Obama: Supreme Court won’t overturn health care law

Arbo said:

Has any of it been made available? If so, where?

To repeat my answer to your repeated question: Is any of it available? If so please let us know where we can get them.

Click to expand...

You got me, finding material from his college days both as a student and professor and specifically on the subject of Constitutional Law is harder than I thought. I hadn't looked into it before because the years and prestige of his alma mater and of the University of Chicago spoke enough for me. Heck the guy apparently didn't write a senior thesis and as far as any reasonable source i can find, none of class work was really saved from all those years ago. Of course back then things weren't written in Microsoft Word and saved forever on your desktop or in a thumb drive.

But I did find this New York Times article from 2008, which offers some insight through his former students and peers from his time in Chicago teaching. I think it should satisfy you at least in part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21obama-t.html?pagewanted=all

Wiseone said:

Yes, unprecedented would be a falsehood. And a deliberate one I'm sure he is aware of but ignoring for the sake of making a stronger political argument to the American people. It would be a lie to tell people it was unprecedented. And I do have a problem with that.

But at the same time I cannot be too angry with him because its so common in politics to make statements like that. But that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

"Everybody else does it" isn't a justification for dissembling, which is the most charitable word I can think of to describe the President's words. It's not okay to ignore the facts. If he genuinely didn't know the Constitutional facts, this doesn't speak well for Obama's ability as a Constitutional law lecturer...but if he was dissembling, this speaks even more poorly for him.

Oh, and insults me personally as someone the President must regard as too dumb myself to know or learn or check the facts.

Lose/lose here for Obama.

nota bene said:

The President essentially said that if the Supremes don't agree with him, they're guilty of "judicial activism."

I'll be interested in what constitutional law experts say about this claim. I'm no law scholar...but I'm not sure that the President understand the function of "checks and balances" in our Constitution either.

And I do think he has overplayed his hand here. Obama may/may not be in office next year...but SCOTUS will be. This makes twice I know of where he's gone after the Court. I'm sure somebody's underclerk of a clerk has leaked to the Admin. His referring dismissively to SCOTUS as an "unelected group of people" wasn't very smart.

Click to expand...

judivial activism is merely a court ruling against someone's preference. i hope he doesn't go this route.

Sent from my YP-G1 using Tapatalk. My YP-G1 is a very nice device that hardly ever explodes or shoots jets of burning acid at my face. Samsung has done a good job in that respect in building it. However one has to consider hamsters in regard to android as cyborg hamsters are very cool. Imagine how fast an Android hamster could run in their exercise wheel for example.

Prediction: 5 to 4 the mandate is unconstitutional, but the rest will remain in tact.