Obama proves he was an overpaid constitutional lecturer

[Quantum Windbag]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO1UiWrt_rE"]President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care - YouTube[/ame]

Funny how he forgets to mention that some very liberal judges had serious problems with the mandate.

Ultimately, his only argument in defense of Obamacare is that some people will be hurt if it is struck down. Funny how that doesn't worry him when he imposes higher CAFE standards on cars.

I also like the fact that he thinks it is unprecedented to strike down a law. is he trying to say that SCOTUS has never in history struck down a law that was passed by Congress? If he truly thinks that laws that are passed by a majority in Congress are constitutional why isn't he defending DOMA? DOMA passed with a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, and had politicians from both parties as cosponsors, and they actually had people from both parties voting for it.

Obamacare, in contrast, passed with a vote of 219-212 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, and did not get a single vote from any Republican in either chamber. Sounds like a perfect example of a duly enacted law to me.

 

[jillian]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Funny how you didn't actually comment on the substance of my post, which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past, so them doing so now would not be unprecedented. Is that because it is such a stupid argument that even you cannot defend it?

 

[Annie]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Funny how you didn't actually comment on the substance of my post, which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past, so them doing so now would not be unprecedented. Is that because it is such a stupid argument that even you cannot defend it?

Hey, she went to law school. Shut your mouth.

 

[naturegirl]

He knows he is not the all reining power and it really p*sses him off someone can overturn his signature legislation.

He can't stand the fact that he can't control every branch of government. He lost the House, he's going to lose the senate and may even lose his presidency. They only thing he's truly got going in that department is his community organizing skills have taught him how to mobilize people and get them to the voting booth.

The Supreme Court is so named because they are the final say in legislation that is challenged. Intimidation works on uneducated people, I doubt it will work on any member of the Supreme Court.

 

[Annie]

He knows he is not the all reining power and it really p*sses him off someone can overturn his signature legislation.

He can't stand the fact that he can't control every branch of government. He lost the House, he's going to lose the senate and may even lose his presidency. They only thing he's truly got going in that department is his community organizing skills have taught him how to mobilize people and get them to the voting booth.

The Supreme Court is so named because they are the final say in legislation that is challenged. Intimidation works on uneducated people, I doubt it will work on any member of the Supreme Court.

He's not doing so well on the 'grass roots' all his donations this go round are from the mega rich and Hollywood.

 

[California Girl]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Given the choice between the President or a Supreme Court Justice understanding the Constitution better.... I'd go for the SC Justice. They have less of an agenda than the President... you do see that, right?

Or do you think we should scrap the SC and just give ultimate power to the President and congress... any President.... remember - your party will not always own the White House. You really want a GOP President and congress deciding what is Constitutional?

 

[Papageorgio]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

It is an easy read and easier to understand. I'm not sure why you would have to go to school to understand 4400 words, sounds arrogant to claim otherwise.

 

[Amelia]

President Obama attacks Supreme Court on health care - YouTube

Funny how he forgets to mention that some very liberal judges had serious problems with the mandate.

Ultimately, his only argument in defense of Obamacare is that some people will be hurt if it is struck down. Funny how that doesn't worry him when he imposes higher CAFE standards on cars.

I also like the fact that he thinks it is unprecedented to strike down a law. is he trying to say that SCOTUs has never in history struch down a law that was passed by Congress? If he truly thinks that laws that are passed by a majority in Congress are constitutional why isn't he defending DOMA? DOMA passed with a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate, and had politicians from both parties as cosponsors, and they actually had people from both parties voting for it.

Obamacare, in contrast, passed with a vote of 219-212 in the House and 60-40 in the Senate, and did not get a single vote from any Republican in either chamber. Sounds like a perfect example of a duly enacted law to me.

Excellent point!!!





I laughed out loud when he said it would be "unprecedented" to overturn the law and said Obamacare passed with a strong majority.

Funny stuff right there.

 

[Annie]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

It is an easy read and easier to understand. I'm not sure why you would have to go to school to understand 4400 words, sounds arrogant to claim otherwise.

Have you been to law school? Harvard? Have you been the editor of law review? If not, shut up! Your opinion isn't worth shatz. Ask Jillian!

 

[Clementine]

Obama, king of the czars, is crying about unelected judges throwing out his crowning achievement. Well, if those judges adhere to our constitution, like the Dems should have, that piece of garbage legislation will be thrown in the trash where it belongs. Obama knows plenty about the constitution, which is why he hates it. Remember that radio interview when he was a Chicago senator where he whined about what was wrong with our constitution. That is the main thing he wants to change about America.

 

[Zander]

Apparently Mr. Obama does not know what "judicial activism" means either.....Was he hired on to meet affirmative action?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

...which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past...

A "real man" would have read enough to know why that is SO wrong.

We have three branches of government for reason. The conservative pub SCOTUS who legislate from the bench are WRONG. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with their "decisions", its still wrong.

We have very corrupt and crooked right wingers on the SCOTUS. Their vote will be against affordable care for US citizens but NOT because they believe it to be unconstitutional. They will vote against it in order to slap down that uppity niggah.

Stupid rw's heads will just be a bobbin' up and down and they'll gloat cuz they got their way when all they really got was the privilege to pay for care they don't get, can't get and will never get because the money is going to big Business.

And, they'll vote for Grover Norquist for prez and their taxes WILL go up even though they've gone down under Obama but Norquist needs YOUR money to give to the 1%.

And, are you just so damn pleased with yourself that you took away your family's health care and your children's future because you believe the transparent lies from the pubs?

 

[skookerasbil]

The Constitution to this radical is nothing more than an old piece of paper. That this is a surprise to anybody at this point in time means they've not been paying attention. ( or they're a k00k)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so he's advocating for something he likes....


Shocker.....moving on.

Did I complain about him doing it? I just pointed out how absurd and stupid his arguments are. You would think a lawyer would do better.

Must be why he never released his transcripts.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Given the choice between the President or a Supreme Court Justice understanding the Constitution better.... I'd go for the SC Justice. They have less of an agenda than the President... you do see that, right?

Or do you think we should scrap the SC and just give ultimate power to the President and congress... any President.... remember - your party will not always own the White House. You really want a GOP President and congress deciding what is Constitutional?

They have less of an agenda than the President.

Like hell. They have a HUGE agenda. Why do you think they vote along party lines?

Or do you think we should scrap the SC and just give ultimate power to the President and congress

I have a novel idea. How about we have three branches of government? Never happen, but I can dream, right?

Jeezus fucking hell, do any of your rw's ever READ or get info from anyplace besides lush blowhard and faux?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past...

A "real man" would have read enough to know why that is SO wrong.

We have three branches of government for reason. The conservative pub SCOTUS who legislate from the bench are WRONG. Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with their "decisions", its still wrong.

We have very corrupt and crooked right wingers on the SCOTUS. Their vote will be against affordable care for US citizens but NOT because they believe it to be unconstitutional. They will vote against it in order to slap down that uppity niggah.

Stupid rw's heads will just be a bobbin' up and down and they'll gloat cuz they got their way when all they really got was the privilege to pay for care they don't get, can't get and will never get because the money is going to big Business.

And, they'll vote for Grover Norquist for prez and their taxes WILL go up even though they've gone down under Obama but Norquist needs YOUR money to give to the 1%.

And, are you just so damn pleased with yourself that you took away your family's health care and your children's future because you believe the transparent lies from the pubs?

You don't think that SCOTUS should strike down laws? Including ones that make you go to church or pray?

 

[Trajan]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

well, he got shellacked on Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 9-0. He I believe and I am not alone in this, would lose if and when the latest on religious orgs ala birth control etc. goes to the SC too and it appears, appears mind you that the question has become, not IF the mandate is going down but if severability will save any of it, despite no clause extent in the bill, a pretty silly lapse I think you would agree.......*shrugs*.

 

[regent]

Did the Supreme Court go beyond the Constitution when they decided, with no Constitutional authority, to interpret and decide if laws violate the Constitution and then assume they had the power to render them void? Was this a form of judicial activism?

 

[jillian]

but of course... you know more than people who actually studied the constitution...

must be.

Funny how you didn't actually comment on the substance of my post, which is that the Supreme Court has actually struck down laws in the past, so them doing so now would not be unprecedented. Is that because it is such a stupid argument that even you cannot defend it?

Because your "substance" wasn't substantive.