Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[saveliberty]

So the irony of the whole Supreme Court thing is that while the Court was never given the power to declare a law unconstitutonal, we accept the Courts power to do so simply because the Court said it had that power.

...or you could just read the Constitution and see where it was a power granted to the Supreme Court. The ruling just reinforced it.

Article three; section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

 

[Listening]

Judge halts Obama’s oil-drilling ban

So every time a judge makes a decision he or she thinks is illegal, then they are right? Why have a congress or a president? just let the judiciary run the country...

Judge Feldman

owned stock in Transocean, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, as well as in other oil companies which could be affected by the moratorium.[8] Feldman's 2009 financial disclosure report [2] indicates that he had financial investments in BlackRock, the largest holder of BP stock. Additionally, Feldman held stock in Exxon-Mobil, a company that operates one of the 33 deepwater rigs.

Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[edit]

Sounds like a recall...but you use it to justify weakening the institution.

Go figure.

Ann Coulter could kick David Letterman's ass any day of the week in a battle of wits.

 

[saveliberty]

Ann Coulter could kick his ass period.

 

[Dr Grump]

So every time a judge makes a decision he or she thinks is illegal, then they are right? Why have a congress or a president? just let the judiciary run the country...

Judge Feldman

owned stock in Transocean, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, as well as in other oil companies which could be affected by the moratorium.[8] Feldman's 2009 financial disclosure report [2] indicates that he had financial investments in BlackRock, the largest holder of BP stock. Additionally, Feldman held stock in Exxon-Mobil, a company that operates one of the 33 deepwater rigs.

Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[edit]

Sounds like a recall...but you use it to justify weakening the institution.

Go figure.

Ann Coulter could kick David Letterman's ass any day of the week in a battle of wits.

So you think it OK for a judge to hear a case that he has a vested financial interest in? Of course you do. You righties love no regulations on anything - whether it be water or Wall St - just let all the rich and powerful ride roughshod over every one else..

While Letterman is no Einstein, Coulter makes him look like Stephen Hawking when it comes to intellect...

 

[saveliberty]

The neutrality of your article is cautioned right in the source Dr. Grump, nice. Many times stocks are held within a mutual fund which I rarely know the exact content. Your sweeping generalizations say far more of your hatred and blind partisanship. Hack away.

 

[Listening]

Judge Feldman

Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[edit]

Sounds like a recall...but you use it to justify weakening the institution.

Go figure.

Ann Coulter could kick David Letterman's ass any day of the week in a battle of wits.

So you think it OK for a judge to hear a case that he has a vested financial interest in? Of course you do. You righties love no regulations on anything - whether it be water or Wall St - just let all the rich and powerful ride roughshod over every one else..

While Letterman is no Einstein, Coulter makes him look like Stephen Hawking when it comes to intellect...

If the was a conflict of interest, there should have been a complaint lodged.

But you don't walk away from an institution (and then turn around and lecture the same institution on their duties....especially when you are dead wrong.

Letterman is no Einstein...that is true.

That Coulter would wipe up the floor with his ugly mug...is also true.

Letterman would need a wheelchair when she was through.

 

[thereisnospoon]

He's absolutely right.

Over the last decade the Supreme Court:

1-Decided and installed an American President.
2-Decided that private corporations can take over the land of a private citizen to further their own profit.
3-Decided that a state's laws prohibiting the keeping of hand guns went "to far".
4-Overturned a century's worth of election finance reform.
5-Decided there was a "time limit" on when an employee can bring a case against an employer for unfair wage discrimination
6-Decided that a Vice President's meetings with private corporations to determine public policy was secret and not subject to review.
7-Decided not to hear cases concerning indefinite detention.
8-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.

1 No, the people of the United States decided and installed the American President you claim the Supreme Court did. The SCOTUS merely agreed the vote in Florida would stand after 3 counts in favor of the same candidate. That's all they did and you know that's all they did.
2 Eminent domain is a fact of life. Cities grow, streets have to be widened, people get bought out cheap. You just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start over as best you can when it happens to you. It happened to my business as well as a piece of my property. I have to say it wasn't pleasant, but in the end, my community benefitted from it, and that made all the difference in the world to me.
3 It's their job to defend the Second Amendment. It's part and parcel of the Constitution.
4 Plugged loopholes against cheaters at the polls? aw, I'm hurtin' all over.
5. Other people get 2 years to settle money disputes. After that it's bye-bye money. Why divide citizens into classes and give one class a privilege over another as a consequence. That is sounding like the SCOTUS again supported the laws of the land.
6 That's right. Those meetings were to benefit people who employed boatloads of people at very good wages. Government function of the executive branch does not need to be impeded by the judicial branch when fairness is around, and that's all there is to it.
7 Case against indefinite detention was turned away? Well, the consequences of the crime may have been another got an indefinite detention wrongfully, on the other side.
8 The police can check to make sure a killer isn't hiding a set of brass knuckles in his rectum. Aw, too bad.

I really hate debating the good-looking studs around here ...

no becki, your number 1 is incorrect. the SCOTUS stopped the count. this specifically went against precedent which always deferred to the highest court of a state making decisions about that state's election laws. so that is not "all that they did". the decision is so bad that for the only time i know of in the history of the high court, they said the decision could not be used as precedent.

Lieberman was adamant that the best way to solve the election mystery was through the courts. His words. So that was the way it was handled. Now the revisionist liberals, pissed off because they didn't win, ***** about the courts.
Can't have it both ways, sweet lumps.
We hear statements on the other side quite frequently to the effect that we've had a count and a recount and another recount. But that's really beside the point. What we're talking about involves many thousands of votes that have never been counted at all. And if we ignore the votes that have been cast, then where does that lead? The integrity of our democracy depends upon the consent of the governed, freely expressed in an election where every vote is counted.
"I want to make it very clear that this really is about much more than which candidate wins and which candidate loses. It is about the integrity of our system of government. And that integrity can only be assured if every vote that is legally cast is actually counted according to the laws of America including the laws of Florida. And that's really the principle that we're standing upon. And under Florida law the law says when votes haven't been counted, you go court and say "Look, here's the situation. Take a look at it and do the right thing." And that's essentially what we're doing."

Source: Conference call with Lieberman, Daschle, Gephardt, and Gore Nov 27, 2000..
Then Lieberman reverses course on the courts....
Q: Senator Lieberman, Vice President Gore told John King today that he thought there’d be a negative reaction if the Florida legislature got involved in this. Do you share that view?

A: Oh, I sure do, Larry. I think that would be terrible. I tell you, one of the most disappointing moments of this whole experience post-election, was the night that the Florida Supreme Court gave it’s decision saying that these hand counts of these counties should go forward and the secretary of state should count them. And folks from the Bush campaign immediately talked about going to the Florida legislature. That would set a terrible precedent. I mean, this is all about the rule of law, established procedures. The courts can interpret statutes then reflect the votes of the people who took the time to go to the polls to vote.

When I say it would be a terrible precedent, if, in fact, as we expect, the Florida electors will be chosen and certified by December 12th, and let’s say they’re our electors because the counts have gone forward and show that we won the state, what an awful precedent it would be for the Florida legislature to go ahead and choose its own electors. Because it would set a precedent that would say in another state in the next election, if the legislature is controlled by one party, the presidential candidate of another party carries the state, the legislature could them come up with some reason to send its own electors to Washington and frustrate the will of the majority of voters in the state. That’s not right.

Source: Lieberman interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” Nov 29, 2000

 

[Dr Grump]

The neutrality of your article is cautioned right in the source Dr. Grump, nice. Many times stocks are held within a mutual fund which I rarely know the exact content. Your sweeping generalizations say far more of your hatred and blind partisanship. Hack away.

I didn't post any article.
I have hatred of no one, and some partisanship - just like you...

As for stocks, I know what stocks are in my mutual fund...;o)

 

[Dr Grump]

If the was a conflict of interest, there should have been a complaint lodged.

But you don't walk away from an institution (and then turn around and lecture the same institution on their duties....especially when you are dead wrong.

Letterman is no Einstein...that is true.

That Coulter would wipe up the floor with his ugly mug...is also true.

Letterman would need a wheelchair when she was through.

What is your second sentence alluding to. I think we might have our Wires Crossed

Ann Coulter would be qualified to wipe Letterman's arse..if she said 'please'...

 

[Dr Grump]

Lieberman was adamant that the best way to solve the election mystery was through the courts. His words. So that was the way it was handled. Now the revisionist liberals, pissed off because they didn't win, ***** about the courts.
Can't have it both ways, sweet lumps.

You make the mistake of believing most liberals agreed with Lieberman...they didn't. So they aren't having it both ways, thus making your point meaningless...

Oh, and read Jillian's post carefully - that wasn't her point....

 

[oreo]

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?

Our most intellectual--law scholar President.

 

[JoeB131]

No. There is judicial review.

Sometimes it crosses the border into the realm of activism, however.

And Roe v. Wade is on no actual "ground" whatsoever.

The prospective voiding of ObamaCare would be, however, the valid rejection on proper Constitutional grounds of a lawless law.

So how is it, that the supposedly Constitution Loving Heritage Foundation could have come up with a plan as an alternative to a single payer system (which the RW Justices admitted would be PERFECTLY constitutional) that was blatantly unconstitutional?

Did they just not notice? Or did they just not notice until Obama did it?

What difference does it make?

A bad idea (belatedly recognized as such) is no less a bad idea regardless of which people or groups first embraced it.

I mean, you can't actually be claiming that you've never had what you considered a really "good" idea that you later realized was actually a pretty ******* poor one.

Oh, all the time, but that's not what is at issue here.

It isn't whether it's a good idea or not. It's whether it's a CONSTITUTIONAL idea.

I personally don't care for the mandate because it doesn't really address the real problem. The only way to address the problem is single payer health care which dictates costs.

The Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney thought the mandate was perfectly constitutional when they proposed it. It's only when that black guy made it the law for the whole country, they started sputtering it was "unconstitutional".

 

[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.

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.

Has it been the whole court or just 3 or 4 justices on one side?

 

[saveliberty]

Adding Justices to the Court would be problematic with a Republican House majority. Don't let reality smack you too hard.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Has it been the whole court or just 3 or 4 justices on one side?

what Sallow said.....does he not realize that such is EXACTLY the way it is supposed to be and why it works?

 

[M14 Shooter]

He's absolutely right.

Over the last decade the Supreme Court:

1-Decided and installed an American President.
2-Decided that private corporations can take over the land of a private citizen to further their own profit.
3-Decided that a state's laws prohibiting the keeping of hand guns went "to far".
4-Overturned a century's worth of election finance reform.
5-Decided there was a "time limit" on when an employee can bring a case against an employer for unfair wage discrimination
6-Decided that a Vice President's meetings with private corporations to determine public policy was secret and not subject to review.
7-Decided not to hear cases concerning indefinite detention.
8-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.

1 No, the people of the United States decided and installed the American President you claim the Supreme Court did. The SCOTUS merely agreed the vote in Florida would stand after 3 counts in favor of the same candidate. That's all they did and you know that's all they did.
2 Eminent domain is a fact of life. Cities grow, streets have to be widened, people get bought out cheap. You just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start over as best you can when it happens to you. It happened to my business as well as a piece of my property. I have to say it wasn't pleasant, but in the end, my community benefitted from it, and that made all the difference in the world to me.
3 It's their job to defend the Second Amendment. It's part and parcel of the Constitution.
4 Plugged loopholes against cheaters at the polls? aw, I'm hurtin' all over.
5. Other people get 2 years to settle money disputes. After that it's bye-bye money. Why divide citizens into classes and give one class a privilege over another as a consequence. That is sounding like the SCOTUS again supported the laws of the land.
6 That's right. Those meetings were to benefit people who employed boatloads of people at very good wages. Government function of the executive branch does not need to be impeded by the judicial branch when fairness is around, and that's all there is to it.
7 Case against indefinite detention was turned away? Well, the consequences of the crime may have been another got an indefinite detention wrongfully, on the other side.
8 The police can check to make sure a killer isn't hiding a set of brass knuckles in his rectum. Aw, too bad.

I really hate debating the good-looking studs around here ...

no becki, your number 1 is incorrect. the SCOTUS stopped the count. this specifically went against precedent which always deferred to the highest court of a state making decisions about that state's election laws. so that is not "all that they did". the decision is so bad that for the only time i know of in the history of the high court, they said the decision could not be used as precedent.

The Queen Mother of the Useful Idiots has spoken!

Rather than spout your usual ignorant, bigoted, partisan BS, why don't you open up your dime-store education and explain to us, in specific terms, how the court got their 7-2 Equal Protection decision wrong, and then explain to us, again, in specific terms, exactly what remedy the court could have -legally- applied.

 

[saveliberty]

Eminent domain is abused by cities on a regular basis. Expanding a school or building a highway or bridge makes a clearer case in most instances. Using the reasoning of higher use through commericalization puts all agricultural and residential land at risk unfairly. I have served on a planning commission and would never allow that to be the sole basis of a decision.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Its almost noon....does obama have his letter ready for the 5th circuit?

 

[saveliberty]

I probably wouldn't send a letter. The executive branch could be held to writing opinions on all sorts of topics a federal judge might have a whim to suggest. The shaming has already been accomplished.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Queen Mother of the Useful Idiots has spoken!

Rather than spout your usual ignorant, bigoted, partisan BS, why don't you open up your dime-store education and explain to us, in specific terms, how the court got their 7-2 Equal Protection decision wrong, and then explain to us, again, in specific terms, exactly what remedy the court could have -legally- applied.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?