Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You don't know what threatening means if this is your true belief.
What was the threat?
The POTUS speaking publicly stated flatly that the court is comprised of UNelected people who were going to undo the law passed by big majorities of the duly elected Congress.
He said quite clearly that the justices were not qualified to do this work and that the overturn if it occurred is illegal and nothing like this has ever happened before.
oh, I see- you started from this premise and worked backwards. Don't feel bad, it's the conservatatarian method du jour.He is a Chicago thug-organizer and not fit to be the POTUS. He is a disgrace and has no class.
What was the threat?
The POTUS speaking publicly stated flatly that the court is comprised of UNelected people who were going to undo the law passed by big majorities of the duly elected Congress.
So, the POTUS was threatening by....telling the truth? The above is true. You know that, right?
He said quite clearly that the justices were not qualified to do this work and that the overturn if it occurred is illegal and nothing like this has ever happened before.
He said they were unqualified? Please link me to that quote.
oh, I see- you started from this premise and worked backwards. Don't feel bad, it's the conservatatarian method du jour.He is a Chicago thug-organizer and not fit to be the POTUS. He is a disgrace and has no class.
Because...because it's OBAMA, man! He's, like, you know, all unprecedented and stuff!The POTUS speaking publicly stated flatly that the court is comprised of UNelected people who were going to undo the law passed by big majorities of the duly elected Congress.
So, the POTUS was threatening by....telling the truth? The above is true. You know that, right?
He said they were unqualified? Please link me to that quote.
oh, I see- you started from this premise and worked backwards. Don't feel bad, it's the conservatatarian method du jour.He is a Chicago thug-organizer and not fit to be the POTUS. He is a disgrace and has no class.
Still waiting for one of you Obamabots to explain what is unprecedented about it.
It's not politics. It's the Consititution.Can those that support his view that finding Obamacare Unconstitutional would be unprecedented provide facts to back the claim up?
It wouldn't be unprecedented, he was lying. But it will still help paint the SC in a bad light if they rule against Obamacare. He was setting up the base for a get out the vote push. This is politics. Remember the "death panels"?
Try reading it sometime. The REAL one, not the leftist "Das Kapital Lite".
It's not politics. It's the Consititution.It wouldn't be unprecedented, he was lying. But it will still help paint the SC in a bad light if they rule against Obamacare. He was setting up the base for a get out the vote push. This is politics. Remember the "death panels"?
Try reading it sometime. The REAL one, not the leftist "Das Kapital Lite".
It's politics. Just there are no death panels in Obamacare. Try reading it sometime.
It's not politics. It's the Consititution.
Try reading it sometime. The REAL one, not the leftist "Das Kapital Lite".
It's politics. Just there are no death panels in Obamacare. Try reading it sometime.
You already admitted Obama outright lied, so go away.
Didn't the President also say something along the lines of the vote on health care was overwhelmingly in favor of it yet it was 219-212 a seven vote difference that is like saying a 21-14 football game was a blow out.
Ok but the support for it was hardly overwhelming and as I recall he had to cut a few back room deals to get that 60. He got his bill passed but the support for it was for from widespread or overwhelming.Didn't the President also say something along the lines of the vote on health care was overwhelmingly in favor of it yet it was 219-212 a seven vote difference that is like saying a 21-14 football game was a blow out.
60 votes in the senate.
-Just shows how insane for power the GOP is now.
Only twice has the SC gone against commerce clause laws. At the moment the a-holes are saying health care is not interstate commerce LOL
Can those that support his view that finding Obamacare Unconstitutional would be unprecedented provide facts to back the claim up?
It wouldn't be unprecedented, he was lying. But it will still help paint the SC in a bad light if they rule against Obamacare. He was setting up the base for a get out the vote push. This is politics. Remember the "death panels"?
Can those that support his view that finding Obamacare Unconstitutional would be unprecedented provide facts to back the claim up?
It wouldn't be unprecedented, he was lying. But it will still help paint the SC in a bad light if they rule against Obamacare. He was setting up the base for a get out the vote push. This is politics. Remember the "death panels"?
Death panels is the truth numb nuts.....
Can those that support his view that finding Obamacare Unconstitutional would be unprecedented provide facts to back the claim up?
It wouldn't be unprecedented, he was lying. But it will still help paint the SC in a bad light if they rule against Obamacare. He was setting up the base for a get out the vote push. This is politics. Remember the "death panels"?
Death panels is the truth numb nuts.....
What is this, thread # 10 on the same subject? 9 con circle jerk Obama SCOTUS threads wasn't enough - you had to get one more circle jerk in?
What is this, thread # 10 on the same subject? 9 con circle jerk Obama SCOTUS threads wasn't enough - you had to get one more circle jerk in?
It could be, I'm not sure but what I am sure of is, no liberal can answer the three questions posed.
What is this, thread # 10 on the same subject? 9 con circle jerk Obama SCOTUS threads wasn't enough - you had to get one more circle jerk in?
It could be, I'm not sure but what I am sure of is, no liberal can answer the three questions posed.
I answered the question in post #3.
