterly meaningless as long as the Dims are held at bay in the House. Keep those dip shits in the minority and they will not be able to do the always hyper-partisan political bidding of The ONE in the guise of seeking "justice" or "checks and balances."

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast. Professor Dow is a dickweed.

 

[The T]

Do tell. What did the President threaten them with? Harse word that he co-opt from the republicans?

"

The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them. "

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

The dutiful pitbulls of the ObamaMessiah are laying the foundation.

But there's no "threat" here. Sure.

Thankfully, the "threat" of impeachment is utterly meaningless as long as the Dims are held at bay in the House. Keep those dip shits in the minority and they will not be able to do the always hyper-partisan political bidding of The ONE in the guise of seeking "justice" or "checks and balances."

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast. Professor Dow is a dickweed.

So Professor 'Dickweed' sees weighing Constitutional relevence in striking down a law that doesn't meet Constitutional muster as 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'?

Does he realize the process is slow and lethargic...and has as much weight as impeachment of a sitting POTUS?

Does he also realize that they have 'lifetime appointments' for a reason as not to be subject to political reprecussions as to be fair, balanced and just when weighing matters of law?

Of course he doesn't...he may continue his fussfit...the burden of proof is his, and his alone.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.

Read more: Can a US Supreme Court justice be impeached and removed from office

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Has Obama never heard of "Judicial Review"?

 

[The T]

Has Obama never heard of "Judicial Review"?

He has...he also knows he's in trouble with his re-elections and has to play the part of victim of the evil Courts...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never heard of the idea that Congress passing a law automatically makes it Constitutional, where did Obama learn that?

 

[The T]

I never heard of the idea that Congress passing a law automatically makes it Constitutional, where did Obama learn that?

We'd see IF he'd release his records...Perhaps his professors would like to pony up the answer?

 

[Liability]

Has Obama never heard of "Judicial Review"?

He thought it involved getting dressed in drag, though.

 

[BluePhantom]

I never heard of the idea that Congress passing a law automatically makes it Constitutional, where did Obama learn that?

The Supreme Court assumes a law to be constitutional unless they find a legal reason to rule otherwise. Just like "innocent until proven guilty" the presumption of the court is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional".

 

[Katzndogz]

The crux of the obama/court controversy is that obama came across as a complete dolt. A first month law student. That's where his problem is now. When the majority of people in the street with a basic education can spot this big of a whopper it's going to have an effect.

 

[Liability]

I never heard of the idea that Congress passing a law automatically makes it Constitutional, where did Obama learn that?

The Supreme Court assumes a law to be constitutional unless they find a legal reason to rule otherwise. Just like "innocent until proven guilty" the presumption of the court is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional".

But that's different than it BEING Constitutional.

A guilty person who gets arrested is presumed innocent in the EYES of the LAW. That doesn't mean he is actually innocent. If he were actually innocent, he shouldn't even have gotten arrested.

But in the real world, everyone who has ever been properly convicted was, at one time, legally deemed to be innocent.

Similarly, a presumption of Constitutionality and legitimacy for an Act passed by the legislative Branch and signed into law by a President (or passed by way of an override of a veto) can also be overcome by reference to the Constitution.