Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 118

Thread: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    494

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    I couldn't resist pointing out that the Link in the OP begins "FOX NEWS -"
    So what if it's from Fox News? What's your point?

  2. #102
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    So what if it's from Fox News? What's your point?
    Dude. you are 11 pages late.

    He claimed
    "it's funny when one can guess the article source before even clicking the thread.

    if funny = sad."

    As if he was having some great revelation because of the subject matter. However the link in the OP has FOX NEWS- right in the link no guessing needed.
    From the ashes.

  3. #103
    Educator OnWisconsin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    04-07-16 @ 02:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    710

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I love socialists who have such faith in Congress being infallible
    I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
    Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?
    - Abraham Lincoln

    Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.
    - Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator

    God, how patient are Thy poor! These corporations and masters of manipulation in finance heaping up great fortunes by a system of legalized extortion,
    and then exacting from the contributors--to whom a little means so much--a double share to guard the treasure!
    - Robert M. LaFollette, Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator

  4. #104
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin View Post
    I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
    I have more faith in the checks and balances that the lifetime appointments give.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    Last Seen
    10-10-12 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,880

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin View Post
    I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
    Not everyone is that fond of brown nosers.

  6. #106
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin View Post
    The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.

    The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.


    I would suggest you wait and read the 3 page answer AG Holder has to give the 3 Federal judges on this issue. I do believe you'll have a better grasp as to how the president and his AG really see issue.

    I think the President and AG Holder both are going to agree with the posters on this site, President Obama stepped on his crank with the "unelected" comment. The President forgot the golden rule of: "Don't crap in your own nest".

  7. #107
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,997

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Bad comparison. The argument against the state law is that it's preempted by federal law. Both laws were passed by elected representatives. Only the federal laws were passed by national representatives.
    I disagree on the comparison. Both laws may or may not be legal. Hence the court cases.

    So you think it ok for the President and Congress to make laws that goes against the Constitution, but States can't make laws that may go against Federal law?
    The problem is we don't know for sure if the Health Care bill is legal. As we don't know for sure if State illegal immigratiion laws are legal.
    Your like Obama. You think the Health Care bill is legal. You think the State illegal immigration law isn't and anyone who disagrees with you are wrong. Yet, time will tell. That is why we have court challenges to legislation.
    Last edited by mike2810; 04-05-12 at 10:59 AM.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  8. #108
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    I disagree on the comparison. Both laws may or may not be legal. Hence the court cases.

    So you think it ok for the President and Congress to make laws that goes against the Constitution, but States can't make laws that may go against Federal law?
    The problem is we don't know for sure if the Health Care bill is legal. As we don't know for sure if State illegal immigratiion laws are legal.
    Your like Obama. You think the Health Care bill is legal. You think the State illegal immigration law isn't and anyone who disagrees with you are wrong. Yet, time will tell. That is why we have court challenges to legislation.
    Well, I thought your point was that it was hypocritical to claim that courts should give deference to laws created by elected officials while seeking to have the AZ law invalidated, because that law was created by elected officials. Courts substituting their judgment for the legislature? But that's not what the AZ case is about. It's about the Court deciding WHICH elected officials' law should hold sway.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #109
    Advisor Blue Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    01-21-15 @ 06:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    426

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    Not to go off on a tangent, but judicial activism could be defined as both expansion of rights as well as striking down laws. The Warren Court being an example of the first and the Hughes Court(four horsemen) being a good example of the second.

    Part of the problem with having both houses of Congress being directly elected by the people is that the SC ends up being the body to determine the balance between the Tenth Amendment and broad interpretation of the Commerce,Necessary/Proper Clause, and the Welfare Clause. Prior to 1913, the state governments chose the senate to represent their interests in the federal government, allowing more latitude(imo) for the SC to follow judicial restraint.

    Regarding PPACA. With 26 states filing suit, you wonder if this bill would have come to fruition if the states still chose senators. Something to consider.
    My family is more important than my party.
    -Zell Miller

  10. #110
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

    Re: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

    The hypocrisy and partisan immaturity of Obama's comments really show that he isn't fit to be president. So he's concerned about a "non elected" set of Supreme court judges... does he forget that they are confirmed by the same Senate that passed his bill? And where does he get off crying about Senate bills, the law was unpopular and was not approved of by the majority of people in the US. Voters reacted by voting GOP in the midterms and largely due to this bill, and Scott Brown was elected largely over this bill to be a vote that could kill the bill.

    Judicial activism does exist and unlawful rulings are made, but Obama is way out of line with his comments. He is arrogant and forgets the checks and balances in the government and is essentially trying to apply the same criteria to the Supreme Court that the Congress and Executive branch have. They operate differently. They have to rule on things based on the law, not democratic opinion. If a law was passed that established a state religion or ideology and was supported by Congress the court would rightfully strike it down due to what is in the Constitution. They Court exists to prevent tyranny of the majority and to ensure that the law, which protects our rights, is not violated.
    Last edited by digsbe; 04-05-12 at 11:30 AM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •