Page 29 of 54 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 540

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

  1. #281
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    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.
    Why do you argue with a known hack?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  2. #282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post

    If this stands, and Congress has unlimited power to force you to engage in commerce, then there's nothing -- nothing -- it can't require you to do.
    Quire right, and they will always use 'the public interest' in order too tell you should live your life. There are few who feel they don't have the answer as to how other people should live their lives and this is particularly true with politicians, and in fact most people in government.

    If they feel that solar power is the answer there no doubt at all that they will force people to buy solar panels for their homes, at the company of their choosing, and with the risk of heavy fines or jail time if they don't. The opportunities for politicians and their friends to use this to their advantage is enormous, and the lines between the government and crony capitalism has already been well established.

    If the court agrees with the BHO administration then the doors are open wide.

    And even if the Democrats feel this is a good thing at the moment can they not realize that Republicans can take the same opportunities and pass laws forcing the public to buy their products later? It can be energy saving products, health foods, safety devices, anything they might think of, and force everyone, always in the public interest, to buy it. That's what this is really all about.

  3. #283
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

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

    I cannot help but to wonder if this does not backfire on the President.

    Any Justice that rules in favor of Obamacare will be accused of being the President's lackey. Will a Justice that is on the fence lean away from the President so as to make it clear that they are not being partial? The ones that are set one way or the other will not change, but the undecided one may well be influenced.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  4. #284
    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 TurtleDude View Post
    do you think it is a sign of a responsible court to

    1) follow crappy precedent that completely distorted the obvious meaning of the Commerce Clause

    2) give congress unlimited power to make individuals do whatever congress decrees?
    1) I think that it would be irresponsible to overturn 75 years of precedent that was instrumental in the creation of the social safety net, desegration, and a host of other important policies, yes;

    2) In ratifying the mandate the Court wouldn't be giving Congress any power that it doesn't already have.
    "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. #285
    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
    What's astounding is that the people who keep smugly insisting that Congress has unlimited to power to regulate commerce, because they want this law to stand really, really badly, have no idea what they're actually arguing for.

    If this stands, and Congress has unlimited power to force you to engage in commerce, then there's nothing -- nothing -- it can't require you to do.

    I proposed a hypothetical before -- by this notion, Congress could require you to keep your house painted in neutral colors, decluttered and depersonalized. Why? Because the experts say that's what it takes to sell a house. Oh, wait; you don't want to sell your house? Congress can require that you do. Or buy one even if you don't want to. Why? Haven't you noticed the housing market crisis out there?

    There's no end to it, but hey, that's just fine as long as Obama's #1 "accomplishment" is upheld. That's the most important thing, after all.
    That's a rather dimwitted hypothetical. It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home). That would be far more akin to Lopez, where the purely local conduct was regulated on the theory that it had a significant impact on interstate commerce, which the Court noted is quite different from directly regulating interstate commerce.
    "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. #286
    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 Grant View Post
    Are you calling Barack Obama a liar?

    He said that affirmative action helped him.
    Uh, no, as I said before, I don't dispute that affirmative action may have played a role in his admission to Columbia and Harvard. But it did not play a role in his performance at Harvard.

    What Obama wrote was that he was, "someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when [he] was selected to join the Review last year…"

    Presumably what he meant is that he wrote onto the law review, as opposed to being selected on the basis of his first year grades. Apparently the selection process was changed to half grade-on and half write-on in recognition of the fact that minorities might be at a disadvantage in a purely grade-on process. However, there is no affirmative action within the writing competition, which is completely anonymous. Likewise affirmative action had nothing to do with the fact that he graduated at the top of his class while working 50+ hours/wk at the law review.
    "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. #287
    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 American View Post
    Why do you argue with a known hack?
    Why would he be interested in what a known hack has to say about it?
    "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. #288
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    That's a rather dimwitted hypothetical. It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home). That would be far more akin to Lopez, where the purely local conduct was regulated on the theory that it had a significant impact on interstate commerce, which the Court noted is quite different from directly regulating interstate commerce.
    So, what if Congress mandated that solar power shall be installed in every home. The ompanies that manufacture the solar panels are interstate commerce, so it is not the house that is regulated and mandated, it is the purchase of the panels...

    Would that be within the scope of commerce clause in your opinion? Green energy is for the common good and general welfare, after all .......
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  9. #289
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,499

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    That's a rather dimwitted hypothetical. It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home).
    Oh, I'm sure I can think of something, let's see, off the top of my head . . . growing a crop for your own personal consumption.



    You're saying that the home financing market doesn't cross state lines? Really?

    You're saying home construction doesn't cross state lines? Really?

    You're saying no one ever buys a home in a different state? Really?

    And you're saying that the housing market in all its permeations doesn't "substantially affect interstate commerce" in the sense contemplated by Wickard? Really?

    Whew.
    “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

  10. #290
    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
    1) I think that it would be irresponsible to overturn 75 years of precedent that was instrumental in the creation of the social safety net, desegration, and a host of other important policies, yes;
    So you want liberal policies to stand, no matter if they REALLY pass Constitutional muster or not?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

Page 29 of 54 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •