Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

..umm..which is what I said. He believes he knows more and if they find otherwise it is judicial activism. That is as arrogant as I have seen a President since Nixon.

Come to think of it...if I was a SCJ...I would be pretty pissed off. To accuse the Supreme Court of knowingly making a judgement wrong because they don't like something is a very big accusation.

Not after Citizens United.

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

??????

What the hell...

While we are at it...

In a way, the DoJ is legoislating from the....well....from the office of the DoJ.

I guess Holder did not feel "inciting violence" is a law worthy of having on the books so he deemed it not appropriate to press charges against the New Black Panthers for offering a bounty on the head of Zimmerman.,

But, of course, that is just fine with you.

Don't forget the President's executive order on the Dream Act the other day...more legislation from the executive branch where it is NOT supposed to originate from.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

1: Provide the definition "legislating from the bench". Include citations.
2: Show how the Roberts' court has done this. Include citations.

 

[sealybobo]

That and a president who thinks his powers are limitless.

Can't wait to hear about how the supremes ACTED STUPIDLY.

Thinks his powers should be limitless....

"During a February interview, President Obama was asked to respond to critics on the left who say he hasn’t been the transformational political figure he promised to be. “What’s frustrated people,” the president said, “is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, you know, it turns out that our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes”
How the Constitution Crisis Will End - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

Damn that seperation of powers thing.

What's scary is that there are people who also believe that the courts have the power to frce Congress (or a legislature) to poas legislation and the President (or governor) to sign it.

No wonder the Japs bombed us.

The Supreme Court has to work under rules set by Congress; that Congress can limit the Court's powers; and that the court has taken onto itself the power to both shut down legislation and to create doctrine - like the ideas that corporations are persons and money is the same thing as speech. I pointed out that the Founders never intended - as you can read in Federalist 78 and Federalist 80 - for the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over Congress and the President.

Thom Hartmann: The Supreme Court has become a cancer on our Democracy | Thom Hartmann - News & info from the #1 progressive radio show

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

Ah, yes...the ever popular "Bush lied" rant! Here's why I "pretend" that Bush didn't lie to Congress, TM...

Do you remember the secret Downing Street Memos? The ones that were leaked to the media? If you actually read them you'd see that in the planning leading up to the invasion of Iraq one of the primarly concerns of both the British and the American planners was whether Saddam would use his WMD's on an invading force and what the casualties would be if that were to take place. So kindly explain to me, in the light of THOSE memos how it is that Bush "lied"? The truth is that both Bush AND Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence reports and arrived at the same conclusion...that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and was a threat to both the region and the world.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

 

[UpAndAbout]

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

Ah, yes...the ever popular "Bush lied" rant! Here's why I "pretend" that Bush didn't lie to Congress, TM...

Do you remember the secret Downing Street Memos? The ones that were leaked to the media? If you actually read them you'd see that in the planning leading up to the invasion of Iraq one of the primarly concerns of both the British and the American planners was whether Saddam would use his WMD's on an invading force and what the casualties would be if that were to take place. So kindly explain to me, in the light of THOSE memos how it is that Bush "lied"? The truth is that both Bush AND Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence reports and arrived at the same conclusion...that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and was a threat to both the region and the world.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

Are you really as obtuse as you appear?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

1: Provide the definition "legislating from the bench". Include citations.
2: Show how the Roberts' court has done this. Include citations.

i asked for the same thing basically.

I asked him to give me an example of a case and his own opinion of why it is legislating from the bench so I could examine it and agree or disagree with him.

 

[sealybobo]

..umm..which is what I said. He believes he knows more and if they find otherwise it is judicial activism. That is as arrogant as I have seen a President since Nixon.

Come to think of it...if I was a SCJ...I would be pretty pissed off. To accuse the Supreme Court of knowingly making a judgement wrong because they don't like something is a very big accusation.

Not after Citizens United.

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

Name one case where the supreme court "legislated" from the bench under roberts.

Just pick one so I can look into it and either agree or disagree with you...please explain why you consider it legislating from the bench too if you can.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thinks his powers should be limitless....

"During a February interview, President Obama was asked to respond to critics on the left who say he hasn’t been the transformational political figure he promised to be. “What’s frustrated people,” the president said, “is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, you know, it turns out that our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes”
How the Constitution Crisis Will End - theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

Damn that seperation of powers thing.

What's scary is that there are people who also believe that the courts have the power to frce Congress (or a legislature) to poas legislation and the President (or governor) to sign it.

No wonder the Japs bombed us.

The Supreme Court has to work under rules set by Congress; that Congress can limit the Court's powers; and that the court has taken onto itself the power to both shut down legislation and to create doctrine - like the ideas that corporations are persons and money is the same thing as speech. I pointed out that the Founders never intended - as you can read in Federalist 78 and Federalist 80 - for the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over Congress and the President.

So you agree that is it, put kindly, wrong-minded of The Obama to think that He -should- be able to force Congress to do something. Good.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ah, yes...the ever popular "Bush lied" rant! Here's why I "pretend" that Bush didn't lie to Congress, TM...

Do you remember the secret Downing Street Memos? The ones that were leaked to the media? If you actually read them you'd see that in the planning leading up to the invasion of Iraq one of the primarly concerns of both the British and the American planners was whether Saddam would use his WMD's on an invading force and what the casualties would be if that were to take place. So kindly explain to me, in the light of THOSE memos how it is that Bush "lied"? The truth is that both Bush AND Democrats in Congress saw the same intelligence reports and arrived at the same conclusion...that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear weapons and was a threat to both the region and the world.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

Are you really as obtuse as you appear?

When there are no actual-details posted, I've gotta assume such horseshit is comin' from the GOP's spokesman!!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not after Citizens United.

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

Name one case where the supreme court "legislated" from the bench under roberts.

Just pick one so I can look into it and either agree or disagree with you...please explain why you consider it legislating from the bench too if you can.

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.

 

[Jarhead]

Not after Citizens United.

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

Name one case where the supreme court "legislated" from the bench under roberts.

Just pick one so I can look into it and either agree or disagree with you...please explain why you consider it legislating from the bench too if you can.

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.

the line I put in bold...

it pretty much takes away the little credibility your post may have had.

Wake up...you are a tool for propogandists.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not after Citizens United.

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

Name one case where the supreme court "legislated" from the bench under roberts.

Just pick one so I can look into it and either agree or disagree with you...please explain why you consider it legislating from the bench too if you can.

They are doing it right now with Obamacare!

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

 

[sealybobo]

And if you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that this new right wing court being run by Roberts is the definition of activist judges legislating from the bench.

1: Provide the definition "legislating from the bench". Include citations.
2: Show how the Roberts' court has done this. Include citations.

i asked for the same thing basically.

I asked him to give me an example of a case and his own opinion of why it is legislating from the bench so I could examine it and agree or disagree with him.

Sandra Day O'Conner, a righty appointed by Reagan, came out and told Alito and Roberts to start following Stari Decisis. Do you know what that is? That means to leave decisions that have been already decided in the past alone. To follow precident. Why do you think she said this? Because the new court with Alito and Roberts are right wing activist judges. They are overturning precident. Because they are serving the rich, with Citizens United and the bible thumpers with all the anti abortion laws that have been passed.

 

[Jarhead]

Name one case where the supreme court "legislated" from the bench under roberts.

Just pick one so I can look into it and either agree or disagree with you...please explain why you consider it legislating from the bench too if you can.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: Provide the definition "legislating from the bench". Include citations.
2: Show how the Roberts' court has done this. Include citations.

i asked for the same thing basically.

I asked him to give me an example of a case and his own opinion of why it is legislating from the bench so I could examine it and agree or disagree with him.

Sandra Day O'Conner, a righty appointed by Reagan...

That's FUNNY.
Thanks for playing, son.

 

[Jarhead]

1: Provide the definition "legislating from the bench". Include citations.
2: Show how the Roberts' court has done this. Include citations.

i asked for the same thing basically.

I asked him to give me an example of a case and his own opinion of why it is legislating from the bench so I could examine it and agree or disagree with him.

Sandra Day O'Conner, a righty appointed by Reagan, came out and told Alito and Roberts to start following Stari Decisis. Do you know what that is? That means to leave decisions that have been already decided in the past alone. To follow precident. Why do you think she said this? Because the new court with Alito and Roberts are right wing activist judges. They are overturning precident. Because they are serving the rich, with Citizens United and the bible thumpers with all the anti abortion laws that have been passed.

you are pathetic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: Provide the definition "legislating from the bench". Include citations.
2: Show how the Roberts' court has done this. Include citations.

i asked for the same thing basically.

I asked him to give me an example of a case and his own opinion of why it is legislating from the bench so I could examine it and agree or disagree with him.

Sandra Day O'Conner, a righty appointed by Reagan, came out and told Alito and Roberts to start following Stari Decisis. Do you know what that is? That means to leave decisions that have been already decided in the past alone.

SOO....
The court was wrong to overturn Plesssy...?

 

[Liability]

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.

 

[sealybobo]

Name one case where the supreme court "legislated" from the bench under roberts.

Just pick one so I can look into it and either agree or disagree with you...please explain why you consider it legislating from the bench too if you can.

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. Reagan passed a law that said hospitals can't turn people away, regardless of their ability to pay. If corporations are people, as the Supremes said in Citizens United, will they then go back and undo that law because its unconstitutional to force a private business owner to serve a customer who can't pay? You know Alito and Roberts were put in to legislate from the bench. Don't act naive.

Here is another one.

In a ruling today the right wing of the Supreme Court showed they have no hesitations in creating law rather than simply interpreting it as they’re supposed to do.

In a ruling today the SCOTUS relieved Exxon of over $2 billion dollars in punitive damages it had been ordered to pay to victims as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.

To rule that “punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses” is to in-fact create a parameter of law… which is supposed to be what Congress, our legislative branch does.

The courts, our judicial branch of government, exist only to enforce the legislation enacted by congress, not add to it.

Many from the right have long wanted caps on damages awards for a wide variety of cases, and this ruling today hands that to them on a silver platter.

Darn Activist Judges Who Legislate from the Bench | Political Blogs, News & Views

 

[Jarhead]

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. Reagan passed a law that said hospitals can't turn people away, regardless of their ability to pay. If corporations are people, as the Supremes said in Citizens United, will they then go back and undo that law because its unconstitutional to force a private business owner to serve a customer who can't pay? You know Alito and Roberts were put in to legislate from the bench. Don't act naive.

Here is another one.

In a ruling today the right wing of the Supreme Court showed they have no hesitations in creating law rather than simply interpreting it as they’re supposed to do.In a ruling today the SCOTUS relieved Exxon of over $2 billion dollars in punitive damages it had been ordered to pay to victims as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.

To rule that “punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses” is to in-fact create a parameter of law… which is supposed to be what Congress, our legislative branch does.

The courts, our judicial branch of government, exist only to enforce the legislation enacted by congress, not add to it.

Many from the right have long wanted caps on damages awards for a wide variety of cases, and this ruling today hands that to them on a silver platter.

Darn Activist Judges Who Legislate from the Bench | Political Blogs, News & Views

in bold..

WRONG.

The Suprme Court's job is not to interpret law.

You know nothing of what you talk about.