• 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

Billy the Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

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

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

I guess he for got the Constitution establishes one federal court: the Supreme Court.

Redress edit: Link to story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's because the Supreme Court is unelected that I trust in their judgment.

But, you know, Obama has a history of ignoring courts...I wonder if he'll ignore the Supremes if they don't rule his way.
 
I think he'd like to ignore them. But do you think he has that big a set?
 
it's funny when one can guess the article source before even clicking the thread.

if funny = sad.
 
The supreme court was wisely conceived as bulwark against populism, that is exactly why they are not elected. The founding father correctly put in safeguards to protect against such demagoguery.
 
I guess overturning the will of the people by utilizing the courts is something only liberals are supposed to be allowed to do?
 
I would be nice if our all powerful SCOTUS were truly non-partisan. Unfortunately, this is not at all the case. 4 right-winger, 4 left-wingers and only one, slightly right judge making all the decisions. I must say that this court truly should have been Meritocracy based. We're lucky that it's even closed to balanced.
 
it's funny when one can guess the article source before even clicking the thread.

if funny = sad.

Well you can go to NBC, CBS or ABC to see if they're on this speech President Obama gave today. Although they may be busy trying to clarify how they ran with bogue tapes on Zimmerman.
 
reading Fox stories about Obama is like reading natural news articles about vaccines.

or MSNBC stories about Bush.

sorry for the thread drift; carry on.
 
I guess overturning the will of the people by utilizing the courts is something only liberals are supposed to be allowed to do?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
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
 
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."
 
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...
 
Bah. As to the other part of his ludicrous statement, that the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by a "strong majority" of Congress would be "unprecedented" and "extraordinary," well, that fell down on the very first statute I even checked: The Violence Against Women Act (1994). Got 384 votes in the House and 95 votes in the Senate. THAT, folks, is a "strong majority," and it was struck down.

I'm sure that's not the only one in the other ~50 statutes struck down over the last 30 years. I haven't looked, but what kind of a margin do you suppose the Child Pornography Prevention Act (1996) passed by? My guess is not small.

Some "constitutional scholar," he.
 
I have a question for our President. In Arizona SB1070 (a illegal immigration bill), and similar bills in other States were passed/approved by elected officials. Yet, the DOJ has taken the State to court over the bill being unconstitutional or not within State authority. If SCOTUS strikes it down its judicial activism according to Obama. Yet, if a State passes a law he doesn't like, he wants the Federal Courts to strike the law because its unconstitutional. Who is trying to use the courts to set policies? I don't see how he can have it both ways.
 
I have a question for our President. In Arizona SB1070 (a illegal immigration bill), and similar bills in other States were passed/approved by elected officials. Yet, the DOJ has taken the State to court over the bill being unconstitutional or not within State authority. If SCOTUS strikes it down its judicial activism according to Obama. Yet, if a State passes a law he doesn't like, he wants the Federal Courts to strike the law because its unconstitutional. Who is trying to use the courts to set policies? I don't see how he can have it both ways.

Just more evidence that "judicial activism" today is little more than a buzz-phrase.
 
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

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

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

I guess he for got the Constitution establishes one federal court: the Supreme Court.

Obama's comments on this were dumbfounding. He made it abundantly clear that he has no concept of constitutional law or what judicial activism is (and what it isn't).
 
Its amusing how laughably inconsistent people are when it comes to nonsense "like judicial activism", when the truth is that they simply don't like the decision. Its wrong for Obama to encourage such behavior.

I'll say this: regardless of whether I agree with the supreme court's decision or not, they are well within their rights to issue a ruling on the legality of the health care bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom