Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[Liability]

No..it isn't a lie. It passed the Senate TWICE. TWICE.

So what? It's still a fucking lie to say that it passed with a strong majority. It fucking took outright bribery to get it enacted. And the fact that it had ANY majority (big or small) is irrelevant. EVERY law ever enacted that has ever been voided had been passed by a majority.



OF COURSE it had a majority in each House or it would not have been enacted. That remains irrelevant. A majority is not necessarily a strong one. And getting passed at all is not sufficient reason to reject the prospect of voiding a law.



Also irrelevant. it was flatly false to say that voiding a law passed by Congress is "unprecedented." It isn't. And to the extent that it was allegedly a "commerce" law that got voided, it also doesn't matter that it hasn't happened in a while. No RECENT precedent is not the same as UNprecedented. And it wasn't a commerce law anyway. That canard is falsified by the fact that inactivity is not activity.

And yeah..the court has become an adjunct of the congress. Which is sad.

That makes zero sense. If SCOTUS was just an adjunct of Congress, it wouldn't void any act.

Come back to me when you have relevant arguments.

Obviously you are not able to judge such matters since, between the two of us, only I have offered relevant arguments.

Starting with the fact that when a law gets over the high hurdle of cloture then passes both the senate and house..it isn't a "strong" majority.

Still irrelevant. Putting aside that you fucked up HOW you said what you were attempting to say -- the fact remains:

If an Act is passed that is in derogation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it passed by one slim vote in each House or if passed unanimously in both Houses. An Act that violates the Constitution is no less unConstitutional just because of the size of the majority that enacted it.

 

[Intense]

So what? It's still a fucking lie to say that it passed with a strong majority. It fucking took outright bribery to get it enacted. And the fact that it had ANY majority (big or small) is irrelevant. EVERY law ever enacted that has ever been voided had been passed by a majority.



OF COURSE it had a majority in each House or it would not have been enacted. That remains irrelevant. A majority is not necessarily a strong one. And getting passed at all is not sufficient reason to reject the prospect of voiding a law.



Also irrelevant. it was flatly false to say that voiding a law passed by Congress is "unprecedented." It isn't. And to the extent that it was allegedly a "commerce" law that got voided, it also doesn't matter that it hasn't happened in a while. No RECENT precedent is not the same as UNprecedented. And it wasn't a commerce law anyway. That canard is falsified by the fact that inactivity is not activity.



That makes zero sense. If SCOTUS was just an adjunct of Congress, it wouldn't void any act.

Come back to me when you have relevant arguments.

Obviously you are not able to judge such matters since, between the two of us, only I have offered relevant arguments.

Starting with the fact that when a law gets over the high hurdle of cloture then passes both the senate and house..it isn't a "strong" majority.

Still irrelevant. Putting aside that you fucked up HOW you said what you were attempting to say -- the fact remains:

If an Act is passed that is in derogation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it passed by one slim vote in each House or if passed unanimously in both Houses. An Act that violates the Constitution is no less unConstitutional just because of the size of the majority that enacted it.

Come on Man, you know where Sallow spent his time when he was supposed to be in American History Class....... or not in Detention.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9zWw0Ru28w]Brownsville Station-Smokin in the Boys room - YouTube[/ame]
Brownsville Station-Smokin in the Boys room

 

[AquaAthena]

Yahoo! News

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.




Obama gonna lose his security blanket or binkey on this one?

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

 

[sealybobo]

I'm sorry -- I didnt see an answer to my question.

I shall ask again:

Were you lying, or just talking out your ass?

Like Obama I was stating a valad opinion. This isn't A Few Good Men. The Supreme Court hacks are not Jack Nicholson and this is not the military. And if it is, Obama is the Commmander and Chief?

Remember Bush said he was the Decider? Now Obama is, not the unelected legislatures on the activist bench.

Now let me ask you one question since you have repeated one talking point over and over to me all day. Is your right to privacy an inherent right or one that is given to you by the government? I ask all you righties this question.

There is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right to privacy"..
If there is....Go find it and post it here.

Now...It is clear you are uninformed on matters Constitution..And of course the structure of the federal government.
There are three separate and independent branches of the government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial....The purpose of this the Framers thought was to prevent any one part of the government from having more power than the others.
You appear to believe the President has the right and the power to influence the SCOTUS.
Because you do not like the possibility that the SCOTUS will strike down ACA?...
On the other hand, do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade? Same thing. State legislatures outlawed abortions. The SCOTUS overturned state's laws.
So why not what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
I know.,...You libs are perpetually entitled. You believe you should get to have everything both ways.

No, its clear I don't agree with you on what is and isn't constitutional. Fact is, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney don't exactly agree either. So don't act like you are the expert on the constitution. You have the right wing talking points down though. Give you that.

I agree that whenever judges decide, one side of the argument is not going to be happy with the decision and going to accuse them of being activist judges legislating from the bench. The funny thing is, its been the GOP crying this for all these years. And here we see the Roberts Supreme Court has been doing just that ever since Roberts and Alito got in. Not following Stari Decisis. Citizens United. The Exxon settlement. They have sided with corporations 100% of the time.

Was abortion the political football it is today? Nixon was president and agreed that there were times when abortion was necessary. He said it. Look it up. Freedom of information act. He said, "for example, when a black man and a white woman concieve.

Fact is, the Supremes have been acting badly the last decade.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Like Obama I was stating a valad opinion. This isn't A Few Good Men. The Supreme Court hacks are not Jack Nicholson and this is not the military. And if it is, Obama is the Commmander and Chief?

Remember Bush said he was the Decider? Now Obama is, not the unelected legislatures on the activist bench.

Now let me ask you one question since you have repeated one talking point over and over to me all day. Is your right to privacy an inherent right or one that is given to you by the government? I ask all you righties this question.

There is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right to privacy"..
If there is....Go find it and post it here.

Now...It is clear you are uninformed on matters Constitution..And of course the structure of the federal government.
There are three separate and independent branches of the government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial....The purpose of this the Framers thought was to prevent any one part of the government from having more power than the others.
You appear to believe the President has the right and the power to influence the SCOTUS.
Because you do not like the possibility that the SCOTUS will strike down ACA?...
On the other hand, do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade? Same thing. State legislatures outlawed abortions. The SCOTUS overturned state's laws.
So why not what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
I know.,...You libs are perpetually entitled. You believe you should get to have everything both ways.

Fact is, the Supremes have been acting badly the last decade.

Fact is, YOU were either lying or talking out your ass.
Something you and The Obama have in commin, except that He KNOWS he was talking out His ass.

 

[sealybobo]

So what? It's still a fucking lie to say that it passed with a strong majority. It fucking took outright bribery to get it enacted. And the fact that it had ANY majority (big or small) is irrelevant. EVERY law ever enacted that has ever been voided had been passed by a majority

OF COURSE it had a majority in each House or it would not have been enacted. That remains irrelevant. A majority is not necessarily a strong one. And getting passed at all is not sufficient reason to reject the prospect of voiding a law.

Also irrelevant. it was flatly false to say that voiding a law passed by Congress is "unprecedented." It isn't. And to the extent that it was allegedly a "commerce" law that got voided, it also doesn't matter that it hasn't happened in a while. No RECENT precedent is not the same as UNprecedented. And it wasn't a commerce law anyway. That canard is falsified by the fact that inactivity is not activity.

That makes zero sense. If SCOTUS was just an adjunct of Congress, it wouldn't void any act.

Come back to me when you have relevant arguments.

Obviously you are not able to judge such matters since, between the two of us, only I have offered relevant arguments.

Starting with the fact that when a law gets over the high hurdle of cloture then passes both the senate and house..it isn't a "strong" majority.

Still irrelevant. Putting aside that you fucked up HOW you said what you were attempting to say -- the fact remains:

If an Act is passed that is in derogation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it passed by one slim vote in each House or if passed unanimously in both Houses. An Act that violates the Constitution is no less unConstitutional just because of the size of the majority that enacted it.

I have to give you a compliment. Of the 7 types of Republican Idiots, you are among the rarest.

The Educated Republicans:
These are the rarest of all Republicans. Occasionally you will run into one in public, or in a public-forum online. These Republicans are the smartest of the Republican idiots. They have learned everything there is to know about their position, from a Republican perspective. They’ve educated themselves on all the reasons why their position is correct.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

Anyone with the internet and 5 minutes can find something that thoroughly discredits their version of the “facts.” Even when confronted with contradictory facts they continue to fall back on their original arguments, try to change the subject to something they are more comfortable talking about, or start expressing opinions with no factual merit.

What to Remember when debating them:

Keep them on-topic. Don’t let them ignore your counter-points and then change the subject on you. They’re masters of that, but if you can keep them on topic eventually they will just start expressing opinions to which you can say “do you have any facts to back that up?”

 

[Harry Dresden]

I thought sure I'd get the usual you lie responses. Seems the ridiculous titles only work for the left.

*stomps feet in tantrum*

We know whats best for you. So you will comply or be arrested without charge, and held indefinitely. (UNTIL THE OTHER PARTY WINS )

You will support crony payoffs as it has been ordered. If you served in the military you are a person of interest, future suspect. Crime invented at time of arrest.

Democrats/liberals are the most disgusting P'sOS on the planet bar none.

there are plenty of Republicans/Conservatives who also fit that description FA....

 

[sealybobo]

There is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right to privacy"..
If there is....Go find it and post it here.

Now...It is clear you are uninformed on matters Constitution..And of course the structure of the federal government.
There are three separate and independent branches of the government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial....The purpose of this the Framers thought was to prevent any one part of the government from having more power than the others.
You appear to believe the President has the right and the power to influence the SCOTUS.
Because you do not like the possibility that the SCOTUS will strike down ACA?...
On the other hand, do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade? Same thing. State legislatures outlawed abortions. The SCOTUS overturned state's laws.
So why not what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
I know.,...You libs are perpetually entitled. You believe you should get to have everything both ways.

Fact is, the Supremes have been acting badly the last decade.

Fact is, YOU were either lying or talking out your ass.
Something you and The Obama have in commin, except that He KNOWS he was talking out His ass.

You still haven't answered so I'll assume the question was over your head. You righties talk about liberties. Is your right to privacy inherent? Do you even have the right to privacy without the government explicitly giving it to you? Because it is your side suggesting that you do not have the right to privacy. Good luck living in that world of freedom and liberty. You guys haven't a clue. Don't bother replying, I'm logging off. Don't even care what you reply because I'm sure it will just be or

 

[Harry Dresden]

He's absolutely right.

Over the last decade the Supreme Court:

-Decided and installed an American President.
-Decided that private corporations can take over the land of a private citizen to further their own profit.
-Decided that a state's laws prohibiting the keeping of hand guns went "to far".
-Overturned a century's worth of election finance reform.
-Decided there was a "time limit" on when an employee can bring a case against an employer for unfair wage discrimination
-Decided that a Vice President's meetings with private corporations to determine public policy was secret and not subject to review.
-Decided not to hear cases concerning indefinite detention.
-Decided that police can strip search private citizens no matter what the cause.

It's a radical right wing court involved in judicial activism and legislating from the bench. It's been over stepping it's constitutional boundries for some time now.

Good on the President for pointing that out.

but when they rule more to your liking.....then they are ok....right?....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Like Obama I was stating a valad opinion. This isn't A Few Good Men. The Supreme Court hacks are not Jack Nicholson and this is not the military. And if it is, Obama is the Commmander and Chief?

Remember Bush said he was the Decider? Now Obama is, not the unelected legislatures on the activist bench.

Now let me ask you one question since you have repeated one talking point over and over to me all day. Is your right to privacy an inherent right or one that is given to you by the government? I ask all you righties this question.

There is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right to privacy"..
If there is....Go find it and post it here.

Now...It is clear you are uninformed on matters Constitution..And of course the structure of the federal government.
There are three separate and independent branches of the government. Legislative, Executive and Judicial....The purpose of this the Framers thought was to prevent any one part of the government from having more power than the others.
You appear to believe the President has the right and the power to influence the SCOTUS.
Because you do not like the possibility that the SCOTUS will strike down ACA?...
On the other hand, do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled for the plaintiff in Roe v Wade? Same thing. State legislatures outlawed abortions. The SCOTUS overturned state's laws.
So why not what is good for the goose is good for the gander?
I know.,...You libs are perpetually entitled. You believe you should get to have everything both ways.

No, its clear I don't agree with you on what is and isn't constitutional. Fact is, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney don't exactly agree either. So don't act like you are the expert on the constitution. You have the right wing talking points down though. Give you that.

I agree that whenever judges decide, one side of the argument is not going to be happy with the decision and going to accuse them of being activist judges legislating from the bench. The funny thing is, its been the GOP crying this for all these years. And here we see the Roberts Supreme Court has been doing just that ever since Roberts and Alito got in. Not following Stari Decisis. Citizens United. The Exxon settlement. They have sided with corporations 100% of the time.

Was abortion the political football it is today? Nixon was president and agreed that there were times when abortion was necessary. He said it. Look it up. Freedom of information act. He said, "for example, when a black man and a white woman concieve.

Fact is, the Supremes have been acting badly the last decade.

Boo fucking hoo hoo. You are stating that ( SCOTUS acting badly) because the majority of the decisions have been to the conservative side. However, many rulings have been 6-3, 7-2...
What you believe the SCOTUS is doing is irrelevant.
I am not acting. I am no expert. Unlike you however, I read the constitution whenever I can. What I know , you cannot even imagine.

 

[driveby]

Come back to me when you have relevant arguments.

Obviously you are not able to judge such matters since, between the two of us, only I have offered relevant arguments.

Starting with the fact that when a law gets over the high hurdle of cloture then passes both the senate and house..it isn't a "strong" majority.

Still irrelevant. Putting aside that you fucked up HOW you said what you were attempting to say -- the fact remains:

If an Act is passed that is in derogation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it passed by one slim vote in each House or if passed unanimously in both Houses. An Act that violates the Constitution is no less unConstitutional just because of the size of the majority that enacted it.

I have to give you a compliment. Of the 7 types of Republican Idiots, you are among the rarest.

The Educated Republicans:
These are the rarest of all Republicans. Occasionally you will run into one in public, or in a public-forum online. These Republicans are the smartest of the Republican idiots. They have learned everything there is to know about their position, from a Republican perspective. They’ve educated themselves on all the reasons why their position is correct.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

Anyone with the internet and 5 minutes can find something that thoroughly discredits their version of the “facts.” Even when confronted with contradictory facts they continue to fall back on their original arguments, try to change the subject to something they are more comfortable talking about, or start expressing opinions with no factual merit.

What to Remember when debating them:

Keep them on-topic. Don’t let them ignore your counter-points and then change the subject on you. They’re masters of that, but if you can keep them on topic eventually they will just start expressing opinions to which you can say “do you have any facts to back that up?”

Lakoff and Alinsky, great republicans.......

 

[skookerasbil]

This guy thinks he's a fucking King!!! Brilliant politics...........

 

[RightWingFerret]

Obama's remarks to the 5 judges in a nutshell, "Yuse Five Crackerhead Conservative Judges are too damn stupid to make any decisions! and you's people weren't even elected !!!

 

[Intense]

This guy thinks he's a fucking King!!! Brilliant politics...........

Try Caliphate.

 

[Intense]

Obviously you are not able to judge such matters since, between the two of us, only I have offered relevant arguments.


Still irrelevant. Putting aside that you fucked up HOW you said what you were attempting to say -- the fact remains:

If an Act is passed that is in derogation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it passed by one slim vote in each House or if passed unanimously in both Houses. An Act that violates the Constitution is no less unConstitutional just because of the size of the majority that enacted it.

I have to give you a compliment. Of the 7 types of Republican Idiots, you are among the rarest.

The Educated Republicans:
These are the rarest of all Republicans. Occasionally you will run into one in public, or in a public-forum online. These Republicans are the smartest of the Republican idiots. They have learned everything there is to know about their position, from a Republican perspective. They’ve educated themselves on all the reasons why their position is correct.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

Anyone with the internet and 5 minutes can find something that thoroughly discredits their version of the “facts.” Even when confronted with contradictory facts they continue to fall back on their original arguments, try to change the subject to something they are more comfortable talking about, or start expressing opinions with no factual merit.

What to Remember when debating them:

Keep them on-topic. Don’t let them ignore your counter-points and then change the subject on you. They’re masters of that, but if you can keep them on topic eventually they will just start expressing opinions to which you can say “do you have any facts to back that up?”

Lakoff and Alinsky, great republicans.......

Shit, maybe we should study up more on "Rules For Revolutionaries" ("Rules For Radicals") so we can talk to Idiot on his own Level, Sub Level 3?

 

[Intense]

Obama's remarks to the 5 judges in a nutshell, "Yuse Five Crackerhead Conservative Judges are too damn stupid to make any decisions! and you's people weren't even elected !!!

Translation.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCDAfa-NI-M&feature=related]Curtis Mayfield - Pusherman - YouTube[/ame]
Curtis Mayfield - Pusherman

 

[Listening]

You still haven't answered so I'll assume the question was over your head. You righties talk about liberties. Is your right to privacy inherent? Do you even have the right to privacy without the government explicitly giving it to you? Because it is your side suggesting that you do not have the right to privacy. Good luck living in that world of freedom and liberty. You guys haven't a clue. Don't bother replying, I'm logging off. Don't even care what you reply because I'm sure it will just be or

So this is a wha wha wha, I'm leaving because you've got me cornered post ?

There is no single all reaching right to privacy. It does not always exist. Try not going through security in the airport and see how far you get or where your final destination is.

The Right To Privacy the left finds so wonderful is just an abortion right.

So, please stop with the sillyness and grow up.

 

[daveman]

Yahoo! News

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.




Obama gonna lose his security blanket or binkey on this one?

Note to Alleged Constitutional Scholar Barack Obama:

The function of the Supreme Court of the United States is NOT to rubber-stamp your agenda.

Signed,
Reality

 

[RightWingFerret]

ok, so the five conservative judges werent elected. but the other 4 were?

 

[Liability]

Come back to me when you have relevant arguments.

Obviously you are not able to judge such matters since, between the two of us, only I have offered relevant arguments.

Starting with the fact that when a law gets over the high hurdle of cloture then passes both the senate and house..it isn't a "strong" majority.

Still irrelevant. Putting aside that you fucked up HOW you said what you were attempting to say -- the fact remains:

If an Act is passed that is in derogation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it passed by one slim vote in each House or if passed unanimously in both Houses. An Act that violates the Constitution is no less unConstitutional just because of the size of the majority that enacted it.

I have to give you a compliment. Of the 7 types of Republican Idiots, you are among the rarest.

The Educated Republicans:
These are the rarest of all Republicans. Occasionally you will run into one in public, or in a public-forum online. These Republicans are the smartest of the Republican idiots. They have learned everything there is to know about their position, from a Republican perspective. They’ve educated themselves on all the reasons why their position is correct.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

Anyone with the internet and 5 minutes can find something that thoroughly discredits their version of the “facts.” Even when confronted with contradictory facts they continue to fall back on their original arguments, try to change the subject to something they are more comfortable talking about, or start expressing opinions with no factual merit.

What to Remember when debating them:

Keep them on-topic. Don’t let them ignore your counter-points and then change the subject on you. They’re masters of that, but if you can keep them on topic eventually they will just start expressing opinions to which you can say “do you have any facts to back that up?”

,

^ said silly bozo pretending to have even the first glimmer of an open mind.



Nevertheless, it is quite telling that while you go the silly ad hominem route, you couldn't come up with one single (even lame) point to counter what I had just finished saying.

So let me just point blank ASK you directly.

If the ObamaCare Act had passed unanimously in each House, would it therefore "deserve" the imprimatur of the SCOTUS even if it is unConstitutional?

OR (here's a stretch) are you ready to admit that what I said is the truth? That is: the size of the majority that passes an Act is of ZERO relevance to the issue of whether or not it is a violation of the Constitution.

You are a mere hack, silly bozo. But you might yet surprise with a coherent honest answer. I will not be holding my breath.