Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 540

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

  1. #461
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefgator View Post
    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.

  2. #462
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    152

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Neal N. Bloeme View Post
    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.

  3. #463
    Advisor Rapunzel52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great Midwest
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    525

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

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    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.
    If it sounds like Marx and acts like Stalin...it must be Obama

  4. #464
    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 Rapunzel52 View Post
    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 you're cool with legislators or the President arresting judges so they can drag them to Washington and intimidate 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. #465
    Advisor Rapunzel52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great Midwest
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    525

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

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    "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.
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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?
    If it sounds like Marx and acts like Stalin...it must be Obama

  6. #466
    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 Rapunzel52 View Post
    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/...Ug2O_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 by AdamT; 04-10-12 at 10:33 AM.
    "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. #467
    Advisor Rapunzel52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great Midwest
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    525

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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 by Rapunzel52; 04-10-12 at 10:37 AM.
    If it sounds like Marx and acts like Stalin...it must be Obama

  8. #468
    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 Rapunzel52 View Post
    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 by AdamT; 04-10-12 at 10:43 AM.
    "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. #469
    Advisor Rapunzel52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great Midwest
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    525

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    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.
    If it sounds like Marx and acts like Stalin...it must be Obama

  10. #470
    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
    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 by Eighty Deuce; 04-10-12 at 10:56 AM.

Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... 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
  •