The Obama's SCotUS comment: Liberals give The Obama another pass

[Katzndogz]

Both Sarah Palin and Mittens said the same stuff about the courts over California's Prop 8 that Obama is saying about his health care law.

He's no worse than Repubs.
Getting all bent out of shape and butthurt over Obama makes us look WEAK in the eyes of the middle.

There is nothing in the Constitution about same sex marriage. The gay judge invented that right. Just like Justices invented the right to abortion. That's judicial activism.

Democrats are claiming that non-commerce is the same thing under the Constitution as commerce.

Unlike Prop 8 or Roe, the health care bill fundamentally changes the relationship between each and every citizen and the government. It doesn't affect some, like homosexuals or women with an unwanted pregnancy. It changes the relationship between all citizens and the government.

 

[asaratis]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued Obama a homework assignment. *I can't wait to see his test paper!

This is what Joe Biden meant by ON THE JOB TRAINING!





The 5th Circuit Court Scolds Obama – Then Schools Him | The Gateway Pundit

Posted by Andrea Ryan on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, 10:36 PM


By: Andrea Ryan

I will not throw spitballs at the Supreme Court… I will not throw spitballs at the Supreme Court… I will not throw spitballs at the Supreme Court… Repeat this statement fifty more times, President Obama, single-spaced, on three pages, by Thursday.
This is what happens when our Constitutional lecturer president stands on the White House lawn and astoundingly challenges the authority and credibility of the Supreme Court; he gets issued a homework assignment on the fundamentals of our Constitution.

 

[DontBeStupid]

There is nothing in the Constitution about same sex marriage. The gay judge invented that right.

Every human being has the right to be with the person they love.

If you think that is "invented" then you're a fool.

 

[bobcollum]

I didn't claim he made the exact quote, I thought most would understand that but...

Forget "exact quote," there has never been anything even similar, which you fully know.

Of course you can't, the partisan runs deep in you, it shows.

Still the childish Jr. High remarks.

I don't think Obama can really intimidate the Supreme Court, if anything it seemed more like a desperate plea. I'm in no way a Constitutional scholar, but it always struck me as something that goes against what knowledge I have of it.

I'm sure you let your outrage be known when the court struck down the detention law, passed by the majority of congress, during Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Was that also "unprecedented?"

You don't have to answer, it's obvious that you take the "Obama was just a fucking moron" position, but for partisan reasons would never admit it.

BTW, I agree; I think Obama really is so stupid that he thinks the court throwing out a law as unconstitutional is "unprecedented."

Based on what you construed from my original statement, I'd guess you're the one with the problem.

I'm a huge partisan, I've never voted for a Republican or Democrat in a presidential election, and very sparingly will I on a local basis. I sure as hell didn't vote for Obama so play your games with someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Obama: Court Striking Down Obamacare Would Be Judicial Activism | RealClearPolitics

First -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie about Obamacare being passed with a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"?

Second -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His inane assertion regarding the impropriety of the court striking a law that was so passed?

Third -- why don't you liberals take The Obama to task for His lie that doing so would be unprecedented and extraordinary?

First - The law was passed with a majority in Congress who were duly elected. That is not a lie. Calling it strong or weak doesn't impact the fact that it was a majority.

Calling it a strong majority when he knows it was not is a lie.
Why dont you take him to task for it?

Unless, of couse, you believe that 52.1% IS a "strong" majority..?
If that is indeed the case, then you will be more than happy to argue a 5-4 ScotUS decision was made by a 'strong majority' of the court and defend any such decisions on those grounds.
Right?

Second - Because it's his opinion! Just like you think the Court MUST strike it down, he thinks the opposite. That's the great thing about this country. We are all free to have an opinion.

His "opinion" is that the court cannot strike ANY legislation, as, by defintion, ALL legislation is passed by the majority of the relevant legislature as representative of the will of the people.
This is, of course, inane. Why don't you take Him to task for it?

Third - It's only a lie if you know for a fact he knew otherwise.

The Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, as the left likes to remind us.
He therefore knows that laws are struck by the courts with regular frequency, and thus, the courts striking laws -is- precedented and is -quite- ordinary.
So.... he lied. Why do yo not take him to task for it?

 

[asaratis]

Both Sarah Palin and Mittens said the same stuff about the courts over California's Prop 8 that Obama is saying about his health care law.

He's no worse than Repubs.
Getting all bent out of shape and butthurt over Obama makes us look WEAK in the eyes of the middle.


“The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Typical liberal argument. No substance...no reply to the OP questions...nothing but "y'all did somethin' similar" years ago.

Get this, bozo! There is nothing similar to saying a) that the SCOTUS has never overturned a law passed by Congress (been done over 1300 times), b) that the SCOTUS does not have the authority to overturn laws passed by Congress

I suspect the reason that none of our liberal posters and Obama worshipers have tried to answer these questions is that they do not want to be irreversibly branded as STUPID!!!!\

Obama has acted STUPIDLY and they do not want to follow him there.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I believe the Supreme court will rule along party lines and that is very scary. Who was it that compared the mandate with broccoli? If you eat broccolli or not will not affect me finacially. If you pay for your medical care or not will affect me financially.
It was passed if 50 years late. If it is repealed we will never have another change for healthcare reform and millions will continue to suffer and die. How can we put a price on human life? "Let them die"? is the radical right wing plan.

you know.....thousands of kids suffer cold winters without winter coats.....so maybe there should be a law that all coat manufacturers must offer coats for free.

Many children go hungry...maybe there should be a mandate that all gorcers give out food for free to children.

Here in the US we have the consitution...and to follow it means thaty we cant always do the "noble thing" for if we always did the "noble" thing, we would become a socialistic society.....

But the tradeoff we have is freedom of choice, liberty and the right to do what we want with our lives.

So to use the argument that "millions will suffer"....whereas it has some validity.....it holds true with everything in life....

I mean...what good is affordable healthcare for all if many of those people are starving to death? Freezing to death? So what would be next?

Already we are hearting about how SEX is an issue....lmfao.....that seems to be more important than winter coats for all....but I digress.

The liberals leave no room for true nobility. There is no nobility when charity is extorted, often leaving little for those who have suffered the extortion to freely express their own nobility. There is no selflessness when those distributing largesse have taken it from someone else, charging the "contributor" with selfishness. The human condition is only degraded among that population that is trained to accept what dregs those of noble intentions dole out to them. Why not encourage those who struggle to improve their lot, to lift themselves up out of their poverty? It is not noble to keep a portion of the population like many of us keep our dogs, just so that those more "noble", more "selfless", can continue to preen themselves and tell the rest of us how much better they are.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm a liberal, yet I agree with you. Your questions seem to address liberals generally while ignoring that there are many that agree with you to begin with...broad brush sir.

It's not a red herring, it's how the game of politics is played in this country. Partisans give passes to their side, it happens all the time. You can count on it.

it was different with Obama before he was elected. He got a free pass on nearly everything. Sure, some in the media pushed issues...but most in the media ignored them and actually mildly trashed those that pushed the issues.

Not sure of your age...but think back to Gary Hart....

He was running strong and then some investigative reporter found out that Hart was invited on a boat of a friend (Moneky Business)...on that boat were dozens of well regarded people....but the friend also invited a few promiscuous women....Hart knew nothing of them...he did not interact with them....he was cleared of any wrong doing.

But his ASSOCIATION with a man who befriended promiscuous women became headline news in the media...his integrity was briought into question and he petered out.

Look at Dean. He had a "rah rah" moment after a primary victory and the media trashed him.

Obama?

Wright....a non story...the media reported it.....but not a single member of the media bothered to question how Obama did not know of Wrights ideology. They simply accepted his answer of "I didnt know"

Resko...no one cared that he had an association with this criminal...but they cared that Hart had a friend who knew some hookers?

So when you say both sides give a pass....yes....that is true...

But with Obama, the media in general gave him a pass.......yet they destroyed Dean and Hart....

Why do you think that was?

But it was out there, obviously, because it was known about. Of course their wasn't blown up coverage like there could have been, and should have been...it could also be attributed to the overall distaste for the Republican party during 2007 and 2008 that had been welling for several years previous.

It was said by some that W got the meatball treatment from the media in 2000 and the main target seemed to be Gore for his rigidness and lack of personality. I tend to agree somewhat with that assessment as well...perhaps the same reasons were in play. Dems had somewhat worn out their welcome by 1999-2000.

perhaps...but ti call came down to the media. There is no doubt that they dictate elections.

I recall Matt Lauer and Meredith (whats her last name?)...

when Fox was vetting the Ayers issue....Matt lauer said this on the morning show...

Paraphrased.....

"wheres some news outlets want to spend time discussing Bill Ayers and his relationship with Senator Obama, we at NBC feel the time should be spent discussing more important issues such as the war overseas and the economy"..

and now...I swear...in the very next breath, Meredith said...

"coming up after the break...and update on Madonnas pending divorce"

I kid you not.

That was NBC dictating to the people what is and what is not important.

 

[gallantwarrior]

looks like the AG...OBAMA's AG, disagrees with him.

It was a trial balloon by Obama, to see if the public would let him overrule the court, like he overruled congress.

Obama is testing whether he has absolute power. It's close, but not yet. No doubt Ginsburg and Kagan would rule that it's constitutional for Obama to declare himself dictator for life. (With Sotomayor ruling "duh, whatever she said.")

That's the second time you've implied that a Wise Latina is incapable of independent thought and consideration. You...you...RACIST!

 

[DontBeStupid]

Calling it a strong majority when he knows it was not is a lie.
Why dont you take him to task for it?

Unless, of couse, you believe that 52.1% IS a "strong" majority..?
If that is indeed the case, then you will be more than happy to argue a 5-4 ScotUS decision was made by a 'stromg majority' of the court and defend any such decisions on those grounds.
Right?

Strong. Weak. Red. Blue. Doesn't change the fact that it was a majority. If he had called it a "decisive majority" or a "confident majority" would you be screaming about him lying?

His "opinion" is that the court cannot strike ANY legislation, as, by defintion, ALL legislation is passed by the majority of the relevant legislature as representative of the will of the people.
This is, of course, inane. Why don't you take Him to task for it?

He has never said or even hinted at the Court not being able strike down ANY legislation. Provide us with a quote where he said it.

The Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, as the left likes to remind us.
He therefore knows that laws are struck by the courts with regular frequency, and thus, the courts striking laws -is- precedented and is -quite- ordinary.
So.... he lied. Why do yo not take him to task for it?

Because you are assuming facts not in evidence. You are assuming you know his context. Yes, laws get struck down and yes, regulations get struck down and if he was referring to that he was wrong, as EVERYONE is saying. But has anything of this size and scope been struck down? I don't think so. Could that be what Obama meant? I don't know. You don't know. To cry over him lying and then DEMAND I also cry over it, that's just ridiculous.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's the second time you've implied that a Wise Latina is incapable of independent thought and consideration. You...you...RACIST!

LOL

All the bullshit the left threw and Thomas actually is true about Sotomayor. That woman is dumb as a brick wall, and was appointed precisely because she would rule exactly as she was instructed. Kagan is her handler.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Calling it a strong majority when he knows it was not is a lie.
Why dont you take him to task for it?

Unless, of couse, you believe that 52.1% IS a "strong" majority..?
If that is indeed the case, then you will be more than happy to argue a 5-4 ScotUS decision was made by a 'stromg majority' of the court and defend any such decisions on those grounds.
Right?

Strong. Weak. Red. Blue. Doesn't change the fact that it was a majority.

You cannot divide the statement up and defend the pieces you want to defend and then ignore the rest.
He LIED. Why don't you take Him to task?

Unless, as I said, you believe that 52.1% IS a "strong" majority..?
If that is indeed the case, then you will be more than happy to argue a 5-4 ScotUS decision was made by a 'stromg majority' of the court and defend any such decisions on those grounds.
Right?

His "opinion" is that the court cannot strike ANY legislation, as, by defintion, ALL legislation is passed by the majority of the relevant legislature as representative of the will of the people.
This is, of course, inane. Why don't you take Him to task for it?

He has never said or even hinted at the Court not being able strike down ANY legislation. Provide us with a quote where he said it.

I have already explained how this is -exactly- what He argued when He said what he said. You may, if you think you can, show how my explanation is wrong, but you cannot pretend that I did not give an explanation.

The Obama was a Constitutional Law professor, as the left likes to remind us.
He therefore knows that laws are struck by the courts with regular frequency, and thus, the courts striking laws -is- precedented and is -quite- ordinary.
So.... he lied. Why do yo not take him to task for it?

Because you are assuming facts not in evidence.

The fact that He was a Con-law professor?
The fact that as such He knows that it is both precedented and ordinary for courts to strike down laws?
Both of those are very much in evidence.
He LIED. Why do you not take Him to task for it?

Yes, laws get struck down and yes, regulations get struck down and if he was referring to that he was wrong, as EVERYONE is saying.

He knows this, and thus, He LIED.
Why do you not take Him to task for it?

 

[Pho_King]

You rethugs are so big on personal responsibility untill it comes time to pay for health care. Then it is freebie health care good. Paying for health care bad. What bull shit. I am tired of paying increasing health care premiums because a bunch of, evidentally mostly Rethugs, are to fuking cheap to pay for health care.

Somebody is paying for the health care provided for those that don't have insurance. Who in the hell you think that is? You think the insurance company is just eating the loss from caring for people that can't pay them? Idiots.

If you are tired of paying increasing health care premiums, why would you support this bill? You are wringing your hands over subsidizing the health care of others...... which is exactly what the ACA does.

 

[Pho_King]

Why does noone seem to be concerned over the imrporiety of a sitting President chastising SCOTUS for a decision that has yet to be rendered?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why does noone seem to be concerned over the imrporiety of a sitting President chastising SCOTUS for a decision that has yet to be rendered?

He can flap his gums all he wants - and, in fact, if he stopped doing so, then he'd do next to nothing.

-My- exception is two-fold:
-That He openly lied to the American people in His statement
-That the liberals/leftists/Democrats do not take Him to task for doing so.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Shooter, I read through this entire thread and found no explanation by you nor quote of Obama threatening the Court as you claim. Nothing. Just because you think something happened, doesn't mean it actually happened. Please provide a quote of Obama threatening the Court.

Beyond that, lets just cut to the chase. You're pissed off because Liberals aren't interpreting Obama's statements EXACTLY the way you want us to. We all agree what he said was confusing and most likely historically inaccurate, but since no one knows exactly what he was trying to refer to, calling him a liar is WAY over the top and not supported with fact.

If you want to label him a liar, despite having no evidence to support the accusation, that's fine. It's a free country. But don't start crying if the rest of don't follow you blindly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shooter, I read through this entire thread and found no explanation by you nor quote of Obama threatening the Court as you claim. Nothing.

Lets try this again:

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

What's the argument here?

That this law was passed by "stong majority" of congress, and therefore should not be oveturned by the court because it represents the will of the people.
Right? If not, then what?

So then...if the above argument is sound for the law in the question, it is then sound for ALL laws, as ALL laws are passed by a democratically elected Congress.

SO... by making that argument, The Obama is, in effect, argiung that NO law shoud be overturned by the court as it represents the will of the poeple, as expressed by a majority of Congress.

This is, of course, inane.

Beyond that, lets just cut to the chase. You're pissed off because Liberals aren't interpreting Obama's statements EXACTLY the way you want us to.

No....
I'm making light of the fact that The Obama, as demonstrated, lied twice, and liberals/leftists/Democrats are giving Him a pass. Your efforts here only serve to prove this point as, rather than accepting the demonstrated fact that he lied, you're equivocating and making excuses.

Why do you feel the need to make excuse for His lies?
Why can't you accept the fact that He lied and take exception to it?
What's the definition of "is"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn’t have anything to do with liberals giving Obama a ‘pass,’ it has to do with the fact liberals aren’t ignorant partisan hacks as are conservatives.

Obama has every right to comment with regard to any case currently under review by the Court; presidents have been speaking out about the Court and cases for decades, certainly as far back as FDR. There is no law, rule, or policy prohibiting a sitting president expressing his opinion accordingly.

Obama is also correct when he states overturning the ACA would be unprecedented in the post-Lochner Era; no law as large and as important to the American people concerning the Commerce Clause has been struck down by the Court since Parrish.

When the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, for example, ruling Congress was not authorized to enact such legislation per the Commerce Clause (see: US v. Lopez), Congress was able to later remove the offending language and reauthorize the Act.

Needless to say, if the ACA were invalidated, there is no way the Act could be reworded or amended to address its unconstitutionality, particularly with regard to the individual mandate.

The president’s comments, therefore, are a non-issue, yet another tedious contrivance by the partisan right.

 

[gallantwarrior]

That's the second time you've implied that a Wise Latina is incapable of independent thought and consideration. You...you...RACIST!

LOL

All the bullshit the left threw and Thomas actually is true about Sotomayor. That woman is dumb as a brick wall, and was appointed precisely because she would rule exactly as she was instructed. Kagan is her handler.

Yeah. I always got a kick how a racist, sexist bigot got vetted and approved by Congress. She'd be hoist on her own petard if the administration wasn't so intent on stacking the court in favor of their "multi-cultural" ideology.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why does noone seem to be concerned over the imrporiety of a sitting President chastising SCOTUS for a decision that has yet to be rendered?

No, no, you have it all wrong...he's expressing his opinion. The fact that in his position, he should refrain from making such opinions public fails to make even the tiniest blip on his apologists' radar.