More blowback from Obama's Supreme Ct. threat

[Annie]

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.

and yet, Holder responded. For all save the last sentence of his response, spot on regarding judicial review. Last sentence? Read it, Marks Holder as a liar.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama made Tribe cringe

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

I believe there is a non-severability clause in the law so if one part is struck down the whole thing is invalidated.

I'd be surprised if that's true. Because if it is true, then the Court would not have had to hear arguments on it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

Tribe said the "President" of Harvard Law Review "misspoke"

 

[SFC Ollie]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

Bush threatened the integrity of the Constitution? Really? Please provide a link..........

And Obama did not state fact, I believe that has been shown several times.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

I thought Obama was a "Constitutional lawyer"? How does he not know "judicial review"?

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

which nutters?.....the right ones or the left ones.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9CDWJFNga0]School House Rock - Three Ring Government (Branches of the US Gov't) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wiseacre]

So, here's a question for ya - if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate but not the whole bill, what happens then? If Obama is re-elected, I can't see him allowing the ACA to be repealed even without the mandate, he'd veto that and I assume push for a single payer system. But if Romney wins, then it depends on who owns the Senate. It's likely to be a slim margin one way or the other IMHO; if the GOP has control then they might have to use the nuclear option in the Senate, but I think they'd do it if that's the only option. But if the Dems maintain control of the Senate, then things get problematical.

And yes, I'm assuming the repubs keep their House majority.

 

[regent]

Most people that have a knowledge of the Constitution know that the Constitution is mum about the Supreme Court having the power to declare an Act of Congress, a State law, a presidential act, unconstitutional. The words are not found in any part of the Constitution. The Court decided this power should be a Court power and took that power in a famous court case. Today we accept the idea that there is a clause in the Constitution that gives the Court that power. Not so.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So, here's a question for ya - if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate but not the whole bill, what happens then? If Obama is re-elected, I can't see him allowing the ACA to be repealed even without the mandate, he'd veto that and I assume push for a single payer system. But if Romney wins, then it depends on who owns the Senate. It's likely to be a slim margin one way or the other IMHO; if the GOP has control then they might have to use the nuclear option in the Senate, but I think they'd do it if that's the only option. But if the Dems maintain control of the Senate, then things get problematical.

And yes, I'm assuming the repubs keep their House majority.

It wouldn't matter much who controls the Senate if Reid were gone. Then things could actually be discussed..........

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most people that have a knowledge of the Constitution know that the Constitution is mum about the Supreme Court having the power to declare an Act of Congress, a State law, a presidential act, unconstitutional. The words are not found in any part of the Constitution. The Court decided this power should be a Court power and took that power in a famous court case. Today we accept the idea that there is a clause in the Constitution that gives the Court that power. Not so.

LOL

Obama Fluffer

 

[Liability]

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

I believe there is a non-severability clause in the law so if one part is struck down the whole thing is invalidated.

There isn't a non-severability clause.

If they had bothered to include it, they would have been expressing the legislative INTENT to keep parts of it in the event tht other parts were found invalid.

But by NOT including the standard non-severability clause, it is a perfectly reasonable inference that Congress was giving its blessing to scuttling the whole mess if a part or parts were found to be UnConstitutional. The NON inclusion couldnot have been a mere accident or oversight either since it HAD been in some earlier (draft type) versions.

 

[Liability]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

Blather. The President went to Harvard Law. He was the honcho in the Harvard Law Review. He has been a Constitutional Law Lecturer.

What he said is indefensible because it is unquestionably just a lie. Not some professorial "shorthand." That's bullshit. The President fucking CHOSE to outright lie.

He is a putz.

 

[BluePhantom]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

Blather. The President went to Harvard Law. He was the honcho in the Harvard Law Review. He has been a Constitutional Law Lecturer.

What he said is indefensible because it is unquestionably just a lie. Not some professorial "shorthand." That's bullshit. The President fucking CHOSE to outright lie.

He is a putz.

Wow...you actually read what luddly says? I thought we just all saw his name and neg repped him without subjecting ourselves to his ignorance.

 

[Liability]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

Blather. The President went to Harvard Law. He was the honcho in the Harvard Law Review. He has been a Constitutional Law Lecturer.

What he said is indefensible because it is unquestionably just a lie. Not some professorial "shorthand." That's bullshit. The President fucking CHOSE to outright lie.

He is a putz.

Wow...you actually read what luddly says? I thought we just all saw his name and neg repped him without subjecting ourselves to his ignorance.

His two liners are ok to skim. Just provides fodder to point out how mindless, wrong, dishonest and stupid he is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Barack Milli Vanilli Obama, the music stopped, he had to think on his own and it was ugly

 

[SFC Ollie]

Most people that have a knowledge of the Constitution know that the Constitution is mum about the Supreme Court having the power to declare an Act of Congress, a State law, a presidential act, unconstitutional. The words are not found in any part of the Constitution. The Court decided this power should be a Court power and took that power in a famous court case. Today we accept the idea that there is a clause in the Constitution that gives the Court that power. Not so.

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

 

[Oddball]

Funny part of this is that while the Rs lie about what he really said, they also conveniently ignore that Bush said much worse as did several other presidents.

But, this is President Obama so y'all are just hysterical about his very simple and direct statement of fact.

I thought Obama was a "Constitutional lawyer"? How does he not know "judicial review"?

Judicial review, peer review....How does a guy keep track?