So, where do Republicans stand today?

[Correll]

um..........no. I could slam him all day long but that one really isn't an issue.

I'm pretty sure I had a better grasp of Role and POwers of the Court in 5th grade.

And that's a "conservative" guess.

 

[Disir]

Right.

 

[Correll]

Yes, he came across very mature, except for the lame water bottle joke.

However, he has served less than one term in the Senate. How'd that work out for the last guy we elected who only served less than one term in the Senate?

Because of his inexperience, Obama gets his lunch eaten by Congress every day.

We need a guy with seasoning who can fight the fight with Congress. Rubio doesn't have that, yet. Kasich does, in spades.


We have to be careful he doesn't come across as TOO young. Then he's Dan Quayle all over again.

Hillary may know the issues, but her answers to them are too expensive.

I like Kasich in that he seems capable of crossing the aisle

Whether Republicans would let him is another story

That's the thing. He (and Rubio to a lesser extent) are the cardboard cutout to replace Jeb. But, what if the base really wants to end birthright citizenship, which is probably impossible and at best a decade long effort with nothing done on immigration in the meantime; deport them all, which can't be done because we don't have the courtrooms to do it; end abortion over fetal tissue, which would merely end lower income women getting abortions and driving up the cost of fetal tissue; balance the budget by cutting all welfare to non-whites ...... and WORST OF ALL, rebel against the plutocrats's goals of enriching themselves at the cost of workers real wages?

I think Republicans view birthright citizenship the same way they view abortion
An issue they trot out every four years

They know they can't change either

What Republicans want to do on immigration is create an unreachable goal....seal the border first
The border can never be sealed to their satisfaction. THis way they can put off taking any legal action regarding the 11 million already here

I disagree. The plutocrats don't care about abortion But they trot it out every election.

But, the plutocrats don't want any laws punishing them from using illegal labor. Or, at least they want to be able to hire bricklayers and stone masons for minimum wage. That is, they got a dog in the fight. If we gave illegal workers legal status, they'd do things like file complaints for unpaid overtime. And even worse, if they were citizens. The Gop is right in that if immigrants see the dems making their lives better, they'll vote dem for two generations.

The plutocrats know we can't deport 11 million. They know a fence isn't gonna get built, because we can't afford the army. You're right, the border cannot be secured. Every recession, illegal immigration wanes. If we don't want them here, deny them jobs. But that is not what the plutocrats want.

So, the plutocrats do what they always do. They say, "the n9ggers (or whoever) are taking YOUR jobs. We should kick them all out of town (or the country in this case). "Let's build a wall." But anyone who suggests they stay (even at higher wages that may make our wages higher too) is against "us."

Agree that there is nothing in the Republican policies that punish employers at all

Spend billions building and manning a wall....but don't punish anyone who spends $4 an hour to hire a Mexican workforce

If the jobs go...the illegal workers go
No need for a wall

Which Republican's platform are you referring to? Trump? McCain? Bush?

 

[rightwinger]

Which case are you talking about ? Obamacare? DOMA?

Obamacare.

Obama was right on Obamacare. The courts affirmed it ...TWICE
It is the Republicans who did not understand the law and tied up the courts

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Can you read?

Seems Obama was right about the court. They did not take that "unprecedented" action and let the law stand

It was the Republicans who were wrong and wasted millions in frivolous lawsuits...not to mention billions to shut down the government in a hissy fit

 

[Correll]

Right.

Err, yes. Being passed from by a strong majority has no bearing on the Supreme Court's judgement.

I knew that in grade school.

 

[rightwinger]

I like Kasich in that he seems capable of crossing the aisle

Whether Republicans would let him is another story

That's the thing. He (and Rubio to a lesser extent) are the cardboard cutout to replace Jeb. But, what if the base really wants to end birthright citizenship, which is probably impossible and at best a decade long effort with nothing done on immigration in the meantime; deport them all, which can't be done because we don't have the courtrooms to do it; end abortion over fetal tissue, which would merely end lower income women getting abortions and driving up the cost of fetal tissue; balance the budget by cutting all welfare to non-whites ...... and WORST OF ALL, rebel against the plutocrats's goals of enriching themselves at the cost of workers real wages?

I think Republicans view birthright citizenship the same way they view abortion
An issue they trot out every four years

They know they can't change either

What Republicans want to do on immigration is create an unreachable goal....seal the border first
The border can never be sealed to their satisfaction. THis way they can put off taking any legal action regarding the 11 million already here

I disagree. The plutocrats don't care about abortion But they trot it out every election.

But, the plutocrats don't want any laws punishing them from using illegal labor. Or, at least they want to be able to hire bricklayers and stone masons for minimum wage. That is, they got a dog in the fight. If we gave illegal workers legal status, they'd do things like file complaints for unpaid overtime. And even worse, if they were citizens. The Gop is right in that if immigrants see the dems making their lives better, they'll vote dem for two generations.

The plutocrats know we can't deport 11 million. They know a fence isn't gonna get built, because we can't afford the army. You're right, the border cannot be secured. Every recession, illegal immigration wanes. If we don't want them here, deny them jobs. But that is not what the plutocrats want.

So, the plutocrats do what they always do. They say, "the n9ggers (or whoever) are taking YOUR jobs. We should kick them all out of town (or the country in this case). "Let's build a wall." But anyone who suggests they stay (even at higher wages that may make our wages higher too) is against "us."

Agree that there is nothing in the Republican policies that punish employers at all

Spend billions building and manning a wall....but don't punish anyone who spends $4 an hour to hire a Mexican workforce

If the jobs go...the illegal workers go
No need for a wall

Which Republican's platform are you referring to? Trump? McCain? Bush?

Show me which of the 17 Republican candidates is supporting increasing penalties on employers

It sure ain't Trump

Bush seems to have the most level headed approach and is getting killed by his party. McCain hasn't run in 8 years

 

[Correll]

Obamacare.

Obama was right on Obamacare. The courts affirmed it ...TWICE
It is the Republicans who did not understand the law and tied up the courts

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Can you read?

Seems Obama was right about the court. They did not take that "unprecedented" action and let the law stand

It was the Republicans who were wrong and wasted millions in frivolous lawsuits...not to mention billions to shut down the government in a hissy fit

It would not be "unprecedented" for the Court to throw out a law passed by strong majority in congress.

Can you read?

 

[bendog]

Which case are you talking about ? Obamacare? DOMA?

Obamacare.

Obama was right on Obamacare. The courts affirmed it ...TWICE
It is the Republicans who did not understand the law and tied up the courts

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Overturning the law would have been unprecedented. How is this confusing to you?

 

[Correll]

That's the thing. He (and Rubio to a lesser extent) are the cardboard cutout to replace Jeb. But, what if the base really wants to end birthright citizenship, which is probably impossible and at best a decade long effort with nothing done on immigration in the meantime; deport them all, which can't be done because we don't have the courtrooms to do it; end abortion over fetal tissue, which would merely end lower income women getting abortions and driving up the cost of fetal tissue; balance the budget by cutting all welfare to non-whites ...... and WORST OF ALL, rebel against the plutocrats's goals of enriching themselves at the cost of workers real wages?

I think Republicans view birthright citizenship the same way they view abortion
An issue they trot out every four years

They know they can't change either

What Republicans want to do on immigration is create an unreachable goal....seal the border first
The border can never be sealed to their satisfaction. THis way they can put off taking any legal action regarding the 11 million already here

I disagree. The plutocrats don't care about abortion But they trot it out every election.

But, the plutocrats don't want any laws punishing them from using illegal labor. Or, at least they want to be able to hire bricklayers and stone masons for minimum wage. That is, they got a dog in the fight. If we gave illegal workers legal status, they'd do things like file complaints for unpaid overtime. And even worse, if they were citizens. The Gop is right in that if immigrants see the dems making their lives better, they'll vote dem for two generations.

The plutocrats know we can't deport 11 million. They know a fence isn't gonna get built, because we can't afford the army. You're right, the border cannot be secured. Every recession, illegal immigration wanes. If we don't want them here, deny them jobs. But that is not what the plutocrats want.

So, the plutocrats do what they always do. They say, "the n9ggers (or whoever) are taking YOUR jobs. We should kick them all out of town (or the country in this case). "Let's build a wall." But anyone who suggests they stay (even at higher wages that may make our wages higher too) is against "us."

Agree that there is nothing in the Republican policies that punish employers at all

Spend billions building and manning a wall....but don't punish anyone who spends $4 an hour to hire a Mexican workforce

If the jobs go...the illegal workers go
No need for a wall

Which Republican's platform are you referring to? Trump? McCain? Bush?

Show me which of the 17 Republican candidates is supporting increasing penalties on employers

It sure ain't Trump

Bush seems to have the most level headed approach and is getting killed by his party. McCain hasn't run in 8 years

The meme that the border has to be sealed before we deal with those that are here was crafted in the fight against amnesty.

It is insane to give amnesty to illegals here, if we are not prepared to stop more from coming.

IN the context of deportations and birthright citizenship, it makes sense to do both at the same time, though it is not the death knell as in the other case.

I do not know Trumps position on this, nor have I heard any others being for or against it.

 

[Correll]

Obamacare.

Obama was right on Obamacare. The courts affirmed it ...TWICE
It is the Republicans who did not understand the law and tied up the courts

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Overturning the law would have been unprecedented. How is this confusing to you?

Really? The Supreme Court has never thrown out a law passed by a strong majority of congress before?

 

[rightwinger]

I think Republicans view birthright citizenship the same way they view abortion
An issue they trot out every four years

They know they can't change either

What Republicans want to do on immigration is create an unreachable goal....seal the border first
The border can never be sealed to their satisfaction. THis way they can put off taking any legal action regarding the 11 million already here

I disagree. The plutocrats don't care about abortion But they trot it out every election.

But, the plutocrats don't want any laws punishing them from using illegal labor. Or, at least they want to be able to hire bricklayers and stone masons for minimum wage. That is, they got a dog in the fight. If we gave illegal workers legal status, they'd do things like file complaints for unpaid overtime. And even worse, if they were citizens. The Gop is right in that if immigrants see the dems making their lives better, they'll vote dem for two generations.

The plutocrats know we can't deport 11 million. They know a fence isn't gonna get built, because we can't afford the army. You're right, the border cannot be secured. Every recession, illegal immigration wanes. If we don't want them here, deny them jobs. But that is not what the plutocrats want.

So, the plutocrats do what they always do. They say, "the n9ggers (or whoever) are taking YOUR jobs. We should kick them all out of town (or the country in this case). "Let's build a wall." But anyone who suggests they stay (even at higher wages that may make our wages higher too) is against "us."

Agree that there is nothing in the Republican policies that punish employers at all

Spend billions building and manning a wall....but don't punish anyone who spends $4 an hour to hire a Mexican workforce

If the jobs go...the illegal workers go
No need for a wall

Which Republican's platform are you referring to? Trump? McCain? Bush?

Show me which of the 17 Republican candidates is supporting increasing penalties on employers

It sure ain't Trump

Bush seems to have the most level headed approach and is getting killed by his party. McCain hasn't run in 8 years

The meme that the border has to be sealed before we deal with those that are here was crafted in the fight against amnesty.

It is insane to give amnesty to illegals here, if we are not prepared to stop more from coming.

IN the context of deportations and birthright citizenship, it makes sense to do both at the same time, though it is not the death knell as in the other case.

I do not know Trumps position on this, nor have I heard any others being for or against it.

Have you been in a coma?

You did not hear Trumps plan to build an inpenetrable wall and make Mexico pay for it?

That is what passes for immigration policy to conservatives

 

[rightwinger]

Obama was right on Obamacare. The courts affirmed it ...TWICE
It is the Republicans who did not understand the law and tied up the courts

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Overturning the law would have been unprecedented. How is this confusing to you?

Really? The Supreme Court has never thrown out a law passed by a strong majority of congress before?

Obama said he was confident the court would not do it

He was right. Roberts in his ruling said essentially the same thing. It is not the job of the court to rule on whether Congress should or should not pass a law. They did...so live with it


.

 

[bendog]

Obama was right on Obamacare. The courts affirmed it ...TWICE
It is the Republicans who did not understand the law and tied up the courts

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Overturning the law would have been unprecedented. How is this confusing to you?

Really? The Supreme Court has never thrown out a law passed by a strong majority of congress before?

It would have been unprecedented in terms of the tax and regulation of commerce power. In the early 30s the SC did overturn laws that were popular and enacted with large majorities, and as the public backlash grew, Owen Roberts switched to the view of broader tax and commerce powers. The concern was the current Roberts would ..."roll the constitution back to 1930"

 

[Avorysuds]

I really think that giving it time is the best bet, liberals predicting Republicans has never been even remotely accurate.

Again, I'm not pushing Rand Paul but he represents a large segment of the Rep party that none of the other candidates even try for, he also has a large influence on independents and even many Democrats. To call Rand out on "life support" is pretty preemptive.

Like we have seen with so many candidates Rand will more than likely get his round in the spot light and we will see if he is more pallet-able and has stay-ability.

Most candidates are not palatable to the masses, thus they talk, says some moronic shit and the media clings to them for ratings. Trump is one of these people, Herman Cain was one of these people as was Newt, Cruz, Huck and a few others.

I really see this coming down to Carly, Rubio and Rand with Jeb as the candidate no one wants but the media keeps telling us has the only chance.

No matter what the outcome I'll prolly vote for Gary Johnson for the Libertarian party... So again, I'm not pushing Paul but he is by far the most palatable on stage unless God and hate for Obama is all you need... 2 things Rand almost never talks about.

Also, I base this on the fact that just a few weeks ago Carly was on "life support." It's simply moronic to pretend you can see the future when these candidates have a few min talking time during the debates VS others that take up almost the whole debate. Next Debate will have Jeb/Carly and Trump next to each other.

 

[Preacher]

So the 2 that you have being left are 2 RINO'S which have gotten their asses kicked last 2 elections....yeah not gonna happen.

 

[Correll]

I disagree. The plutocrats don't care about abortion But they trot it out every election.

But, the plutocrats don't want any laws punishing them from using illegal labor. Or, at least they want to be able to hire bricklayers and stone masons for minimum wage. That is, they got a dog in the fight. If we gave illegal workers legal status, they'd do things like file complaints for unpaid overtime. And even worse, if they were citizens. The Gop is right in that if immigrants see the dems making their lives better, they'll vote dem for two generations.

The plutocrats know we can't deport 11 million. They know a fence isn't gonna get built, because we can't afford the army. You're right, the border cannot be secured. Every recession, illegal immigration wanes. If we don't want them here, deny them jobs. But that is not what the plutocrats want.

So, the plutocrats do what they always do. They say, "the n9ggers (or whoever) are taking YOUR jobs. We should kick them all out of town (or the country in this case). "Let's build a wall." But anyone who suggests they stay (even at higher wages that may make our wages higher too) is against "us."

Agree that there is nothing in the Republican policies that punish employers at all

Spend billions building and manning a wall....but don't punish anyone who spends $4 an hour to hire a Mexican workforce

If the jobs go...the illegal workers go
No need for a wall

Which Republican's platform are you referring to? Trump? McCain? Bush?

Show me which of the 17 Republican candidates is supporting increasing penalties on employers

It sure ain't Trump

Bush seems to have the most level headed approach and is getting killed by his party. McCain hasn't run in 8 years

The meme that the border has to be sealed before we deal with those that are here was crafted in the fight against amnesty.

It is insane to give amnesty to illegals here, if we are not prepared to stop more from coming.

IN the context of deportations and birthright citizenship, it makes sense to do both at the same time, though it is not the death knell as in the other case.

I do not know Trumps position on this, nor have I heard any others being for or against it.

Have you been in a coma?

You did not hear Trumps plan to build an inpenetrable wall and make Mexico pay for it?

That is what passes for immigration policy to conservatives

I was referring to the point YOU BROUGHT UP about going after employers.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Nice analysis in the OP rw. I think your VP picks are a little squishy, but we'll see soon enough.

Of course I see you switched to Trump-bating by page ten. Trump isn't one of ours. He's a Trojan horse.
Check out your boy Nate Silver's "Five Ring Circus": Scott Walker May Have Been A Terrible Candidate — Or An Unlucky One

There's a reason Trump isn't in a ring.

This is where the GOP stands

Seriously? Democrats are the party opposed to farm subsidies?

Education in this country needs an awful lot of work....

 

[rightwinger]

I really think that giving it time is the best bet, liberals predicting Republicans has never been even remotely accurate.

Again, I'm not pushing Rand Paul but he represents a large segment of the Rep party that none of the other candidates even try for, he also has a large influence on independents and even many Democrats. To call Rand out on "life support" is pretty preemptive.

Like we have seen with so many candidates Rand will more than likely get his round in the spot light and we will see if he is more pallet-able and has stay-ability.

Most candidates are not palatable to the masses, thus they talk, says some moronic shit and the media clings to them for ratings. Trump is one of these people, Herman Cain was one of these people as was Newt, Cruz, Huck and a few others.

I really see this coming down to Carly, Rubio and Rand with Jeb as the candidate no one wants but the media keeps telling us has the only chance.

No matter what the outcome I'll prolly vote for Gary Johnson for the Libertarian party... So again, I'm not pushing Paul but he is by far the most palatable on stage unless God and hate for Obama is all you need... 2 things Rand almost never talks about.

Also, I base this on the fact that just a few weeks ago Carly was on "life support." It's simply moronic to pretend you can see the future when these candidates have a few min talking time during the debates VS others that take up almost the whole debate. Next Debate will have Jeb/Carly and Trump next to each other.

This liberal has not missed picking who the ultimate Republican candidate would be since Goldwater. I do much better than conservatives

Your delusion as to why Rand Paul has a credible chance proves my point. 1% polling constitutes life support. Remember Trump calling him out as not belonging on the stage?

Book mark this thread and we will see who is right next summer

 

[Correll]

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Overturning the law would have been unprecedented. How is this confusing to you?

Really? The Supreme Court has never thrown out a law passed by a strong majority of congress before?

Obama said he was confident the court would not do it

He was right. Roberts in his ruling said essentially the same thing. It is not the job of the court to rule on whether Congress should or should not pass a law. They did...so live with it

He stated clearly that the Court had never done such a thing before.

Which is not only not true, it shows a total lack of knowledge of the very purpose of the Supreme Court.

From a man who supposedly taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

 

[Correll]

YOu are purposefully dodging the point.

Before he won, he expressed surprise that having the Court throw out his law was even an option.

From a man that supposedly taught constitutional law.

That is an embarrassment to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Well, the law was constitutional either as a commerce power exercise or a tax, but some of us considered that the Court might rule otherwise simply as a partisan issue. I'm not sure what's unclear to you about this. As a matter of how law is supposed to work, Obama understood it. Whether Roberts would abide was the question.

I'm not sure how you are misunderstanding me.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - CBS News



"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," Mr. Obama said in the Rose Garden appearance."



He did not understand the role of the Supreme Court, it's Powers, nor it's history.

This is embarrassing to Obama, America, and the universities that passed him and employed him.

Overturning the law would have been unprecedented. How is this confusing to you?

Really? The Supreme Court has never thrown out a law passed by a strong majority of congress before?

It would have been unprecedented in terms of the tax and regulation of commerce power. In the early 30s the SC did overturn laws that were popular and enacted with large majorities, and as the public backlash grew, Owen Roberts switched to the view of broader tax and commerce powers. The concern was the current Roberts would ..."roll the constitution back to 1930"

"Unprecedented" does not mean "since the 1930s".