• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

and that is why Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. States passed (illegal immigration) laws that he doesn't like, DOJ goes after them. Yet the laws were passed by elected representatives of the people.

It is pretty condensending for our President to come out with his statement before the decision on health care.

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.
 
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?

"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?!













Now what do you think when I tell you that it was actually Mitt Romney who said it -- except of course using "conservatives" in place of "liberals"?
 
You know that's pretty easily flipped around, right?

Not only that, but I don't think anybody's arguing that the SCOTUS is infallible. They've reversed course on earlier decisions multiple times over the last several decades. It happens. The GOP (and much of the country) happen to think the correct decision here is to strike down the mandate. They also happen to think the ruling in Roe V. Wade should be re-addressed. It isn't exactly ground breaking.
 
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?

"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?!















Now what do you think when I tell you that it was actually Mitt Romney who said it -- except of course using "conservatives" in place of "liberals"?

I would wonder how exactly you think it pertains to this case, especially the "unwilling nation" part.
 
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?

"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?


It was not unelected judges who were responsible for trying to force this mess on an unwilling nation.
 
It was not unelected judges who were responsible for trying to force this mess on an unwilling nation.

Now don't confuse the Libbys with facts. :2razz: We know that President Obama is sweating bullets about his and Pelosi's HC bill going down like the Titanic. His comments to the Supremes is his way to point to "someone else" being responsible for the failure of his bill. I guess Nancy and the President should have "read it before they passed it.
 
The purpose is to highlight the fact that we have a representative democracy where laws should not be overturned by the courts if at all possible.
It's always possible to not strike down a law, but unconstitutional laws should be struck down.
 
It's always possible to not strike down a law, but unconstitutional laws should be struck down.

Certainly. But this one isn't unconstitutional.
 
Certainly. But this one isn't unconstitutional.

Sez you... the court may not share your opinion. We'll know soon enough.
 
On what basis you believe the individual mandate is constitutional?

Pretty basic. Congress has virtually unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce. Health insurance is interstate commerce. Q.E.D....
 
He "warned them"? He said he was confident that it will be upheld.....
 
Pretty basic. Congress has virtually unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce. Health insurance is interstate commerce. Q.E.D....

"Regulating interstate commerce" is not the same as mandating the purchase of a product.
 
Didn't Chris Mathews get a tingle or 'something down his leg' when he heard President Obama speak. :mrgreen:

He's addicted to tingle... can't get to sleep without it. His sleep literally depends upon Obama staying President ... :lamo
 
He's addicted to tingle... can't get to sleep without it. His sleep literally depends upon Obama staying President ... :lamo

:rofl Not getting enough sleep might bring on a tingle or two. Or maybe it was something else running down his leg from excitement. I have a little dog that has that problem.
 
Anyone know how long President Obama and/or AG Holder have to answer the appeals court order on whether or not the Obama administration believes judges have the power to overturn federal laws? I'd like to see the AG's office, they're probably running round like hamsters in a cage or a cat in a potty box, trying to cover up this mess.:lamo "Ah the tangled webs we weave . . . . ."
 
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.
 
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.

NARAL is going to hate that thought
 
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.

If a law is found unConstitutional by SCOTUS, it's struck down. What do you think they look at laws for?
 
I guess the schools can be resegregated, too. OnWisconsin says so.

I love socialists who have such faith in Congress being infallible
 
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.

This is frikkin crazy. The Constitution is either the Prime Law of the land, or as you argue, it is toilet paper.

Its the former ;) And thank God it is.
 
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.

Where did you get that idea? Deciding on Constitutional matters is exactly what the Supreme Court does. Matters not whether it is Johnny on the playground or POTUS. If it is a Constitutional matter, federal courts have the jurisdiction. The ultimate federal court is the Supreme.
 
Back
Top Bottom