Page 9 of 54 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 540

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

  1. #81
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Actually it's not an appeal to authority at all.
    Sure it is. His status as any of those things does not mean he knows more than anyone here.


    Even so, I would pay good money to see that debate.
    I'd be happy to do it for free.
    “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. #82
    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
    I never saw the SCOTUS's job as giving deference to Congress... the direct opposite. The SCOTUS should keep Congress in check as it applies to the Constitution.
    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.
    "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. #83
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,396
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    He is correct that they should give deference to Congress, though it is obviously a limited deference. Basically it's just saying that the burden is on the party seeking to overturn a law.

    Funny, i thought the "burden" was to simply interperet the constitution...my bad
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #84
    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 AdamT View Post
    Given that he graduated magna cum laude, president of Harvard Law Review, and taught con-law at one of the country's best law schools, it's pretty clear that he knows better than anyone here.
    I should have bought more Kool Aid stocks!

    You do know that BHO wasn't given that HLR position because of his grades, right?

  5. #85
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I never saw the SCOTUS's job as giving deference to Congress... the direct opposite. The SCOTUS should keep Congress in check as it applies to the Constitution.
    Constitutional doctrine is to give deference to Congress. But only so far.

    However, claiming that overturning a law passed by a "stong majority" would be "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" is something quite other than simply saying deference to Congress is due. Aside from being patently false.
    “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. #86
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,615

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



    Unless he is completely ignorant to the number of times the 9th has ruled against voter mandates...

  7. #87
    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 ReverendHellh0und View Post
    I personally never bought that argument either..,
    No, he's covering his ass so that later he can say he was shocked, shocked mind you, at the decision of the Supreme Court.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    04-15-12 @ 10:25 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,964

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

    It's very simple. Obama is talking crap.

  9. #89
    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
    Sure it is. His status as any of those things does not mean he knows more than anyone here.
    Well, I would argue that his status means just that. Thus the courts recognize expert authority all the time, and it is perfectly legitimate -- in fact required -- to establish the expert's academic bona fides.

    If the person is an expert then it is not a logical fallacy to cite to their expertise. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
    "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

  10. #90
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well, I would argue that his status means just that. Thus the courts recognize expert authority all the time, and it is perfectly legitimate -- in fact required -- to establish the expert's academic bona fides.

    If the person is an expert then it is not a logical fallacy to cite to their expertise. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
    You didn't claim he was merely an "expert." You said it means he knows more about it than anyone here.

    To that, I say "ha."
    “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

Page 9 of 54 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •