Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 118

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

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    04-15-12 @ 10:25 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,964

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

    This President has no respect for any American institution that disagrees with him. He is a dangerous idealogue and needs to be removed this November.

  2. #32
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,242
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    it's funny when one can guess the article source before even clicking the thread.

    if funny = sad.
    No. What's sad is, when all else fails, a liberal blames the source. Here's what Obama said:

    "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. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

    Read more: Republicans Slam Obama Over Warning To 'unelected' Supreme Court | Fox News
    What arrogance.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

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

    With this law, Obama just wants all of us to experience Freedom, you know

    "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."
    and nothing is all Obama left me....
    feeling good was easy, Lord, before Obama gave us the blues....
    feeling good was easy enough for me...
    easy enough before Obama screwed me....

  4. #34
    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 Helix View Post
    it's funny when one can guess the article source before even clicking the thread.

    if funny = sad.
    I couldn't resist pointing out that the Link in the OP begins "FOX NEWS -"
    From the ashes.

  5. #35
    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

    "Ultimately, 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."

    It's what the Supreme Court does. It's quite ordinary and plenty of precedent exists. Harvard Law Professor my ass.
    From the ashes.

  6. #36
    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 Phoenix View Post
    I couldn't resist pointing out that the Link in the OP begins "FOX NEWS -"
    But that would be a clear argumentum ad hominem, and we're much to good to stoop so low aren't we?
    “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. #37
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,714

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    No. What's sad is, when all else fails, a liberal blames the source. Here's what Obama said:



    What arrogance.
    That's not arrogance, that's politics. What do you freaking expect, the president of the United States to say about one of his landmark issues: "Yeah, probably going to get overturned as unconstitutional. Whoopsie!"

    And he's right about cries of "judicial activism." Judicial activism translates roughly as "judge decided in a manner I disagree with."
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #38
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    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.

    That all depends on what poll you read. The law was about 50/50 for or against
    The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

  9. #39
    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 Ockham View Post
    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.
    He could warn the Court that overturning Obamacare would be an example of "racism." Works every time.
    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.

  10. #40
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    No. What's sad is, when all else fails, a liberal blames the source. Here's what Obama said:



    What arrogance.
    Don't really see this as arrogance or idiocy as much as its about politicking and propaganda.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •