Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[Sallow]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

Listen missy..I am a guy.

So don't get your vagina in a bunch. K?

Sallow is on the rag.

Sallow's girlfriend's been on the rag. So hush.

Life ain't so good right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

Listen missy..I am a guy.

Yeah. And I'm Sean Connery.

Back to the point....
Good to see that you agree that a 5-4 decision is one by a "strong majority" of the court.

 

[Liability]

Listen missy..I am a guy.

So don't get your vagina in a bunch. K?

Sallow is on the rag.

Sallow's girlfriend's been on the rag. So hush.

Life ain't so good right now.

Nothing to add to that.

Period.

 

[Sallow]

Sallow is on the rag.

Sallow's girlfriend's been on the rag. So hush.

Life ain't so good right now.

Nothing to add to that.

Period.

Curses.

I'll get you Red Baron.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

It doesn't matter if it was 80% who voted for it in the congress if the law is not constitutional the supreme court's JOB is to strike it down.

And as I've been pointing out..the court's view of the Constitution has been arbitary and partisan (blah blah blah)....

None of this changes the fact that The Obama lied, and that you fully support Him doing so.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

A racist liberal Jew hating Muslim loving democrat is not supposed to give advice nor be paid attention to.

So says the Ex-Convict.

Duly noted you couldn't answer the question.

Let's talk about why you really don't want to do it the right way. Because people would vote when you try to take away their stuff...

 

[JoeB131]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

It is apparent that appearance is more important to you than justice. When was that not the case? That and Smear.

Justice would be doing what every other civilized country does and providing universal coverage to all our citizens.

This is hackery. You "conservatives" had no problem with an individual mandate when it was the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney's idea. What pisses you off is Obama did it.

Legally, the justices would be full of shit if they did it... it would be politics, not law.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

you are comparing the President of the United States to conservative commentators?

Commentators are paid to offer their opinion on the 3 branch system

The Potus is elected based on his BELEIF in the 3 branch system.

Would you want to hire a COO to run your company exactly as it had been running if he believed your company was flawed?
T

Was there a point here, somewhere?

it isn't just conservative "commentators" who have criticized the court for "Judicial Activism" in Roe v. Wade, it has been Republican leaders, including Presidents. Overturning Roe and appointing justices to do so have been in the GOP platform since 1980 (not that they really mean it.)

 

[Liability]

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

you are comparing the President of the United States to conservative commentators?

Commentators are paid to offer their opinion on the 3 branch system

The Potus is elected based on his BELEIF in the 3 branch system.

Would you want to hire a COO to run your company exactly as it had been running if he believed your company was flawed?
T

Was there a point here, somewhere?

it isn't just conservative "commentators" who have criticized the court for "Judicial Activism" in Roe v. Wade, it has been Republican leaders, including Presidents. Overturning Roe and appointing justices to do so have been in the GOP platform since 1980 (not that they really mean it.)

TheRe is STILL a difference between judicial review and judicial activism.

Sticking your heads in the sand, libs, will not make that fact go away.

 

[Rozman]

Yeh but don't we now have a "wise Latina" on the Supreme Court.
Isn't that supposed to fix everything.

 

[JoeB131]

Thee is STILL a difference between judicial review and judicial activism.

Sticking your heads in the sand, libs, will not make that fact go away.

This is judicial activism, not judicial review. This is "We got a law we don't like, and we are going to overturn it because we can."

I personally think Roe v. Wade is an awful decision, but it was on more solid ground than this nonsense.

 

[Liability]

Thee is STILL a difference between judicial review and judicial activism.

Sticking your heads in the sand, libs, will not make that fact go away.

This is judicial activism, not judicial review. This is "We got a law we don't like, and we are going to overturn it because we can."

I personally think Roe v. Wade is an awful decision, but it was on more solid ground than this nonsense.

No. There is judicial review.

Sometimes it crosses the border into the realm of activism, however.

And Roe v. Wade is on no actual "ground" whatsoever.

The prospective voiding of ObamaCare would be, however, the valid rejection on proper Constitutional grounds of a lawless law.

 

[JoeB131]

No. There is judicial review.

Sometimes it crosses the border into the realm of activism, however.

And Roe v. Wade is on no actual "ground" whatsoever.

The prospective voiding of ObamaCare would be, however, the valid rejection on proper Constitutional grounds of a lawless law.

So how is it, that the supposedly Constitution Loving Heritage Foundation could have come up with a plan as an alternative to a single payer system (which the RW Justices admitted would be PERFECTLY constitutional) that was blatantly unconstitutional?

Did they just not notice? Or did they just not notice until Obama did it?

 

[bodecea]

Yeh but don't we now have a "wise Latina" on the Supreme Court.
Isn't that supposed to fix everything.

Does that bother you in some way?

 

[Liability]

Yeh but don't we now have a "wise Latina" on the Supreme Court.
Isn't that supposed to fix everything.

Does that bother you in some way?

Of course not. We have learned to embrace it.

ALL jurists (and all persons of every other job description) MUST be described by gender and ethnicity.

In fact, the fact that it was limited to gender and ethnicity is just plain limiting. Surely, from now on, we can all do better!

But regardless, when describing them, if they happen to be "wise" (because liberal elites have declared as much) so much the better!

 

[Liability]

No. There is judicial review.

Sometimes it crosses the border into the realm of activism, however.

And Roe v. Wade is on no actual "ground" whatsoever.

The prospective voiding of ObamaCare would be, however, the valid rejection on proper Constitutional grounds of a lawless law.

So how is it, that the supposedly Constitution Loving Heritage Foundation could have come up with a plan as an alternative to a single payer system (which the RW Justices admitted would be PERFECTLY constitutional) that was blatantly unconstitutional?

Did they just not notice? Or did they just not notice until Obama did it?

What difference does it make?

A bad idea (belatedly recognized as such) is no less a bad idea regardless of which people or groups first embraced it.

I mean, you can't actually be claiming that you've never had what you considered a really "good" idea that you later realized was actually a pretty fucking poor one.

 

[The T]

No. There is judicial review.

Sometimes it crosses the border into the realm of activism, however.

And Roe v. Wade is on no actual "ground" whatsoever.

The prospective voiding of ObamaCare would be, however, the valid rejection on proper Constitutional grounds of a lawless law.

So how is it, that the supposedly Constitution Loving Heritage Foundation could have come up with a plan as an alternative to a single payer system (which the RW Justices admitted would be PERFECTLY constitutional) that was blatantly unconstitutional?

Did they just not notice? Or did they just not notice until Obama did it?

What difference does it make?

A bad idea (belatedly recognized as such) is no less a bad idea regardless of which people or groups first embraced it.

I mean, you can't actually be claiming that you've never had what you considered a really "good" idea that you later realized was actually a pretty fucking poor one.

That would presume that Joey admits to being human and posesses humility.

 

[saveliberty]

Ocassionally the court will institute a temporary measure. I don't think racial preference laws were ever meant to be permanent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What if Obama tell SCOTUS to try to enforce their decision?

 

[saveliberty]

What if Obama tell SCOTUS to try to enforce their decision?

...or more importantly, will Michelle bail him out?