Page 24 of 54 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 540

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

  1. #231
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,847

    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)
    Why would the president be any different? Everyone screams judicial activism when judges do something they don't like. Take, for example, every time a judge overturns a gay marriage ban. Every time it's "these judges are unelected! rarr will of the people! judicial activism! legislating from the bench! Rabble rabble!"

    Turns out President Obama is a politician too. People seem surprised at this, for some reason. Besides, what else is a president supposed to say? "Yeah the supreme court will probably overturn this major policy thing of mine. Oops!"
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #232
    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
    I'm not confusing anything. I'm just telling you how the Court has behaved over the course of its history.
    And I think they may have occasionally behaved that way in 200+ yet that doesn't define their purpose, intent or function.
    “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.


  3. #233
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Okay, I thought he was talking about the mandate case that was decided under the commerce clause. What were you talking about?
    This is why I hope you're being paid to say these things. You know damn well his statement that no law passed by a strong majority of Congress has been overturned wasn't limited to any clause.

    If you're not being paid, why are you so motivated to carry his water all the way into hell? The contortions and twists you come up with to try to "explain" what he "really meant" are Olympic-caliber.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #234
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:14 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    He's a Constitutional scholar and like many of them he doesn't believe the bill is unconstitutional. He has a right to his opinions.
    But not his own facts, like "strong majority" and "unprecedented."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #235
    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
    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.
    Unfortunately I don't know of any list of "top constitutional scholars". I just know the the most prominent ones, which are the ones I listed. I do remember a wider survey when the mandate was first proposed, but I can't seem to find it now. As for Tribe, he isn't presently working for Obama. I also cited Fried who isn't presently working for Reagan. Funny you haven't mentioned that one. In any case, these are clearly several orders of magnitude different from a guy who is actively representing a plaintiff in the case. That attorney has an affirmative duty to argue on behalf of his client. He could be sanctioned or worse if he took the other side.

    Of course you are free to list your own counterveiling experts and I'd be happy to address their opinions and qualifications. Right now all I hear from you is the sound of crickets chirping.

    The question here was, "what do independent constitutional scholars think," so it's a bit asinine to argue that I'm discounting what the justices have said. In any case, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the justices haven't given their opinions yet. While oral arguments can give a general idea how a judge is leaning, they don't always, and you never know what a particular question on a particular point means. Is the judge really skeptical, or is he just playing devil's advocate? Is he dubious about the law, or is he just trying to tie up any loose ends he might have before finding it constitutional? We don't know. As far as other sitting judges go, they generally will not, and should not comment on a case that's before the Supreme Court, as there's a chance they will have to rule on some aspect of the case or interpret the decision.

    Finally, appealing to authority is not a fallacy unless the person(s) cited is not actually an authority.

    So you seem to be proclaiming you're correct based on ... what? The opinion of the counsel representing your side? The questions of the judges? Strong argument.
    "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

  6. #236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    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.
    No. He was a "lecturer". And often on leave from teaching.

  7. #237
    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 Eighty Deuce View Post
    No. He was a "lecturer". And often on leave from teaching.
    As the law school has said, they consider a senior lecturer to be a professor.
    "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

  8. #238
    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
    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".
    Is it two wrongs make a right, or is it turnabout is fair play? In this case I would say it's the latter.
    "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

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    As the law school has said, they consider a senior lecturer to be a professor.
    Yeah. They said that after the DNC and all its affiliates started to refer to Obama as a "Professor" in the run up to 2008, and then it became apparent he had never been one.

    Fact is, he was never a "professor". He was a Community Organizer though.

  10. #240
    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 Harshaw View Post
    This is why I hope you're being paid to say these things. You know damn well his statement that no law passed by a strong majority of Congress has been overturned wasn't limited to any clause.

    If you're not being paid, why are you so motivated to carry his water all the way into hell? The contortions and twists you come up with to try to "explain" what he "really meant" are Olympic-caliber.
    I agree that's what his words literally said. I thing I've said that before. My point is that I don't think that's what he meant, and he has since clarified what he meant.
    "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

Page 24 of 54 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •