Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118

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

  1. #11
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Except that in this case, that's not even what's happening.

    It's quite ironic, actually.

    The elected legislators ought to represent the will of the people, and in those cases where the will of the people is too far out of line with extant law, it is the court's place to uphold the law, even when doing so goes against popular opinion.

    Since before ObamaCare passed, nearly every poll showed that public opinion was solidly against it. It was elected representatives who defied the will of the people in order to pass this mess of a law, and if the court strikes it down, it will be upholding the will of the people.
    I know...I was being 'ironic'. Funny how some liberal folks might get upset the SCOTUS decision that may show Obama cares individual mandate to be unconstitutional, yet they run to the courts at every chance they can to force things on the voting public.

  2. #12
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

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

    I think this part is funny:

    "I'm 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," Obama said.
    How are we defining "strong majority" these days? The bill passed by less than 5 votes in the house. The senate bill was 60-39 or 60-40, depending on the source, so I guess you could call that a "strong majority". But it's definitely selective to imply that the bill ran through easily, especially considering it went through over a month of debate in the senate and even more struggle in the house.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  3. #13
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Except that in this case, that's not even what's happening.

    It's quite ironic, actually.

    The elected legislators ought to represent the will of the people, and in those cases where the will of the people is too far out of line with extant law, it is the court's place to uphold the law, even when doing so goes against popular opinion.

    Since before ObamaCare passed, nearly every poll showed that public opinion was solidly against it. It was elected representatives who defied the will of the people in order to pass this mess of a law, and if the court strikes it down, it will be upholding the will of the people.
    Fine, but it doesn't have to uphold the will of the people. It just increases the power of the oligarchy that hates Americans and calls them a mob.

    In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. Not only was this illogical, but if it was intended to have this right, it would have exercised it in the 12 years the Constitution had been around before it decided it would use such double-talk to illegally establish its power-grab. By the way, this fallacy is called "begging the question," which doesn't mean "which brings up the question" as our ignorant language role models use it in these babbling times; it means proving something by using what is sought (quest) to be proved in the proof, as in "God wouldn't let people believe in Him if He didn't exist." That's the kind of spinning babble that we are forced to obey.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:47 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,073

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

    So Obama uses an "Executive Order" to somehow get healthcare passed, and he wants to complain about how the Supreme Court works?

    No, dumbass, this isn't how the Constitution works, and no, your Chicago strong-armed mafia tactics aren't welcome here.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,878

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I think this part is funny:



    How are we defining "strong majority" these days? The bill passed by less than 5 votes in the house. The senate bill was 60-39 or 60-40, depending on the source, so I guess you could call that a "strong majority". But it's definitely selective to imply that the bill ran through easily, especially considering it went through over a month of debate in the senate and even more struggle in the house.
    Furthermore, since the Republicans were literally shut out of any consideration or debate on Obamacare, all the trouble the Democrats had in passing the stupid thing was because of their own Party.

    Obama is real good at twisting, spinning, folding and mutilating the truth, ain't he?
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  6. #16
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    So Obama uses an "Executive Order" to somehow get healthcare passed, and he wants to complain about how the Supreme Court works?

    No, dumbass, this isn't how the Constitution works, and no, your Chicago strong-armed mafia tactics aren't welcome here.
    Hey hey... Obama is what passes for a Constitutional Harvard Scholar / Professor / Essayist...errr... Lecturer or whatever these days. As the editor of the Harvard Law Review and President of the Harvard Law Journal... he should know the loopholes and how to get around the SCOTUS ruling.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #17
    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

    For my "anything but Fox" friends.

    Political Hotsheet - CBS News

    "The president characterized the debate over the law as a "political" one, and said most constitutional law scholars believe the law should not be thrown out."

    ""That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law even if they are not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency," said Mr. Obama, himself a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago."

    Wonder who those "not particularly sympathetic" professors, judges, etc were, he could have dropped a name or two. It's starting to sound to me like he's getting set for a smack down by the Supremes, by setting the stage for a "I told you so".

  8. #18
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    04-02-12 @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1

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

    judicial activism can sometimes be referred to as "having open minds", "wise judgement", "a step in the right direction", or other related terminology. I believe Jesus would not pay, if his perfect lifestyle, including free medicine, as opposed to Hippocrates, one of the first "healers" to charge money for his services, was to be understood, and that, too, could be described as "judicial activism". was Hippocrates the first hippocrit? Obama- give the people what your family gave you when you were young. If you need a place to start, go to D>C> and help make it a model city- community owned and operated recycling can consistently help lower taxes, free road repair, when needed, a free post roads promise, modernized schools, hospitals, utilities, and other factories, improved flood control coast to coast free, nationwide fresh water from oceans pipeline and supply, and so much more! don't let a good intention be somebody else's road to hell.

    If you should quit being a tenderfoot and show signs of some actual human common sense learning, helping make society easier for the old, the young, and the in between, you might get my vote, but so far, the leading half dozen or so candidates or wannabes, including you, sorry to say, are no shows for my vote

  9. #19
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

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

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    I think this part is funny:



    How are we defining "strong majority" these days? The bill passed by less than 5 votes in the house. The senate bill was 60-39 or 60-40, depending on the source, so I guess you could call that a "strong majority". But it's definitely selective to imply that the bill ran through easily, especially considering it went through over a month of debate in the senate and even more struggle in the house.
    It was 219-212 in the House; 60-39 in the Senate.

    So, in Obamaworld, apparently in a Congress of 535 members, a margin of 18 (3.4%) is a "strong majority."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #20
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    It was 219-212 in the House; 60-39 in the Senate.

    So, in Obamaworld, apparently in a Congress of 535 members, a margin of 18 (3.4%) is a "strong majority."
    It's an election year, so 0.3719% is just a "majority". Uh huh... yup. Now if it were over 4%, that's an "overwhelming majority" you see...
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •