• 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: Supreme Court won’t overturn health care law

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Pretty amazing comments from the President. Weak arguments.

Obama: Supreme Court won?t overturn health care law - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com

“We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

...
Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a 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.”




 
He shouldn't count his chickens before they are hatched.
 
What's he supposed to say? "Yeah, that'll probably get overturned."
 
What's he supposed to say? "Yeah, that'll probably get overturned."

He could have said something that doesn't fly in the face of his supposed reputation as a Constitutional Law expert, and barring that, something that isn't falsified by a five-minute Google search.
 
He could have said something that doesn't fly in the face of his supposed reputation as a Constitutional Law expert, and barring that, something that isn't falsified by a five-minute Google search.

There's a difference between being a Constitutional Law expert and knowing how the SCOTUS is going to vote, especially when the court is so evenly split. Tell me, if knowing how they'll vote is a criteria for being a reputable Constitutional Law expert, then why is every Constitutional Law expert brought on TV or other places to comment on the vote not calling it one way or another with any certainty? The best you'll hear is "I think they will probably do X."

That's because Constitutional Law is about arguing what is Constitutional or not, its about knowing what can be argued as being Constitutional or not. Everyone who knows anything about the Constitution and its history knows it can be interrupted in very different and often contradictory ways depending on whos sitting on the bench.

And last, Obama isn't acting nor speaking the role of an unparistan lawyer anymore. As you may or may not know, law(including Constitutional Law) isn't about partisanship as its supposed to apply to everyone equally and lawyers and judges are more often than not called upon not to give their own opinions but to argue or decide a certain way under the law. For example a lawyer may be assigned as public defense for a murderer who he knows is guilty, however its his duty to argue his innocence anyway he can using the law. His personal opinion on the issue is entirely irrelevant. Likewise a Judge is supposed to uphold the procedures of a court room and make sure the law is respected during a hearing or trial, regardless about how he feels about the law if someone is found guilty of it he has a duty to punish accordingly.

President Obama, is not in that role anymore. As a law professor I would agree his opinion should be less bias, however being President he is allowed and expected a certain about of bias especially when it comes to his own creations. Why? Because his a politician, he's supposed to take stances, and have opinions about things including the law and his perspective on it. If you want to say he should be acting more lawyer-y then think of it like he's been hired to defend the law and regardless of his personal opinion on its merits or how the judge will rule, he has a duty to defend it till the end. I mean wouldn't you agree that a President in general should defend his own laws and actions?
 
There's a difference between being a Constitutional Law expert and knowing how the SCOTUS is going to vote, especially when the court is so evenly split. Tell me, if knowing how they'll vote is a criteria for being a reputable Constitutional Law expert, then why is every Constitutional Law expert brought on TV or other places to comment on the vote not calling it one way or another with any certainty? The best you'll hear is "I think they will probably do X."

I didn't say it had anything to do with knowing how they'll vote.

That's because Constitutional Law is about arguing what is Constitutional or not, its about knowing what can be argued as being Constitutional or not.

Well, then he shouldn't have implied that the margin a law wins by in Congress has anything to do with constitutionality.

As discussed in the other thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...e-court-against-striking-down-health-law.html

He said:

I am confident 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.

1) He should know that size of the voting majority has nothing to do with it.

2) The law passed by a very slim margin, not a "strong majority."

3) Laws passed with overwhelming majorities have nonetheless been struck down.

(See the other thread for details.)

So, he got a point on constitutionality wrong, and two factual points wrong. Did he know they were wrong? If so, it makes him a liar. If not, they're pretty simple and basic, not to mention easily knowable, so it puts paid to a lot of the fuss about his credentials as a constitutional expert.
 
When he says things like "This law was passed by a majority of Congress" he's not making an argument to the SCOTUS, he's talking to the American people. Obviously for a law to even be questioned by the SCOTUS it had to have been passed by a majority of Congress, that argument would go nowhere in court as it applies to every single federal law. Again you're confusing political rhetoric or law arguments, he's not trying to sell the Constitutionality of the law to the American people he's trying to sell support for it, part of that supporting being its Constitutionality but sense the American people aren't justices nor have a legal background in most cases he wouldnt make a legal argument.

You're confusing political arguments with legal arguments. Now granted he's trying to sell the American people a political argument as a legal one, but again he's a politician now not a lawyer.

Also what he's saying aren't lies they are opinions, one can confident in an outcome and not be a liar. I could say for example "I'm confident that Obama will be re-elected" however if he is not, that doesn't make me a liar that means my confidence was misplaced. But again, thats different because I don't have a personal stake in it like he does. He has no other option because of the political role he is expect to act confident in a successful outcome, no politician will say they are not confident in the success of their argument or position and nor should you expect them to. For example Newt Gingrich is still talking like he'll be the nominee, why? Because he's still running for the nomination, how can he both run for the nomination while at the same time admitting that there's no chance of winning? He's not a liar, he just has a different opinion that granted isn't very supported but still is just an opinion.
 
I don't think it's politically smart to challenge SCOTUS like he did.....

Nope, me neither. As the President himself pointed out, they're unelected. :mrgreen:
 
I don't think it's politically smart to challenge SCOTUS like he did.....

Very strange from a very well educated President.
 
I think the Admin got it leaked that they plan to overturn it. Between the President and various surrogates, they've put out a full court press today. Seems very coordinated.
 
I can see arrogant bias and dismissal has won out again over reasoned analysis as the preferred method to understand an issue.
 
When he says things like "This law was passed by a majority of Congress" he's not making an argument to the SCOTUS, he's talking to the American people.
Obviously for a law to even be questioned by the SCOTUS it had to have been passed by a majority of Congress, that argument would go nowhere in court as it applies to every single federal law.

That isn't what he said. He said:

I am confident 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.

If he were just saying "majority," then by your own words, he's saying that the Supreme Court has never overturned a law passed by Congress. That's patently absurd. You know that, right? So, either he was being even more absurd than I thought, or he's saying the margin a law is passed by in Congress has some bearing on whether or not it's constitutional (it doesn't).


Again you're confusing political rhetoric or law arguments, he's not trying to sell the Constitutionality of the law to the American people he's trying to sell support for it

No, he's giving his arguments as to why the Court should (and will) uphold it.


part of that supporting being its Constitutionality but sense the American people aren't justices nor have a legal background in most cases he wouldnt make a legal argument.

He made a legal/historical argument and two false factual arguments.

You're confusing political arguments with legal arguments. Now granted he's trying to sell the American people a political argument as a legal one, but again he's a politician now not a lawyer.

I'm not confusing anything. I gave you exactly what he said and why it's wrong. And he should know it is, on three counts.


Also what he's saying aren't lies they are opinions

Not one of the things I cited was an opinion.
 
I can see arrogant bias and dismissal has won out again over reasoned analysis as the preferred method to understand an issue.

Sorry, but I think this describes your own activity in this thread.
 
What's he supposed to say? "Yeah, that'll probably get overturned."

Perhaps something that might hint at his 'constitutional lawyer' background.

Seriously, it would be judicial activism because the law was passed by a majority in the house and senate? Doesn't sound like a constitutional scholar to me.
 
When he says things like "This law was passed by a majority of Congress" he's not making an argument to the SCOTUS, he's talking to the American people.

Yes, he is being misleading.
 
He knows the margin of a bill becoming law has no bearing on its constitutionality. But he's talking to the American people using rhetoric, that's what you don't understand or refuse to understand. He's politicizing that's all, its what every politician and President does. He's making an argument for the American people, not for the SCOTUS, he's speaking to the American people not to the justices that's why the argument is more emotional and less reasonable than his solicitor general's argument in the SCOTUS for comparison.

You're angry at him for making a political argument by stretching things a little bit. For example what defines an "extraordinary step" well its in the eye of the beholder, its an opinion. What's an extraordinary step to me may not be one to you, and he's trying to convince the American people it would be a extraordinary step to save political capital and support in case the law is over turned. And he didn't say the SCOTUS never has overturned a law passed in strong or weak majority, he said "extraordinary step."

And yes he's giving aruguments as to why the court should and will uphold it but again he's talking to the American people, you can't fault him for not giving them a legal argument when they obviously wouldn't respond to a Constitutional law lecture. Every politician knows and does that.
 
There's a difference between being a Constitutional Law expert and knowing how the SCOTUS is going to vote, especially when the court is so evenly split. Tell me, if knowing how they'll vote is a criteria for being a reputable Constitutional Law expert, then why is every Constitutional Law expert brought on TV or other places to comment on the vote not calling it one way or another with any certainty? The best you'll hear is "I think they will probably do X."

That's because Constitutional Law is about arguing what is Constitutional or not, its about knowing what can be argued as being Constitutional or not. Everyone who knows anything about the Constitution and its history knows it can be interrupted in very different and often contradictory ways depending on whos sitting on the bench.

And last, Obama isn't acting nor speaking the role of an unparistan lawyer anymore. As you may or may not know, law(including Constitutional Law) isn't about partisanship as its supposed to apply to everyone equally and lawyers and judges are more often than not called upon not to give their own opinions but to argue or decide a certain way under the law. For example a lawyer may be assigned as public defense for a murderer who he knows is guilty, however its his duty to argue his innocence anyway he can using the law. His personal opinion on the issue is entirely irrelevant. Likewise a Judge is supposed to uphold the procedures of a court room and make sure the law is respected during a hearing or trial, regardless about how he feels about the law if someone is found guilty of it he has a duty to punish accordingly.

President Obama, is not in that role anymore. As a law professor I would agree his opinion should be less bias, however being President he is allowed and expected a certain about of bias especially when it comes to his own creations. Why? Because his a politician, he's supposed to take stances, and have opinions about things including the law and his perspective on it. If you want to say he should be acting more lawyer-y then think of it like he's been hired to defend the law and regardless of his personal opinion on its merits or how the judge will rule, he has a duty to defend it till the end. I mean wouldn't you agree that a President in general should defend his own laws and actions?

Thanks for serving up a huge helping of...........................EXCUSE.
 
He knows the margin of a bill becoming law has no bearing on its constitutionality. But he's talking to the American people using rhetoric, that's what you don't understand or refuse to understand. He's politicizing that's all, its what every politician and President does. He's making an argument for the American people, not for the SCOTUS, he's speaking to the American people not to the justices that's why the argument is more emotional and less reasonable than his solicitor general's argument in the SCOTUS for comparison..

Considering I have never heard him make a legal point, I think you are giving him too much credit. What you see may well be his level of understanding the constitution.
 
He knows the margin of a bill becoming law has no bearing on its constitutionality.

Then he's making what he knows to be a false statement.

But he's talking to the American people using rhetoric, that's what you don't understand or refuse to understand.

No, I just don't excuse him on that basis. If he knows, then it's a lie, and lies are lies.


He's politicizing that's all, its what every politician and President does. He's making an argument for the American people, not for the SCOTUS, he's speaking to the American people not to the justices that's why the argument is more emotional and less reasonable than his solicitor general's argument in the SCOTUS for comparison.

:shrug: Then he's purposely misleading the American people as to what actually goes into deciding a court case. Not to mention the bald-faced lie about it being "unprecedented." That's OK with you? Really?


You're angry at him

I'm not "angry" at anything. If anyone in this thread is exhibiting anger, it's you.

for making a political argument by stretching things a little bit.

A little bit? Everything in the sentence was false.

For example what defines an "extraordinary step" well its in the eye of the beholder, its an opinion.

No, he said the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step was the Supreme Court overturning a law which had been passed by a strong majority. That's a factual statement, plain and simple. And it's false.

What's an extraordinary step to me may not be one to you, and he's trying to convince the American people it would be a extraordinary step to save political capital and support in case the law is over turned. And he didn't say the SCOTUS never has overturned a law passed in strong or weak majority, he said "extraordinary step."

He said "unprecedented." I gave you the quote verbatim. Why are you pretending otherwise?


And yes he's giving aruguments as to why the court should and will uphold it but again he's talking to the American people, you can't fault him for not giving them a legal argument when they obviously wouldn't respond to a Constitutional law lecture. Every politician knows and does that.

I can fault him for making a demonstrably false statement and trying to mislead people with it, sure.
 
Very strange from a very well educated President.

Educated, yes, smart, no. He took on the Supremos as they are appointed not elected, and he said whatever the elected congress passes is law no matter what the constitution says. And he said it was passed by a major majority, but not one republican in the house or senate voted for it. This is the second time Obama has went after the Supremos, and I predict he will loose again. Obama is educated but he is still an idiot.
 
Educated, yes, smart, no. He took on the Supremos as they are appointed not elected, and he said whatever the elected congress passes is law no matter what the constitution says. And he said it was passed by a major majority, but not one republican in the house or senate voted for it. This is the second time Obama has went after the Supremos, and I predict he will loose again. Obama is educated but he is still an idiot.
Could you be kind and point us in the general direction of that quote?
 
Considering I have never heard him make a legal point, I think you are giving him too much credit. What you see may well be his level of understanding the constitution.

I sincerely doubt that someone who taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago would have such a limited understanding of the Constitution or Constitutional Law.

I also sincerely doubt you have the credentials to challenge his understanding of the Constitution, at least from what I've seen of your posts.

But of course like I've said the Constitution is a framework under which laws are argued, the key isn't in what the Constitution actually says but what you can argue it means. That is why two arguments that both were ruled Constitutional can be contradictory, for example racial segregation was ruled to be both Constitutional and unconstitutional under the SAME amendment without the wording of the Constitution ever changing. So you're free to have your own opinions on this matter and who am I or anyone else to say they are wrong, although it would not be outside reason to suggest that when presented before the SCOTUS or another court that you're arguments may be weaker than others.

That being said, I totally agree that if Obama was making the argument he is now before the court and to the court he would have no argument at all. My point is, he's not arguing before the court nor to the court, otherwise his argument would be different which is why we see his lawyer not touching on any of these points before the Court. You won't find the solicitor general telling the SCOTUS "Hey this was passed by majority" because that doesn't apply like you and Harshaw have said.

And thanks to American for that excellent display of arrogant dismissal I was referring to either, he might as well have stuck his head in the sand and screamed "Not uh" till he was blue in the face.

In closing I'd like to say I respect the difference of opinion here, I see your points and we agree more than we disagree. I only hope that if the tables were turned and this was a law you gentlemen agreed with you would be equally passionate in your critique of the President's political rhetoric to the people. If that is the case then I can respect you for your lack of bias in your opinion even if our opinions aren't in total agreement, if this is just partisanship for you two then I can't say I respect a double standard in that case.
 
No, he said the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step was the Supreme Court overturning a law which had been passed by a strong majority. That's a factual statement, plain and simple. And it's false.

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.
 
I sincerely doubt that someone who taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago would have such a limited understanding of the Constitution or Constitutional Law.

I also sincerely doubt you have the credentials to challenge his understanding of the Constitution, at least from what I've seen of your posts.

But of course like I've said the Constitution is a framework under which laws are argued, the key isn't in what the Constitution actually says but what you can argue it means. That is why two arguments that both were ruled Constitutional can be contradictory, for example racial segregation was ruled to be both Constitutional and unconstitutional under the SAME amendment without the wording of the Constitution ever changing. So you're free to have your own opinions on this matter and who am I or anyone else to say they are wrong, although it would not be outside reason to suggest that when presented before the SCOTUS or another court that you're arguments may be weaker than others.

That being said, I totally agree that if Obama was making the argument he is now before the court and to the court he would have no argument at all. My point is, he's not arguing before the court nor to the court, otherwise his argument would be different which is why we see his lawyer not touching on any of these points before the Court. You won't find the solicitor general telling the SCOTUS "Hey this was passed by majority" because that doesn't apply like you and Harshaw have said.

And thanks to American for that excellent display of arrogant dismissal I was referring to either, he might as well have stuck his head in the sand and screamed "Not uh" till he was blue in the face.

In closing I'd like to say I respect the difference of opinion here, I see your points and we agree more than we disagree. I only hope that if the tables were turned and this was a law you gentlemen agreed with you would be equally passionate in your critique of the President's political rhetoric to the people. If that is the case then I can respect you for your lack of bias in your opinion even if our opinions aren't in total agreement, if this is just partisanship for you two then I can't say I respect a double standard in that case.

My constitutional analysis is 100% party-free. Whoever gets it wrong, gets it wrong. I thought, and stated, that Bush declaring he considered McCain-Feingold unconstitutional, but signed it into law anyway, was arguably impeachable.

But fact is fact and Obama got the facts wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom