Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[M14 Shooter]

The Framers of the Constitution didn't give to the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitutionality of laws made by Congress.

Or, the laws of the states.
SO you ALSO argue that Roe v Wade was not just legislating from the bench, but an illegitimate exercise of judicial power, should have never been heard, much less decided upon, and is, in every way, improper.

 

[saveliberty]

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

The case merely restates what was already granted in the Constitution:

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,

 

[sealybobo]

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?

You don't get it? From 1886 until Citizens United, Corporations were not people. All of the sudden Alito and Roberts are appointed and this is overturned? And you don't see they are playing politics? Ok.

the railroad barons of the era were successful in a coup against the Supreme Court. One of their own was the Reporter for the Supreme Court, and they courted Justice Stephen Field with, among other things, the possibility of support for a presidential run. In the National Archives, we also recently found letters from the railroads offering free trips and other benefits to the 1886 Court's Chief Justice, Morrison R. Waite.

Waite, however, didn't give in: he refused to rule the railroad corporations were persons in the same category as humans. Thus, the railroad barons resorted to plan B: they got human rights for corporations inserted in the Court Reporter's headnotes in the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, even though the court itself had chosen not to rule on the constitutionality of the railroad's corporate claims to human rights.

And, based on the Reporter's headnotes (and ignoring the actual ruling), subsequent Courts have expanded those human rights for corporations. These now include the First Amendment human right of free speech (including corporate "speech" to influence politics - something that was a felony in most states prior to 1886), the Fourth Amendment human right to privacy (so a chemical company has successfully sued to prevent the EPA from performing surprise inspections - while retaining the right to perform surprise inspections of its own employees' bodily fluids and phone conversations).

The Railroad Barons Are Back - And This Time They'll Finish the Job

 

[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.

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.

In which Liablity comes out and agrees with me..and the court decisions..





Made my day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

You don't get it?

No - I -don't- get how they could be legislating from the bench "right now", as you claim, when they have not yet made a decison, as you noted.

Please explain how you could be right in this regard.

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

 

[saveliberty]

The possiblity that a large corporation could be single-minded in a political belief system is ridiculous on its face. Since it can easily have conflicting opinions on the same topic, how can it be denied free speech?

 

[sealybobo]

When I was a teenager, it was a felony in parts of the United States to advise a married couple about how to practice birth control. This ended in 1965, in the Griswold v. Connecticut case before the U.S. Supreme Court, when the Court reversed the criminal conviction of a Planned Parenthood program director who had discussed contraception with a married couple, and of a doctor who had prescribed a birth-control device to them.

The majority of the Court summarized their ruling by saying, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy...."

However, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart disagreed back in 1965, saying that he could find no "right of privacy" in the Constitution of the United States. Using his logic, under the laws of the day, the couple in question could themselves have been sent to prison for using birth control in their own bedroom.

As Justice Stewart wrote in his dissent in the case, "Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone.... What provision of the Constitution, then, makes this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy 'created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.' With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."

In that view of American law, Justice Clarence Thomas - George W. Bush's "role model" for future Supreme Court nominees - agrees.

In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Thomas wrote, "just like Justice Stewart, I 'can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,' or as the Court terms it today, the 'liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.'"

Echoing Thomas' so-called conservative perspective, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program on June 27, 2003, "There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Jerry Falwell similarly agreed on Fox News.

Limbaugh and Thomas may soon also point out to us that the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a right to marry, and thus license that function exclusively to, say, Falwell. The Constitution doesn't grant a right to eat, or to read, or to have children. Yet do we doubt these are rights we hold?

The simple reality is that there are many "rights" that are not specified in the Constitution, but which we daily enjoy and cannot be taken away from us by the government. But if that's the case, Bush and Thomas would say, why doesn't the Constitution list those rights in the Bill of Rights?

Dear Clarence Thomas: It Happened on July 4, 1776

 

[sealybobo]

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?

You don't get it?

No - I -don't- get how they could be legislating from the bench "right now", as you claim, when they have not yet made a decison, as you noted.

Please explain how you could be right in this regard.

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

Ohhh you got me!

 

[saveliberty]

What part of all rights not enumerated to the federal or state government are retained by its citizens causes you trouble?

Please link where Thomas has suggested what you stated. Before you try to use the link you used above, remember there was another party present who also had rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When I was a teenager...

Don't you mean three yesrs from now, when you will BE a teenager...?

I don't get how they could be legislating from the bench "right now", as you claim, when they have not yet made a decison, as you noted.

Please explain how you could be right in this regard.

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


And then... tell us how you oppose Roe v Wade on the ground that it was outside the court's perview to decide.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't get it?

No - I -don't- get how they could be legislating from the bench "right now", as you claim, when they have not yet made a decison, as you noted.

Please explain how you could be right in this regard.

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

Ohhh you got me!

SO.... when you said "they are legislating from the bench right now"...

Were you lying, or just talking out your ass?

 

[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.

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?

 

[sealybobo]

"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.

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?

In a bizarre re-writing of American history, Scalia advocated the new conservative doctrine he calls "originalism," to which he and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas subscribe. According to Scalia and Thomas, the government gives us rights. And, they say, if rights weren't explicitly written into the Constitution, they don't exist.

Do you agree with that?

In his belief that we get our rights from our government, Scalia is more closely following the logic of dictators and theocrats than of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.

Until Scalia and Thomas came along, modern Supreme Court justices generally understood that we don't get our rights from laws. Civil and human rights don't even come from the Constitution - as the Declaration of Independence notes, they pre-existed it.

("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...")


Bush & Scalia: "You want privacy rights? Pass a law!" -- A BuzzFlash Guest Contribution

 

[asaratis]

Newt's Big Whopper on the Individual Mandate | Mother Jones




Pressed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) at Saturday's GOP presidential debate, Newt Gingrich offered a clever explanation for his longtime support for an individual mandate for health insurance. As the former speaker of the House told it, he had supported the mandate in 1993 specifically as an alternative to Hillarycare. The mandate was, he noted, a Republican idea. But "after Hillarycare disappeared…people tried to find other techniques."

Deflection.

Newt's Big Whopper on the Individual Mandate | Mother Jones


Pressed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) at Saturday's GOP presidential debate, Newt Gingrich offered a clever explanation for his longtime support for an individual mandate for health insurance. As the former speaker of the House told it, he had supported the mandate in 1993 specifically as an alternative to Hillarycare. The mandate was, he noted, a Republican idea. But "after Hillarycare disappeared…people tried to find other techniques."

Oh...I see....one man who supported it 20 yerars ago is ALL OF THE GOP.

Go back to masturbating. It keeps your sorry ass off this forum.

Deflection.

Why is everyone glossing over the fact that Obama is trying to influence a court on a decision that they are currently considering?

This thread is not about all the shit everyone is arguing about. It's about the audacity of Obama.

Let's be honest here, Grampa...if Obama had the "audacity" to use his State of the Union address to publicly chastise the conservative members of the Supreme Court who were giving him respect by attending said address...why are you in any way suprised by Obama trying to influence the Court now?

He's convinced himself (despite all evidence to the contrary...) that he's smarter than those that he rules over and therefore has the right to tell them what to do.

who was it that had the audacity to take us to war on a pile of lies and get Americans killed for it?

Deflection.

who was it that had the audacity to take us to war on a pile of lies and get Americans killed for it?

In order to wage "war" W. needed the approval of Congress which he overwhelmingly got. So if you want to ask who it was that took us to war, TM...then you'd best look at EVERYONE who voted to go to war based on the intelligence we had at the time and in case you've forgotten...that included most of the Democrats serving in Congress.

why do you pretend the Bush addmin did not also LIE to congress?

Deflection.

That's the liberal way. "When presented with evidence that our Dear Leader has LIED, present occurrences in which we think conservatives have lied. This excuses Dear Leader for lying. Therefore, his statement was the current truth. The precedence has been set. It's okay to lie to the American people. Long live our Dear Leader!"

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[sealybobo]

No - I -don't- get how they could be legislating from the bench "right now", as you claim, when they have not yet made a decison, as you noted.

Please explain how you could be right in this regard.

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

Ohhh you got me!

SO.... when you said "they are legislating from the bench right now"...

Were you lying, or just talking out your ass?

They have been practicing judicial activism since Bush put Alito on the bench. We are just warning them in advance because we know they are right wing political hacks legislating from the bench.

President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.

"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 at a news conference

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.

"It's not that common for presidents to get into direct verbal confrontations with the Supreme Court," said Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman. "But it's also not that common for the Supreme Court to threaten to override one of the president's central legislative accomplishments."

Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare | Reuters

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So Reuters is reporting on Obamas tempertantrum too

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So Reuters is reporting on Obamas tempertantrum too

Did they actually call it that?

 

[Listening]

"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.

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?

In a bizarre re-writing of American history, Scalia advocated the new conservative doctrine he calls "originalism," to which he and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas subscribe. According to Scalia and Thomas, the government gives us rights. And, they say, if rights weren't explicitly written into the Constitution, they don't exist.

Do you agree with that?

In his belief that we get our rights from our government, Scalia is more closely following the logic of dictators and theocrats than of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton.

Until Scalia and Thomas came along, modern Supreme Court justices generally understood that we don't get our rights from laws. Civil and human rights don't even come from the Constitution - as the Declaration of Independence notes, they pre-existed it.

("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...")


Bush & Scalia: "You want privacy rights? Pass a law!" -- A BuzzFlash Guest Contribution

And who determines what those rights are ?

If you believe there is a right to privacy....pass a law.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So Reuters is reporting on Obamas tempertantrum too

Did they actually call it that?

The media is rarely honest, so no.

 

[saveliberty]

Wonder if one or two of the justices will step down before Obama's term ends? Should a liberal leave the bench during the next adminstration, the results might not be helpful to their cause.