Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lets try this again:Shooter, I read through this entire thread and found no explanation by you nor quote of Obama threatening the Court as you claim. Nothing.
"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?
Lets try this again:Shooter, I read through this entire thread and found no explanation by you nor quote of Obama threatening the Court as you claim. Nothing.
"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?
The "argument" is that his statement was in no way threatening, and even hard-core anti-Obama people on this board are starting to admit that. You however, seem to think that if Obama voices his opinion toward the Court that is the same as threatening the Court, and that is just ludicrous.
You also seem to think that if Obama EVER says something in error, it must be a lie. Always. Ever. That means you either think him infallible or omniscient. Which is it?
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?
The "argument" is that his statement was in no way threatening, and even hard-core anti-Obama people on this board are starting to admit that. You however, seem to think that if Obama voices his opinion toward the Court that is the same as threatening the Court, and that is just ludicrous.
You also seem to think that if Obama EVER says something in error, it must be a lie. Always. Ever. That means you either think him infallible or omniscient. Which is it?
The threat being made by Obama is a threat to an already shaky public confidence in SCOTUS. President's have no good reason to chastise the Court for decisions rendered by a sitting court. they have even less business chastising the court for a decision they may make on constitutional grounds. Obama's threat to public confidence in the Court is buttressed by his factually incorrect assertion that overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented. I think Obama would do well to remember that he is not a monarch.
What Obama said was nothing but fact. It's not his fault the 4 RW supremes are the most partisan and bought off EVER. Compared to what the gigantic Pub propaganda machine has been blaring, it was very moderate....
You avoided the question and have failed to address the issue surrounding it.Lets try this again:Shooter, I read through this entire thread and found no explanation by you nor quote of Obama threatening the Court as you claim. Nothing.
"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?
The "argument" is that his statement was in no way threatening, and even hard-core anti-Obama people on this board are starting to admit that. You however, seem to think that if Obama voices his opinion toward the Court that is the same as threatening the Court, and that is just ludicrous.
I explained to you how what The Obama said was a lie: He twice presented as fact something He knew to be untrue. That, by defintion, is a lie.You also seem to think that if Obama EVER says something in error, it must be a lie.
I'm sorry -- I didn't see where you repoded to the issues brought up in the OP.What Obama said was nothing but fact. It's not his fault the 4 RW supremes are the most partisan and bought off EVER. Compared to what the gigantic Pub propaganda machine has been blaring, it was very moderate....
The "argument" is that his statement was in no way threatening, and even hard-core anti-Obama people on this board are starting to admit that. You however, seem to think that if Obama voices his opinion toward the Court that is the same as threatening the Court, and that is just ludicrous.
You also seem to think that if Obama EVER says something in error, it must be a lie. Always. Ever. That means you either think him infallible or omniscient. Which is it?
The threat being made by Obama is a threat to an already shaky public confidence in SCOTUS. President's have no good reason to chastise the Court for decisions rendered by a sitting court. they have even less business chastising the court for a decision they may make on constitutional grounds. Obama's threat to public confidence in the Court is buttressed by his factually incorrect assertion that overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented. I think Obama would do well to remember that he is not a monarch.
"threat to public confidence " ?? What the fuck does that mean?
Look, Obama has in no way threatened the Court. Has he threatened to stack the Court? No. Has he threatened to push through a Constitutional Amendment? No. Has he threatened them with impeachment? No. Has he threatened them with bodily harm? No.
He. Has. Not. Threatened. The. Court.
The threat being made by Obama is a threat to an already shaky public confidence in SCOTUS. President's have no good reason to chastise the Court for decisions rendered by a sitting court. they have even less business chastising the court for a decision they may make on constitutional grounds. Obama's threat to public confidence in the Court is buttressed by his factually incorrect assertion that overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented. I think Obama would do well to remember that he is not a monarch.
"threat to public confidence " ?? What the fuck does that mean?
Look, Obama has in no way threatened the Court. Has he threatened to stack the Court? No. Has he threatened to push through a Constitutional Amendment? No. Has he threatened them with impeachment? No. Has he threatened them with bodily harm? No.
He. Has. Not. Threatened. The. Court.
What part of "threat to undermine public confidence in SCOTUS" are you having trouble understanding?
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.
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.
The right to an abortion was based on the right of privacy which is not an invention.
"threat to public confidence " ?? What the fuck does that mean?
Look, Obama has in no way threatened the Court. Has he threatened to stack the Court? No. Has he threatened to push through a Constitutional Amendment? No. Has he threatened them with impeachment? No. Has he threatened them with bodily harm? No.
He. Has. Not. Threatened. The. Court.
What part of "threat to undermine public confidence in SCOTUS" are you having trouble understanding?
I have now THREE times told him what the threat was...he just refuses to acknowledge it.
So I will say it again...
When someone with a voice like the Presidednt has the ears of listeners and speaks derogatorily of something, it threatens the integrity and this the credibility of the subject.
If someone you turst tells you that he is concerned that the new restaurant may be using improper food products to prepare meals, you are less likely to trust that restaurant..even if the person you trust offers up no actual proof.
This is human nature.
Obama has threatened the credibility of the SCOTUS in the eys of the people.....especially those that trust him.
Gingrich got a pass when he said that activist judges should be arrested.
I'm sorry -- I dont see your response to the OP.,Gingrich got a pass when he said that activist judges should be arrested.
Still waiting for you to address this...What part of "threat to undermine public confidence in SCOTUS" are you having trouble understanding?
I have now THREE times told him what the threat was...he just refuses to acknowledge it.
So I will say it again...
When someone with a voice like the Presidednt has the ears of listeners and speaks derogatorily of something, it threatens the integrity and this the credibility of the subject.
If someone you turst tells you that he is concerned that the new restaurant may be using improper food products to prepare meals, you are less likely to trust that restaurant..even if the person you trust offers up no actual proof.
This is human nature.
Obama has threatened the credibility of the SCOTUS in the eys of the people.....especially those that trust him.
But what you are describing is not a threat. Saying damaging remarks about a restaurant or Court is not threatening. It's damaging. There's a difference, and I think you all know that.
"Decide my way or else ... " THAT is a threat and Obama said absolutely nothing remotely close to it.
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?
It doesnt have anything to do with liberals giving Obama a pass,
it has to do with the fact liberals arent ignorant partisan hacks as are conservatives.
The "argument" is that his statement was in no way threatening, and even hard-core anti-Obama people on this board are starting to admit that. You however, seem to think that if Obama voices his opinion toward the Court that is the same as threatening the Court, and that is just ludicrous.
You also seem to think that if Obama EVER says something in error, it must be a lie. Always. Ever. That means you either think him infallible or omniscient. Which is it?
