Page 23 of 54 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 540

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

  1. #221
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Sure, SC justices are constitutional experts. So is the President.
    I have seen zero evidence, based on his words that can be found, that shows the president to be one.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  2. #222
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    I have seen zero evidence, based on his words that can be found, that shows the president to be one.
    He was a professor of constitutional law at a top-five law school. That qualifies him as an expert.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  3. #223
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Irwin Chemerinsky
    Perhaps Obama should take a lesson from Chemerinsky concerning complaints about the court acting on Judicial Activism.

    "Judicial activism is the label for the decision that people don't like."

    Or does that quote only apply when its a decision HE doesn't like? (And that Obama doesn't like)

  4. #224
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Perhaps Obama should take a lesson from Chemerinsky concerning complaints about the court acting on Judicial Activism.

    "Judicial activism is the label for the decision that people don't like."

    Or does that quote only apply when its a decision HE doesn't like? (And that Obama doesn't like)
    Apparently it only applies when its a decision that conservatives don't like. They get very prickly when the tables are turned on them.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #225
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well then you have not been seeing it correctly, because -- particularly in the context of a commerce clause challenge -- Congress is given HUGE discretion. Google "rational basis" for a thorough discussion.
    You're confusing what your opinion is they have done, with intent and purpose. In the 200+ years yes the SCOTUS has sometimes given deference... however my point is that is NOT their purpose - not then, not now. It's very clear why the framers created the 3 distinct sections of government. On a side note, pretty much anything can be "rationalized"...
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  6. #226
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    You're confusing what your opinion is they have done, with intent and purpose. In the 200+ years yes the SCOTUS has sometimes given deference... however my point is that is NOT their purpose - not then, not now. It's very clear why the framers created the 3 distinct sections of government. On a side note, pretty much anything can be "rationalized"...
    I'm not confusing anything. I'm just telling you how the Court has behaved over the course of its history.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #227
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    He was a professor of constitutional law at a top-five law school. That qualifies him as an expert.
    What qualifies someone as an expert is proving they have the knowledge required to be considered an expert. I have not seen that.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  8. #228
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Did I say that it was unanimous? No.
    No you said "most", you have failed to prove your case....

    How renowned is your expert? An associate professor at George Mason School of Law?

    A regular writer at "The Volohk Conspiracy"? "The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog which mostly covers United States legal and political issues, generally from a libertarian or conservative perspective."



    Like I said, I did a simple google search, I don't bow to so called "experts" like you do, you made the claim "most", I simply demonstrated you were wrong.


    Can you explain to me how never in the history of the nation, has Congress adopted a law requiring people to buy a product or service simply because they exist and live in this country? and can you reconcile that the Supreme Court has never held that Congress can fine/tax/etc "doing nothing" in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

    It is obscene to the Constitution, no matter which so called "expert" you bandy about.
    Last edited by ReverendHellh0und; 04-04-12 at 12:09 PM.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #229
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Okay. Now address Amar, Tribe, and Chemerinsky, who are, I think most legal scholars would concede, the top three, or at least among the top five constitutional law scholars in the country. And Fried -- Reagan's Solicitor General.
    Could you please provide this comprehensive list of top constitutional scholars? I don't deny all three, one of which in regards to Tribe is regarded as one of the top "liberal" constitutional experts and was a consultant for Obama's Justice Administration, are well respected opinions. That said, you've chosen at least two, if not three, Constitutional Scholars who are known to historically lean, with regards to the constitution, in a similar way that Ginsberg and Breyer lean. What you're essentially attempting to do is handpick the experts of your choosing to attempt to validate only one view point of constitutional philosophy as being valid.

    Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law stated before the Judiciary committee that "the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power to mandate that persons must engage in economic activity". I find it interesting you immedietely discount Rivkin and Casey because they represent the plantiff, but have no issue quoting a person whose been on the payroll of the Obama Administration as a fair and objective individual. One of the people in your own links, James Blumstein, even suggest that the notion of its constitutionality only exists "given the expansion of federal power since 1937", which inherently suggests that it's simply due to precedent rather than any inherent constitutional notion that it should not be overturned. However, throughout America's history there's been examples, some lauded by Liberals (and some by both sides), where the Courts disregarded precedent for their own interpritation of the Constitution and those acts are not viewed as unconstitutional or judicial activism or "wrong".

    You further discount the fact that while those you've named are legal experts, they are no more legal experts than those sitting on the Supreme Court and they are no more or less impartial because they're professors rather than judges. Furthermore, it puts all your stock in judging the constitutionality of this on legal experts, specifically in your case legal experts with a noted lean in terms of their style of constitutional interpritation, while ignoring that there are a plethora of legal experts throughout the country who have taken up the mantle of Judges rather than deciding to enter into acadamia. A group, by and large, that remains silent on such a thing. The notion that one can accuratley and fairly designate what the majority of legal expert or scholar's believes is a misguided one based on this notion. Perhaps a judgement can be made regarding the majority of legal professors, but those are hardly the only experts on the issue in this country.

    Finally, I'll point out your baseline fallacy with appealing to authority. Not only are you proclaiming you're correct because some experts, hand picked by you and deemed the "top" in the country by you, happen to agree but you do so by discounting the experts sitting on the court that disagree with you, the experts making the arguments that are disagreeing with you, and other experts that have spoken out that disagree not to mention those that can't or choose not to speak out. So your argument that you're correct is generally based on a foundation of nothing but your own hand selected experts as some kind of unquestionable truth. It is not.

  10. #230
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Apparently it only applies when its a decision that conservatives don't like. They get very prickly when the tables are turned on them.
    Really? Because Obama's stated that if this is overturned its an example of Judicial Activism yet gets prickly and bitchy when it goes the other way....seems like it doesn't only apply to decisions conservatives don't like.

    Actually, Obama and yourself are highlighting the very thing your prized professor was whining about. You bitch and whine and moan when people use the term "judicial activism" when its against a case you like, but when a case goes the way you dislike Obama and seemingly yourself have no issue using it.

    Seems to me that for you and Obama it definitely is a label for the decision that you don't like.

    Excuse me if I refuse to engage in your and the President's sad and pathetic little game of "two wrongs make a right".

Page 23 of 54 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •