Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

70 years of precedent.
WIckard v Filburn.

If the fed can tell a farmer, he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own cattle, it can tell you to buy insurance.

Last I looked, you CONZ weren't exactly brushed up on your basic civics or how to use "google" and we see this borne out again here.

How does regulating the production of a grain product translate into the government gaining the authority to tell and individual citizen, by virtue of being a citizen, they must purchase products from private companies?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

70 years of precedent.
WIckard v Filburn.

If the fed can tell a farmer, he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own cattle, it can tell you to buy insurance.

Last I looked, you CONZ weren't exactly brushed up on your basic civics or how to use "google" and we see this borne out again here.

If only your were half as smart as Floyd the barber.

Dodge!!

 

[Katzndogz]

When ONE federal judge overturned the vote and the law created by that vote, the left claimed that the Judge did his Constitutional duty by overturning an unconstitutional law. Now, somehow when it's obama's law it's somehow different.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

70 years of precedent.
WIckard v Filburn.

If the fed can tell a farmer, he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own cattle, it can tell you to buy insurance.

Last I looked, you CONZ weren't exactly brushed up on your basic civics or how to use "google" and we see this borne out again here.

So, the SCOTUS backed another liberal tyrants ideals of forcing farmers to work a certain way, and you think it's ok to keep the tyranny going.

petty fucking tyrant.

Gee.....that almost made sense.

 

[Jarhead]

70 years of precedent.
WIckard v Filburn.

If the fed can tell a farmer, he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own cattle, it can tell you to buy insurance.

Last I looked, you CONZ weren't exactly brushed up on your basic civics or how to use "google" and we see this borne out again here.

Do you truly not see the difference between regulation and individual mandate?

I mean...are you truly that naive?

Jeez....you really need to start thinking for yourself. You will be a failure if all you do is follow in life.

 

[Katzndogz]

70 years of precedent.
WIckard v Filburn.

If the fed can tell a farmer, he can't grow wheat on his own land to feed his own cattle, it can tell you to buy insurance.

Last I looked, you CONZ weren't exactly brushed up on your basic civics or how to use "google" and we see this borne out again here.

Do you truly not see the difference between regulation and individual mandate?

I mean...are you truly that naive?

Jeez....you really need to start thinking for yourself. You will be a failure if all you do is follow in life.

Growing wheat is an activity. The mandate proposes to regulate inactivity. In order for Wickard to apply, the farmer would have had to not grow wheat at all. Everyone who did not grow wheat would have to buy wheat, even if they wanted corn.

 

[Sallow]

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.

so you want them to keep ignoring their duty just to pass another unconstitutional law?

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

so you want them to keep ignoring their duty just to pass another unconstitutional law?

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

they have the right to enroll me in anything they want to.

But consitutionally, they do not have the right to demand I buy something the moment I take my first breath.

You need to compare apples to apples.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

so you want them to keep ignoring their duty just to pass another unconstitutional law?

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

It shouldn't have that right, I disagree with the supreme court's decision in that strip search case.

The government should also not be given the right to mandate I purchase products from a private company. Everyone will drink water, should the govt mandate that I buy it from a company instead of get it from a stream?

 

[Sallow]

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.

So when states legislatively pass anti illegal immigration laws then judges had no fucking business overturning those legislative decisions?

You ever read the Constitution? Ever? I mean..one day..just read the whole thing.

Because this is becoming tiresome.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

READ THE CONSTITUTION FOR PETE'S SAKE.

 

[BlindBoo]

I failed to see any feet stomping going on.

Tantrum?

Aren't we being a bit overly dramtic.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington issued the 37-page opinion by Judge Laurence H. Silberman. In the opinion, Judge Silberman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, described the law as part of the fundamental tension between individual liberty and legislative power.

“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local — or seemingly passive — their individual origins,” he wrote. The fact that Congress may have never issued an individual mandate to purchase something before, a central argument for many opposing the law, “seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations,” he wrote.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/health/policy/appeals-court-upholds-health-care-law.html

 

[Sallow]

so you want them to keep ignoring their duty just to pass another unconstitutional law?

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

It shouldn't have that right, I disagree with the supreme court's decision in that strip search case.

The government should also not be given the right to mandate I purchase products from a private company. Everyone will drink water, should the govt mandate that I buy it from a company instead of get it from a stream?

I personally don't think Health Care should be in the private sphere..AT ALL.

That said..health care is provided by the government if an indivdual has no insurance. That impacts the common good as everyone has to pay for that in one form or another. Which makes this industry entirely different from many others.

Personally? I think the indivdual mandate was a bad idea. It was a sucker punch by conservatives that said, "We..we have a viable alternative to single payer".

And that's proving to be the case.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

So when states legislatively pass anti illegal immigration laws then judges had no fucking business overturning those legislative decisions?

You ever read the Constitution? Ever? I mean..one day..just read the whole thing.

Because this is becoming tiresome.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

READ THE CONSTITUTION FOR PETE'S SAKE.

Naturalization is not the same as immigration. No state can have a process to issue citizenship. Immigration is not citizenship. If the state has a right to legitimize sanctuary cities, it has the right to pass laws regulating the legality of illegal immigration.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

so you want them to keep ignoring their duty just to pass another unconstitutional law?

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

Should the federal government mandate that all buy earthquake insurance, flood insurance, hurricane insurance and tornado insurance...even if they dont own a home (to protect their personal belongnings)?

Why not? It costs the tax payer biullions to bail people out after those disasters....

So are you for that as well?

 

[Jarhead]

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

It shouldn't have that right, I disagree with the supreme court's decision in that strip search case.

The government should also not be given the right to mandate I purchase products from a private company. Everyone will drink water, should the govt mandate that I buy it from a company instead of get it from a stream?

I personally don't think Health Care should be in the private sphere..AT ALL.

That said..health care is provided by the government is an indivdual has no insurance. That impacts the common good as everyone has to pay for that in one form or another. Which makes this industry entirely different from many others.

Personally? I think the indivdual mandate was a bad idea. It was a sucker punch by conservatives that said, "We..we have a viable alternative to single payer".

And that's proving to be the case.

so then all should buy disaster insurance as well?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I failed to see any feet stomping going on.

Tantrum?

Aren't we being a bit overly dramtic.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington issued the 37-page opinion by Judge Laurence H. Silberman. In the opinion, Judge Silberman, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, described the law as part of the fundamental tension between individual liberty and legislative power.

“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local — or seemingly passive — their individual origins,” he wrote. The fact that Congress may have never issued an individual mandate to purchase something before, a central argument for many opposing the law, “seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations,” he wrote.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/health/policy/appeals-court-upholds-health-care-law.html

Yes it was an exagerated attention grabbing title. The same damn thing the left does every day on here. Problem?

 

[Truthmatters]

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?

at least your not going for the SCARY ANGRY BLACK MAN image.

Guess what , this right wing scotus better pull their shit together and NOT try to piss this country off with their partisan shit.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama's best defense is this law was passed by Congress? The Supreme Court doesn't rule on proposals. Maybe our Constitutional Law President forgot. Then he claims judical activism if its struck down. Its against the Constitution, that's the only thing the court is suppose to do.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

It shouldn't have that right, I disagree with the supreme court's decision in that strip search case.

The government should also not be given the right to mandate I purchase products from a private company. Everyone will drink water, should the govt mandate that I buy it from a company instead of get it from a stream?

I personally don't think Health Care should be in the private sphere..AT ALL.

That said..health care is provided by the government is an indivdual has no insurance. That impacts the common good as everyone has to pay for that in one form or another. Which makes this industry entirely different from many others.

Personally? I think the indivdual mandate was a bad idea. It was a sucker punch by conservatives that said, "We..we have a viable alternative to single payer".

And that's proving to be the case.

People buying cars that run on oil also impact the common good, should the govt be allowed to mandate I only buy a chevy volt because automobile emissions affects everyone?

How about they mandate I can't buy red meat since the methane from the cows they grow to slaughter and feed me beef could cause global warming and affect everyone?

How about they mandate that I can't buy alcohol becuase drinking negatively affects my organs and might make health care cost more for everyone?

Should they next mandate I can only charge the volt with electricity from renewable energy sources? After all its for the common good....i don't think you are thinking this through.

 

[Jarhead]

It was decided over a century ago that congress had very broad powers over commerce. And I find it interesting that you seem to skip over the "right" of the government to strip you down and look in your orifices almost at will..but somehow it doesn't have the "right" to get you enrolled into a system that everyone will use.

It shouldn't have that right, I disagree with the supreme court's decision in that strip search case.

The government should also not be given the right to mandate I purchase products from a private company. Everyone will drink water, should the govt mandate that I buy it from a company instead of get it from a stream?

I personally don't think Health Care should be in the private sphere..AT ALL.

That said..health care is provided by the government is an indivdual has no insurance. That impacts the common good as everyone has to pay for that in one form or another. Which makes this industry entirely different from many others.

Personally? I think the indivdual mandate was a bad idea. It was a sucker punch by conservatives that said, "We..we have a viable alternative to single payer".
And that's proving to be the case.

That is not what they said.

When Pelosi became aware of the fact that she did not have the votes from Democrats on the single payer system, she was forced to go in the direction of the law as it is now....and the GOP made it clear that if you eliminate "pre existing conditions" then the only way the insurance industry could survive is with an individual mandate.

Otherwise, many, if not most would not buy insurance until it was needed.

The GOP never said it was a viable alternative...they said it was the only way the alternative could work...but as you know...they did not want the alternative.