Page 25 of 54 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 540

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

  1. #241
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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.
    Yes, in a way which does not at ALL suggest what YOU say he meant ("commerce clause case law").

    So, I ask again, why do you carry his water so faithfully? You even appear to the be last one here with a bucket.

    Edit: Nope, I'm wrong; there's still a small brigade left.
    “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

  2. #242
    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
    But not his own facts, like "strong majority" and "unprecedented."
    A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
    "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. #243
    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
    Yes, in a way which does not at ALL suggest what YOU say he meant ("commerce clause case law").

    So, I ask again, why do you carry his water so faithfully? You even appear to the be last one here with a bucket.
    Actually in a way that is EXACTLY what I said he meant.

    Maybe you missed it?

    We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned, at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going to back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal. And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly-elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

    Now, as I said, I expect -- I expect the Supreme Court actually to -- to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there. I have enormous confidence that, in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has.

    As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. What I did emphasize yesterday is, there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. This is not an abstract exercise.
    "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

  4. #244
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much.
    He said a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. 18 votes out of 535 is no one's definition of "strong." Quite a few liberal commentators have conceded this; why can't you?


    If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
    Nope, United States v. Lopez. Funny, proponents there said it "clearly" regulated commerce, too.
    “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. #245
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Actually in a way that is EXACTLY what I said he meant.

    Maybe you missed it?
    Actually, yes, I did miss that particular one . . . but he's tying it to health care moreso than "commerce." And he's still wrong.
    “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

  6. #246
    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
    A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.

    LOL ..... there is nothing strong in a vote that is along party lines. Nothing. In fact, that makes it weak.

    This is one logic fallacy after another. Or deliberate BS.

  7. #247
    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
    He said a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. 18 votes out of 535 is no one's definition of "strong." Quite a few liberal commentators have conceded this; why can't you?




    Nope, United States v. Lopez. Funny, proponents there said it "clearly" regulated commerce, too.
    You don't add up the Senate and the House to get a final tally. It doesn't work that way. I said it passed by a supermajority in the Senate and not so much in the House. Why can't you acknowledge that reality?

    Re: Lopez, you are incorrect. The argument there was that the state law had an indirect effect on interstate commerce -- not that Congress was directly regulating Congress.
    "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. #248
    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
    LOL ..... there is nothing strong in a vote that is along party lines. Nothing. In fact, that makes it weak.

    This is one logic fallacy after another. Or deliberate BS.
    Last time I checked they counted the votes the same way whether or not they were all cast by the same party. Are you saying it wouldn't be a strong majority if the Senate was 95% Republican and a bill passed 95 to 5?
    "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. #249
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
    Except this isn't clearly an example of regulating interstate commerce, which is why this thing has found its way all the way to the SCOTUS and has a decent possibility of being overturned. There's nothing "Clear" about its relationship to regulating interstate commerce, on the contrary its ambiguous due to the extreme unique nature regarding the mandate. It is only "Clear" due to your hyper partisan need to make it out as if your side is unquestionably correct so you can act like those you so often enjoy casting dispersions on by whining about judicial activism or something akin to it if the court doesn’t happen to agree with your conclusion.

  10. #250
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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.
    Where have I been proclaiming that I'm correct? Where have I made an affirmative statement about what the court will rule, or what is absolutely clear regarding constitutionality? I absolutely have done no such thing. I know full well my OPINION is that it's unconstitutional, however I'm not going to sit here and proclaim my opinion is absolute or that if it doesn't follow with my opinion that it MUST be for politically motivated reasons or "judicial activism" or such. In this case, if the court finds in favor of this administration, it would not fit how I personally define judicial activism as they are setting a clear portion of the constitution to base their judgment on. An interpretation of that portion that I strongly disagree with, but one that is at least clearly rooted in the constitution rather than in the creation of words and rights that are in no way or form stated in the document.

    My only comment on it is that it is not a clear open and cut situation, where only one side is unquestionably correct and the other side to say otherwise is unconstitutional politically motivated activism, as the President and seemingly you are want to do. It's a case with significant constitutional questions and ambiguity that has the capacity to easily go either way and where the ideologues, if we're going to consider them as such, on the court have unquestionably moved to their ideological sides and that suggesting somehow that one side is doing so because of principle and the other doing so simply due to politics is foolish sophistry at its worst.

    The fact that this issue has received differing rulings throughout multiple lower courts, has legal scholars in agreement on both sides of the issues, and has the potential for a 5-4 decision either direction is clear and undisputable evidence that the question regarding its constitutionality is NOT clear, is NOT unquestionable, and does NOT have only one plausible legitimate answer that is obvious. To suggest that an entire scope of judges, justices, legal scholars, lawyers, and other individuals are all orchestrating an elaborate gambit that is based purely on politics with no regard or notion for the constitution and that an overturning of the law is a sign of judicial activism by individuals seeking to push a political agenda is pure politically motivated ignorance in and of itself.

Page 25 of 54 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •