Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[saveliberty]

ok, so the five conservative judges werent elected. but the other 4 were?

None of them were elected, the left just holds it against five of them.

Let's not even get into who's qualified...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Fact is, the Supremes have been acting badly the last decade.

Fact is, YOU were either lying or talking out your ass.
Something you and The Obama have in commin, except that He KNOWS he was talking out His ass.

You still haven't answered so I'll assume the question was over your head. You righties talk about liberties. Is your right to privacy inherent? Do you even have the right to privacy without the government explicitly giving it to you? Because it is your side suggesting that you do not have the right to privacy. Good luck living in that world of freedom and liberty. You guys haven't a clue. Don't bother replying, I'm logging off. Don't even care what you reply because I'm sure it will just be or

Mom told you to get off the thing?.....same old Bobo....you cheap bastard.....buy one for yourself....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.


Read more: Judges Order Justice Department To Clarify Obama Remarks On Health Law Case | Fox News

They should get a reply by Thursday Jan 2013

 

[JoeB131]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

 

[Intense]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

It is apparent that appearance is more important to you than justice. When was that not the case? That and Smear.

 

[saveliberty]

POS Executive.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

A racist liberal Jew hating Muslim loving democrat is not supposed to give advice nor be paid attention to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact is, the Supremes have been acting badly the last decade.

Fact is, YOU were either lying or talking out your ass.
Something you and The Obama have in commin, except that He KNOWS he was talking out His ass.

You still haven't answered....

You're STILL about 6 questions behind, son.

But, since I am kind and benevolent, even to partisan bigots such as yourself, I will allow you skip out on all of those questons, save one:

What do you think of the court's decision in Roe v Wade?

 

[Conservative]

Attorney General Eric Holder, in response to a court order to explain whether the administration thinks judges can overturn federal laws following Obama's warning to the Supreme Court over the health law case, says: 'We respect the decisions made by the courts since Marbury v. Madison... Courts have final say.'

looks like Obama's AG doesn't agree with him.

 

[saveliberty]

Jury is still out. The Constitutional Law President says different.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

So does this mean that the right is going to stop throwing hissy fits over Roe v. Wade?

If you have Five Republican Justices overturn a major piece of legislation on a partisan vote, it's going to be seen as a partisan act.

It would also be wrong, just as a lot of the liberal judicial activism you guys complain about is wrong.

If you want to overturn ObamaRomneyCare, then elect a president you can trust (not the Weird Mormon Robot you are foisting right now, this was his idea to start with!) and get a congress to change the law.

you are comparing the President of the United States to conservative commentators?

Commentators are paid to offer their opinion on the 3 branch system

The Potus is elected based on his BELEIF in the 3 branch system.

Would you want to hire a COO to run your company exactly as it had been running if he believed your company was flawed?
T

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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?

So Roe V Wade, isn't that precedent of the courts overturning a law

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie, ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

 

[Katzndogz]

Roe was judicial activism. The court said that no right to abortion exists so they would create a penumbra right to abortion carved out of the right to privacy. The limitations imposed by Roe would never be tolerated today. It would never have become law.

 

[Katzndogz]

Attorney General Eric Holder, in response to a court order to explain whether the administration thinks judges can overturn federal laws following Obama's warning to the Supreme Court over the health law case, says: 'We respect the decisions made by the courts since Marbury v. Madison... Courts have final say.'

looks like Obama's AG doesn't agree with him.

The problem Holder has, is that HIS attorney was arguing this same thing on a health care law challenge and he STILL has to write that letter.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

It doesn't matter if it was 80% who voted for it in the congress if the law is not constitutional the supreme court's JOB is to strike it down.

 

[Sallow]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

Listen missy..I am a guy.

So don't get your vagina in a bunch. K?

 

[Listening]

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?

So Roe V Wade, isn't that precedent of the courts overturning a law

Not really.

It was Harry "The Asshole" Blackmun and Co. (including the Chief POS Earl Warren) who decided they should take over what had been a state issue for 200 years.

All in the name of what is right.

So, they did not overturn previous federal law.

It was a true example of legislating from the bench.

And the resulting decision was awful (in addition to being flat our wrong). They never should have heard the case.

 

[Liability]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

Listen missy..I am a guy.

So don't get your vagina in a bunch. K?

Sallow is on the rag.

 

[Sallow]

According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".

5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.

SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.

It doesn't matter if it was 80% who voted for it in the congress if the law is not constitutional the supreme court's JOB is to strike it down.

And as I've been pointing out..the court's view of the Constitution has been arbitary and partisan. If they keep this up..other branches of the government have the right to change the rules of the judicary. Such as making recusals mandatory as they are in the lower courts. They can also increase the number of judges in the SCOTUS. And they are inviting things like that to happen.