More blowback from Obama's Supreme Ct. threat

[Ernie S.]

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

snip

Jeffrey Toobin, a non partisan legal analyst? You're joking, right?

 

[rdean]

It's the right wing that blows. Especially when in a "wide stance".

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Must spread, occasionally, I actually read his drivel, but if I could neg every post....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama misspoke...lol, the "President" of Harvard Law "misspoke"

 

[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.

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

No, no, that's not the power to decide if a law of Congress is Constitutional. It says the Court has the power to try all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, that's under the Constitution. If those words covered the power to declare an act of Congress, there would be little controversy about Marbury. Marshall did a slick con job with Marbury by declaring part of the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional which pleased the Jeffersonians. It took some time for the Jeffersonians to realize what had happened. Too late.

 

[Liability]

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,

No, no, that's not the power to decide if a law of Congress is Constitutional. It says the Court has the power to try all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, that's under the Constitution. If those words covered the power to declare an act of Congress, there would be little controversy about Marbury. Marshall did a slick con job with Marbury by declaring part of the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional which pleased the Jeffersonians. It took some time for the Jeffersonians to realize what had happened. Too late.

While I AGREE that the term "judicial review" and the concept of the SCOTUS having the power to nullify an Act does not appear in the words of the constitution, it seems pretty readily apparent that the power is actually implicit.

For if we were to believe otherwise, we'd be obliged to accept the notion that once Congress passes and the President approves an act that does violate a provision of the Constitution, that we are nevertheless "stuck" with it.

The JUDICIAL co-equal Branch of our tripartite form of government would NOT have the ability to serve as much of a check in that case, now would it?

It exists today not JUST because Marshall SAID so in Marbury v. Madison. It exists because what Marshall said in that case IS actually an implied power. It is implied of logical necessity and founded on the historical basis of our laws.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

and he very seldom answers questions that are asked.....he is just Frankos smarter brother.....not by much though...

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's the right wing that blows. Especially when in a "wide stance".

well you should know about "Blowing".....you do it enough with your Far Left "leaders"....does Dick taste like Chicken?....

 

[Contumacious]

'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.'
.

It is NOT unprecedented:


History repeats itself.

.

 

[Jarhead]

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....

THIS (ABOVE) needs to be posted again...and I highlighted the interesting parts.

I have been saying for 3 years that this administration/ President believes those that support him are inferior to him and he treats them that way......

And I always ask the same question when I say it and it is never answered...

"What is it like to adamantly support an individual who has no respect for you?"

 

[Katzndogz]

The American people are just too stupid to understand his pig-latin. Which does not explain why he students, and his own law professor, Lawrence Tribe, say he is full of shit.

 

[Jarhead]

The American people are just too stupid to understand his pig-latin. Which does not explain why he students, and his own law professor, Lawrence Tribe, say he is full of shit.

I, personally, am not that stupid. I heard whar he said and am well aware what he meant as there is no other meaning unless you change the words.

If his supporters want to admit they are stupid and understood something completely different, that is their choice.

Now, that being said...I wonder who is best to align yourself with when it comes to understanding something the President says...

1) A highly regarded Law Professor from one of the top Law Schools in the world...

or

2) Truthmatters

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Must spread, occasionally, I actually read his drivel, but if I could neg every post....

I usually neg myself, just for reading his posts.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Must spread, occasionally, I actually read his drivel, but if I could neg every post....

I usually neg myself, just for reading his posts.

I'm tempted to neg you myself....since you admit you read his posts.
But I wont. We all make mistakes.

 

[Claudette]

Carney and Tribe say Barry misspoke??

Jesus. I thought Barry was the smartest Law Professor/Part time Senator/Community Organizer in the whole of the USA and possibly the world??

Guess not.

 

[Annie]

'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.'
.

It is NOT unprecedented:


History repeats itself.

.

FDR waited until after the ruling to put forth the court packing proposal. It was about as popular then as what Obama attempted to do.

 

[Claudette]

FDR has got to be his hero. Jeeze.

 

[Jarhead]

Carney says Barry misspoke??

Jesus. I thought Barry was the smartest Law Professor/Part time Senator/Community Organizer in the whole of the USA and possibly the world??

Guess not.

No.....he did not say he mis-spoke.
He said (paraphrased) that we are not intelligent enough to understand what he said because he spoke too intelligently for us...

"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."

 

[theairbornesikh]

FDR is my hero; but that's okay. Some of us are Ron Paul supporters, some are Newt Gingrich fans, others are Romney-holics, and there are still Obama supporters; that's okay.

 

[Claudette]

Carney says Barry misspoke??

Jesus. I thought Barry was the smartest Law Professor/Part time Senator/Community Organizer in the whole of the USA and possibly the world??

Guess not.

No.....he did not say he mis-spoke.
He said (paraphrased) that we are not intelligent enough to understand what he said because he spoke too intelligently for us...

"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."

Some people must be us dumbo citizens. However Tribe was pretty clear on it.



Getty Images
Attorney Laurence Tribe attends the ACLU of Southern California’s Bill of Rights Dinner last year.Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.