• 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’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I pay for mine too. If I was a freeloader they wouldn't have gone up now would they? They went from about 357 a month to 600+. A lot of companies when up quite a bit, because they are all ramping up for Ubamacare when it kicks in.

Did I imply that you were a freeloader? So your company is charging you more money now because they might go up in two more years?

Ubama?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Ubamacare doesn't change that fact. Tell me how our government is going to force the homeless, the severely poor to purchase heathcare in this country? My premiums have already doubled since Ubamacare. If I was already paying for those who use emergency care without paying, why did my premiums double???

Insurers are pretty much free to charge as much as they want now. Under the new HC bill they will need to spend at least 80 or 85% of your premium to pay claims and will be forced to refund money to you if they take too much. At least then you will know your money is not mostly going to fund the CEO's new summer home in the Hamptons. They can "only" keep 15 to 20% for the job of cutting the checks. Nice work if you can get it and Medicare's "overhead" is half of that but at least they will no longer be free to gouge at will. And they will save money too, no more high paid examiners who's highly skilled job is tryng to find ways for them to weasel out of paying when you get sick..
 
Last edited:
Insurers are pretty much free to charge as much as they want now. Under the new HC bill they will need to spend at least 80 or 85% of your premium to pay claims and will be forced to refund money to you if they take too much. At least then you will know your money is not mostly going to fund the CEO's new summer home in the Hamptons. They can "only" keep 15 to 20% for the job of cutting the checks. Nice work if you can get it and Medicare's "overhead" is half of that but at least they will no longer be free to gouge at will. And they will save money too, no more high paid examiners who's highly skilled job is tryng to find ways for them to weasel out of paying when you get sick..

Iirc.correctly that aspect of the law hasnt taken affect yet so they are getting while the getting us good

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So you are better off popping out a few kids to get a tax credit? Interesting logic, considering the cost of a child is far more than any tax credit could hope to be.

Nice strawman. :lol:

So under obamacare those that can not afford health care will have it 'taken care of' for them. Which means somebody else is paying for them. How exactly is that any different than what we have now? Hard working people paying for slackers.

Obamacare doesn't provide for "slackers". What it does is provide subsidies, on a sliding scale based on income, for people who are working but not earning enough to foot the enire bill for health insurance. How is it different? It provides health insurance to 30 million+ people who don't presently have it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Sure thing... I'll even make it a Fox News link so claims of left-wing media bias can't be laid out against me.


Gingrich: Arrest Judges Who Refuse to Explain Rulings

Don't forget that he also suggested that the whole Federal 9th Circuit should be dissolved because he doesn't agree with their liberal tendencies. Somehow the "genius" doesn't quite get the whole separation of powers dealie.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Don't forget that he also suggested that the whole Federal 9th Circuit should be dissolved because he doesn't agree with their liberal tendencies. Somehow the "genius" doesn't quite get the whole separation of powers dealie.

That pretty much caps off this selective outrage thread.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Nice strawman. :lol:

Should I provide you a link that explains what that is?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Should I provide you a link that explains what that is?

Not necessary, but if history is a guide the research would do you some good.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Insurers are pretty much free to charge as much as they want now. Under the new HC bill they will need to spend at least 80 or 85% of your premium to pay claims and will be forced to refund money to you if they take too much. At least then you will know your money is not mostly going to fund the CEO's new summer home in the Hamptons. They can "only" keep 15 to 20% for the job of cutting the checks. Nice work if you can get it and Medicare's "overhead" is half of that but at least they will no longer be free to gouge at will. And they will save money too, no more high paid examiners who's highly skilled job is tryng to find ways for them to weasel out of paying when you get sick..

If insurers are "required to spend" the money.... You can bet your life they will. The thought they will send any money back to a consumer is a pipe dream.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

If insurers are "required to spend" the money.... You can bet your life they will. The thought they will send any money back to a consumer is a pipe dream.

Well after 100 years of trying I guess any reform could be considered a pipe dream, but I said they need to spend 85% of it on the HC claims of their customers not anything else. That means they can't profit by more than the 15 to 20% instead of the 30 to 35% they make now on some plans. The law says they must send the excess back or face legal action.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Yes, Obama was elected Harvard Law Review President because he was Black. He was unqualified then and he is unqualified for the Presidency now.

Now he is not caring the Supreme Court Judgment.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

"Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?"​


Oh the outrage!!!1111!!!!


I'd like to see evidence of outrage from the same outraged people when Gingrich proposed that as president he would send US Marshalls or the Capital Police over to arrest judges whose rulings he disagreed with.

Sure thing... I'll even make it a Fox News link so claims of left-wing media bias can't be laid out against me.


Gingrich: Arrest Judges Who Refuse to Explain Rulings


Boy, glad I asked for a link instead of just accepting your lies. Arresting for disagreeing with and refusing to explain rulings is quite a bit different.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Boy, glad I asked for a link instead of just accepting your lies. Arresting for disagreeing with and refusing to explain rulings is quite a bit different.

:rofl So you're cool with legislators or the President arresting judges so they can drag them to Washington and intimidate them?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

"Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?"​


Oh the outrage!!!1111!!!!


I'd like to see evidence of outrage from the same outraged people when Gingrich proposed that as president he would send US Marshalls or the Capital Police over to arrest judges whose rulings he disagreed with.

:rofl So you're cool with legislators or the President arresting judges so they can drag them to Washington and intimidate them?


He deliberately misrepresented what was said.

Sure why not? You think no other SC justice has ever been relieved of his duties?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

He deliberately misrepresented what was said.

Sure why not? You think no other SC justice has ever been relieved of his duties?

Holy ignorant ****s, Batman! In fact Gingrich did say that judges could be arrested to force them to come to Washington.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich showed no sign Sunday of letting up on his assault on “activist” federal judges. During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rative-judges/2011/12/18/gIQAlYUg2O_blog.html


In fact SC justices are appointed for life and can only be impeached. And no, no SC justice has EVER been relieved of his or her duties.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Holy ignorant ****s, Batman! In fact Gingrich did say that judges could be arrested to force them to come to Washington. In fact SC justices are appointed for life and can only be impeached. And no, no SC justice has EVER been relieved of his or her duties.


Read the constitution. Article 1. the power of impeachment is vested in the Legislative branch.

Do you think there should be no checks and balances? We should never remove them by impeachment for wrong doing? You'd be all for it if Ubama said it. You libs crack me up. Partisan Hack much?...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You're fine with Ubama intimidating them, though aren't you???...LMFAO!!!
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Read the constitution. Article 1. the power of impeachment is vested in the Legislative branch.

Do you think there should be no checks and balances? We should never remove them by impeachment for wrong doing? You'd be all for it if Ubama said it. You libs crack me up. Partisan Hack much?...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You're fine with Ubama intimidating them, though aren't you???...LMFAO!!!

Are you completely unaware of the our system of checks and balances? The impeachment process is not to be used to intimidate the judicial branch because a legislator or President doesn't care for their judicial philosophy.

And in any case, the President is not the legislature. Even if it was permissible to haul federal judges up to interrogate them about their decisions (which it SO clearly is not), that would be a power vested in Congress -- not the executive, as Newt proposed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Are you completely unaware of the our system of checks and balances? The impeachment process is not to be used to intimidate the judicial branch because a legislator or President doesn't care for their judicial philosophy.


OMG!!! The impeachment process is used to correct or stop wrong doing by the SC. or federal judges. Intimidate??? Talk to Ubama about intimidation and then get back to me.

Like I said, you're just fine with Ubama intimidating them without bringing them to congress. So basically you're all for intimidation outside the confines of the Constitution.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Are you completely unaware of the our system of checks and balances? The impeachment process is not to be used to intimidate the judicial branch because a legislator or President doesn't care for their judicial philosophy.

And in any case, the President is not the legislature. Even if it was permissible to haul federal judges up to interrogate them about their decisions (which it SO clearly is not), that would be a power vested in Congress -- not the executive, as Newt proposed.

That they are appointed for life is all the more reason that Congress would want to pull a few in from time to time. At least with other officials, such as Senators, the public gets a chance for a do-over every six years. Not saying it couldn't get politically ugly, but that's how it is done. If abused, those doing the abuse would surely face scorn as well. Congress has the authority to do it, and so they should. If a Justice is starting to go senile or dingbat, let's see it.

We need only look to Wisconsin to see where Dems are cool to such "abuse" of the system.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Why are these remarks 'unprecedented' only when a black democratic President says them?? -- The right has been screaming 'judicial activism' for years....

Come on, righties, try to be a little self-aware of your own hypocrisy...



What the **** does race have to do with it? my ****ing god, give it a ****ing rest already..... :roll: :lamo
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

That they are appointed for life is all the more reason that Congress would want to pull a few in from time to time.

The purpose of the lifetime appointment is to ensure independence. It would be completely anathema to the separation of powers doctrine for Congress to grill any federal judge just because they don't like the judge's decision.

Of course it's perfectly proper if the the judge in question is mentally unfit or has broken the law. Lower court judges have been impeached from time to time.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The purpose of the lifetime appointment is to ensure independence. It would be completely anathema to the separation of powers doctrine for Congress to grill any federal judge just because they don't like the judge's decision.

Of course it's perfectly proper if the the judge in question is mentally unfit or has broken the law. Lower court judges have been impeached from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with questioning a SC justice or justices if congress feels they have overstepped their bounds.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Boy, glad I asked for a link instead of just accepting your lies. Arresting for disagreeing with and refusing to explain rulings is quite a bit different.

So the executive branch arresting judicial branch for the decisions they made. That's different how? lol

If the case is because they didn't explain their decision, as if the executive branch has any say on how the judicial branch does their business, Clarence Thomas would never see daylight again.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

There is nothing wrong with questioning a SC justice or justices if congress feels they have overstepped their bounds.

What does that have to do with an executive arresting judicial members?

Man the hypocritical lengths you're going to by defending Gingrich's idiotic comments just so you feel you can strengthen your stance to take a jab at Obama is incredible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom