Obama the Court

Un-*******-believable.

Imagine this ********** if he manages to get reelected with no more elections to worry about. It's hard to fathom
pukey.gif
 
Chango:

FYI: It's their job to overturn the law if it's unconstitutional. That is NOT judicial activism. It's interpretation. Hence, the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances. So, yes, the president is making this out to be a case of judicial activism when it CLEARLY is not. Otherwise, the legislative branches at the federal and state levels could pass any laws they choose. Again, it seems that he holds a special contempt for that pesky constitution when it impedes his ability to carry out his agenda.

Separation of Powers: The idea that the powers of government are divided among the three branches.

Checks and Balances: The concept that each branch of government has the power to limit or "check" the actions of the other branches.
 
Worst President ever and that's saying something when we've had a Jimmy Carter.
--------------------------------------------
Keep saying this now, because if he gets re-elected, you will not be able to make this claim any more. I think he has been a good President and has done a fairly good job, especially considering the starting hand he was dealt. Just because you do not like his policies does not make him the worst President ever.
 
I wonder if Obama has already been tipped off on the vote by SCOTUS by one of his appointees? Hence this speech?
 
Obama to SCOTUS:
“So there's not only an economic element and a legal element, but a human element to this. Hopefully, that’s not forgotten in this political debate.”

This stinks of desperation. A human element?! BO doesn't want judicial activism but he wants the court to consider the human element of this case? This coming from a guy that studied and later taught constitutional law.

The Supreme Court should not and better not take the human factor into account in any way. Their role is very clear, to decide if this legislation is constitutional. Period.
 
Drudge speculates that his former Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, is tipping him off. Apparently the Justices have already taken a preliminary vote and he MAY be privy to the result, but no one knows for sure.

It's ironic that he'd be concerned about the SC overturning Congress. No President has ever thumbed their nose at Congress more than he has. He's used Executive Orders and the like to circumvent the will of Congress repeatedly.
 
I truly think he says what he says because most people do not understand how our government (i.e. separation of powers) works. For that, I don't have a problem with what he says. It's purely political.

What is frustrating is the lack of accountability by some of my intelligent, liberal friends that continue to defend stuff like this. I voted for and backed Bush; however, I was quick to criticize him for things I thought he did wrong. I had absolutely no problem telling my leftist friends that I agreed with them on several issues while he was in office. This blind allegiance borders on scary.
 
So let me get this straight... he thinks that because the SCOTUS was not elected, they should not overturn a law that was passed by a slim majority in Congress, NONE of which read the bill or knew what was included in it. In addition, the law actually does nothing but set a framework for regulations that will be created by... you guessed it... UNELECTED OFFICIALS!

He's a liar and a hypocrite, and his act has long since worn itself out.
 
This just gets back to the fact that our President thinks the average person is stupid and he can therefore lie to them without consequences.

1) He mentions the group as "unelected", providing a negative connotation, while at the same time inserting unelected czars into his own national healthcare and financial services iniatives. He is a hypocrite here.

2) He describes a potential overturning as "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" which is just a blatant falsehood. It is moreso given his academic tenure including constituional law studies.

3) He lies through his teeth describing how the law was elected with a strong majority. This seems the most audacious as we are not that far removed from our President's Cornhusker Kickback, Harry Reid using reconciliation to avoid a filibuster, and even then the Senate and House could only muster marginally successful vote tallys.
 
All of these pesky checks and balances. What is an overreaching socialist control freak of a president to do?

So now Obama is going to be campaigning against 1) the (do nothing) Congress and 2) the (activist) Supreme Court. He seems to think that these two other branches of government need to learn their place and stand down in deference to his edicts, since he is above all of them and also the US Constitution.
 
I watched a little bit of this on TV. The attorney for the govt might be either the least prepared or dumbest individual I have ever seen on a nationa; scle like this. The questions asked by the Justices were basic ones that my daighter could have come up with and that idiot had no answers. Surely they prepared for this. Right? Maybe he just got massive stage fright or something but that was horrendous.

I actually favor the mandate. The Justices asked about life insurance or home insurance etc. The difference is that we won't let anyone go untreated. Healthcare is completely different from other forms of insurance based on that point. I see nothging wrong with mandating coverage in a system where services are guaranteed. We will never (and should never) refuse to treat people in the US. So, having everyone buy in is appropriate.

The reason that BO is taling so strongly about this is that he has an election coming up and he has very, very little to run on at this point. The economy is still bad. Our country's financial health is MUCH worse than when he took office (whether it is his fault or not is irrelevent). Relations in DC are MUCH worse than when he took office (and he has flamed the embers more than any other president before him).

Basically BO was going to run on the following platform:

1) Healthcare reform
2) Bin Laden
3) The repubs are much worse than me

That is all he has got. Take away healthcare and he has almost nothing to run on.
 
If a supreme court justice nominee has to to be confirmed by elected representatives of the people, would that not make the SCOTUS elected??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top