Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[M14 Shooter]

They are doing it right now with Obamacare!

Under what defintion?
How is that definitin legitimate?
How do their actions meet that definition?

I love how you righties see it when liberal judges "legislate from the bench" but can't see i when your sides doing it....

Since you failed to address the questions, I will ask again:

According to you:

[The court is] [legislating from the bench] right now with Obamacare!

Under what defintion?
How is that definition legitimate?
How do their actions meet that definition?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Nonsense. You claim that "Over the last decade the Supreme Court:"

-Decided and installed an American President. False. They simply stepped in to stop the meddling and lawlessness of the Florida Supreme Court.

-Decided that private corporations can take over the land of a private citizen to further their own profit. Semi-false. What the court actually held was that GOVERNMENT can do so under "eminent domain" in a scenario that is akin to the way you otherwise described there. IMHO, the SCOTUS was DEAD WRONG on that one.

-Decided that a state's laws prohibiting the keeping of hand guns went "to far". Or too far? Yeah. Imagine thinking that the Second amendment is part of the constitution? Outwage!

-Overturned a century's worth of election finance reform. Blather. In actuality, they simply decided that the proper way to address the topic did NOT validly include violation of the First Amendment.

-Decided there was a "time limit" on when an employee can bring a case against an employer for unfair wage discrimination. Outwage again! Imagine the NOIVE of doze guys thinking that there is a legal notion known as a statute of limitations.

-Decided that a Vice President's meetings with private corporations to determine public policy was secret and not subject to review. Actually, what they decided was that in order to get open and honest input, where it might otherwise not be forthcoming, the government policy-makers CAN provide some secrecy to the parties who offer advice.

-Decided not to hear cases concerning indefinite detention. So? A decision not to decide is a valid decision, too.

-Decided that police can strip search private citizens no matter what the cause. Yeah? There is certainly much debate that either side can offer on that topic. And the SCOTUS came down on the side of one disputant. While you and I might disagree, that doesn't mean that the decision was either lawless or even wrong.

I didnt bother to do this because I know she doesn't have the capacity to defend her points.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Too damn funny. Now they're an activist court for a decision that has yet to be made. You lefties have no boundaries do you?

 

[Jarhead]

Too damn funny. Now they're an activist court for a decision that has yet to be made. You lefties have no boundaries do you?

well...their leader said it so it must be true.

 

[sealybobo]

They are doing it right now with Obamacare!

Today kicks off three straight days of oral arguments before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of Obamacare. If the court ends up siding with the right-wing state Attorneys General who are in the pocket of the for-profit health insurance industry, then 50 million Americans will lose access to healthcare.

Not to mention – 17 million children will be denied insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions – and more than 100 million Americans will have to live in fear that their insurance company will cap them just when they need a life-saving procedure. While Obamacare isn’t perfect – and our nation should eventually adopt a single-payer system that makes health care a basic human right like in the rest of the developed world – the law is at least a start.

So now all eyes are on the Supreme Court and whether five unelected right-wing judges will put politics and corporate profits above the health of the nation.

They haven't decided on this case yet. They are looking at the legislation(law), as is their authority as outlined in article 3 of the us constitution, to decide if the law follows the limits on power placed on the federal govt by the constitution or not.

If they uphold the law or throw the law out they are not legislating from the bench.
If they edit the law or take parts out to change the law then they are legislating from the bench.

They haven't got to that point yet so you can not say one way or the other.


Pick a decided case that has a majority and dissenting opinion then explain to me how their decision was legislating from the bench.

you are wasting your time.

AZs I pointed out in the post before thios one...his conclusions are based purely on rediculous assumptions.

To him, anything will come across as partisan as he sees anyone who thinks differently than he does as evil and money driven.

That's what we think about you. Activist Judges Legislating from the Bench is just another way of saying you disagree with their decision.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE! However, because of a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter's notes in an 1886 railroad tax case, corporations are now legally considered "persons," equal to humans and entitled to many of the same protections guaranteed only to humans by the Bill of Rights - a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founders of the United States. The results of this "corporate personhood" have been:
Unequal taxes
Unequal privacy
Unequal wealth
Unequal trade
Unequal media
Unequal regulation
Unequal responsibility for crime
Unequal protection from risk
Unequal citizenship and access to the commons

End Corporate Personhood - tribe.net

Since Thomas Jefferson the Corporations have been unsuccessfully trying to gain personhood. Until Citizens United. If that isn't activist judges legislating for the rich from the bench, I don't know what is. If them lowering the settlement awarded to the Exxon Valdez victims isn't that too, please explain to me why.

You can't, and won't. My conclusions are based on my observations and facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When his one term is up Obama should move and start his own country taking his loyal followers with him

I would like nothing more than to have the Blue and Red states split up. You middle class Republicans would soon come running back to us begging to forgive you and looking for a good paying job with affordable healthcare.

But you would have to buy products that are made in our country. No more buying from China. And the rich don't run our government/banks and country. They pay their fair share in taxes too. And we don't go bankrupt on war. And you don't get social security or medicare. Trust me, 99% of you will die broke with a free unregulated economy. No unions so wages are really low. But Walmart will have everything you ever need including furnature because that will be all you can afford.

A gang of Mexicans armed with Fast and Furious assault weapons will cross the border and take over all the Blue states.

And we'll laugh

 

[grunt11b]

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?

He should not have signed into law something he knew to be unconstitutional if he did not want the supreme court to rule it as such.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Too damn funny. Now they're an activist court for a decision that has yet to be made. You lefties have no boundaries do you?

Let's just say, they're fuckin' with.....

....the WRONG DUDE!!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

​

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They haven't decided on this case yet. They are looking at the legislation(law), as is their authority as outlined in article 3 of the us constitution, to decide if the law follows the limits on power placed on the federal govt by the constitution or not.

If they uphold the law or throw the law out they are not legislating from the bench.
If they edit the law or take parts out to change the law then they are legislating from the bench.

They haven't got to that point yet so you can not say one way or the other.


Pick a decided case that has a majority and dissenting opinion then explain to me how their decision was legislating from the bench.

you are wasting your time.

AZs I pointed out in the post before thios one...his conclusions are based purely on rediculous assumptions.

To him, anything will come across as partisan as he sees anyone who thinks differently than he does as evil and money driven.

That's what we think about you. Activist Judges Legislating from the Bench is just another way of saying you disagree with their decision.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE! However, because of a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter's notes in an 1886 railroad tax case, corporations are now legally considered "persons," equal to humans and entitled to many of the same protections guaranteed only to humans by the Bill of Rights - a clear contradiction of the intent of the Founders of the United States. The results of this "corporate personhood" have been:
Unequal taxes
Unequal privacy
Unequal wealth
Unequal trade
Unequal media
Unequal regulation
Unequal responsibility for crime
Unequal protection from risk
Unequal citizenship and access to the commons

End Corporate Personhood - tribe.net

Since Thomas Jefferson the Corporations have been unsuccessfully trying to gain personhood. Until Citizens United. If that isn't activist judges legislating for the rich from the bench, I don't know what is. If them lowering the settlement awarded to the Exxon Valdez victims isn't that too, please explain to me why.

You can't, and won't. My conclusions are based on my observations and facts.

What does any of this have to do with Obama throwing a hissy fit?

 

[saveliberty]

The court is currently showing that the Constitution does not saying something Congress and the President say it does. That is limiting government power and not legislating from the bench. To allow something the Constitution doesn't say is legislating from the bench and usually how liberals operate on the court.

 

[sealybobo]

Under what defintion?
How is that definitin legitimate?
How do their actions meet that definition?

I love how you righties see it when liberal judges "legislate from the bench" but can't see i when your sides doing it....

Since you failed to address the questions, I will ask again:

According to you:
[The court is] [legislating from the bench] right now with Obamacare!

Under what defintion?
How is that definitin legitimate?
How do their actions meet that definition?

They haven't decided yet stupid. But based on their past decisions and the questions they are asking, Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are right wing legislatures.

I remember you guys even bragging about it when Obama and Pelosi/Reed took over. Your side said you would just challange anything they did and take it to the Supreme Court and overturn it.

THis is why winning the 2000 and 2004 elections was so important. Bush needed to appoint right wingers. I don't need to prove or convince you. You are brainwashed so nothing I say will sink in.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Too damn funny. Now they're an activist court for a decision that has yet to be made. You lefties have no boundaries do you?

Let's just say, they're fuckin' with.....

....the WRONG DUDE!!!!!

.

.

.

.

.

​

Let's just say you belong in a padded room.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I love how you righties see it when liberal judges "legislate from the bench" but can't see i when your sides doing it....

Since you failed to address the questions, I will ask again:

According to you:
[The court is] [legislating from the bench] right now with Obamacare!

Under what defintion?
How is that definitin legitimate?
How do their actions meet that definition?

They haven't decided yet stupid.

So....
How are they legislating from the bench, "right now", as you claim?

 

[sealybobo]

Since you failed to address the questions, I will ask again:

According to you:
[The court is] [legislating from the bench] right now with Obamacare!

Under what defintion?
How is that definitin legitimate?
How do their actions meet that definition?

They haven't decided yet stupid.

So....
How are they legislating from the bench, "right now", as you claim?

You've had your head burried in the sand this long. Why stop now?

Samuel Alito not only would support such expansions of Presidential power on the Supreme Court, he was the author and/or principle proponent of several of the devices used today by Bush to secure such power (including the argument that the power of the Presidency is "unitary").

The vote this week about Samuel Alito is not a vote about Republicans versus Democrats. It's a vote about the future of democracy in the United States of America.

Do we accept Madison's vision of a nation in search of peace and with personal privacy intact, or do we embrace Sam Alito's vision of questionable elections, concentration camps, spying on citizens to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, repression of women's and minority rights, and war without end?

As our legislators vote, we must carefully note their positions on this issue. Their oath of office is not to the President or even to "protect the people," but to the Constitution. And it is the Constitution - and the future of our democratic republic - that is at stake here.

Alito - It's the Constitution That's At Stake

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

From the looks of this thread the left is going to lose their minds if this is thrown out.

*grabs popcorn for good times*

 

[M14 Shooter]

They haven't decided yet stupid.

So....
How are they legislating from the bench, "right now", as you claim?

You've had your head burried in the sand this long. Why stop now?

I asked you a question, son. Don't run from it.

You claimed that they were legislating from the bench, "right now."
You then stated that they have not yet decided on the case.

I ask again:
If they have not yet made a decision, as you said, how are they legislating from the bench, "right now", as you claim?

 

[M14 Shooter]

From the looks of this thread the left is going to lose their minds if this is thrown out.

*grabs popcorn for good times*

I'm -all- for that.
Their public lunacy will -certainly- appeal to the moderates and bring them in droves to vote for The Obama.

 

[sealybobo]

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court itself did this, in an unanimous opinion written by the notorious Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbry v. Madison in 1803. This decision - handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president - so upset Jefferson that he suggested (in a letter to Abigail Adams on 9/11/1804) that if the Court were to fall into the wrong hands, it "would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

The new Federalists - Bush's Republicans - clearly fear We The People, and cherish their own power to rule independent of us. And if they can seize control of the Supreme Court before the next elections, their power may become nearly absolute.

Supreme Court - Media Ignore Possible "Fascist" Play

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So....
How are they legislating from the bench, "right now", as you claim?

You've had your head burried in the sand this long. Why stop now?

I asked you a question, son. Don't run from it.

You claimed that they were legislating from the bench, "right now."
You then stated that they have not yet decided on the case.

I ask again:
If they have not yet made a decision, as you said, how are they legislating from the bench, "right now", as you claim?

He cant, he trapped and exposed himself. You should stop playing with him now cause its turning into cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court itself did this, in an unanimous opinion written by the notorious Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbry v. Madison in 1803. This decision - handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president - so upset Jefferson that he suggested (in a letter to Abigail Adams on 9/11/1804) that if the Court were to fall into the wrong hands, it "would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

The new Federalists - Bush's Republicans - clearly fear We The People, and cherish their own power to rule independent of us. And if they can seize control of the Supreme Court before the next elections, their power may become nearly absolute.

Supreme Court - Media Ignore Possible "Fascist" Play

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Hope?

Change?