Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

  1. #21
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Here's the link, interesting read:

    Bruised Obama tries to walk back his attack on the Supreme Court - Right Turn - The Washington Post

    He should make a hastey retreat from his initial remarks. Questioning the legitimacy of SCOTUS's decisions, telling the American public what he thinks going on in minds of the justices, saying, in effect, that it would be a mis-use of their powers to rule against him, is wrong. I'm betting that whoever shoved those notes under his nose has some 'splainin' to do.


    I believe that's exactly what the admin's press secretary is trying to do. He was being bombarded today by more than Ed Henry. The reporters had smirks on their faces watching that poor guy doing the rope-a-dope, try to "walk back" what President Obama said.
    Last edited by Billy the Kid; 04-05-12 at 02:56 PM.

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,866
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    What Obama said:

    "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
    Sorry but it is no gaff. If it had been then he would not have proceeded to talk about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint". A gaff is generally one short sentence. Not multiple sentences strung together into a paragraph in order to try and make a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    The law was passed by a majority of a democractically elected Congress. Overturning the law would be an unprecedented and an extraordinary step, because it would reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. The mistake was in connecting the two points to make it seem as if overturning the law would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of Congress.
    No it would not reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. For the simple fact that the mandate sets a new precedent. That of allowing the government to force people to buy from private companies. At no other time in our history has the legislative and executive branches ever tried to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Taking this remark seriously is just as bad as taking Romney's remark that he doesn't care about poor people seriously. It's stupid hackery. End of story.
    No, the hackery is in trying to dismiss a whole paragraph as a "gaff".

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    You have been watching too much FoxNews.
    I don't know about snilloctjc but I for one don't watch FoxNews. In fact I don't watch the news on TV period.

    Edit: You should also note that this was stated during a State of the Union address. Everything he said he had thought about before the address and was put down into his notes. (or teleprompter as the case may be) So its not like he didn't have time before hand to think of what he was going to say. Which shows another part of how gaffs happen...when a person doesn't have forethought....it doesn't happen in prepared speeches.
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 04-05-12 at 03:14 PM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #23
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,851
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Sorry but it is no gaff. If it had been then he would not have proceeded to talk about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint". A gaff is generally one short sentence. Not multiple sentences strung together into a paragraph in order to try and make a point.
    We are only talking about one sentence. Obama's statements about "judicial activism" and "lack of restraint" are not inconsistent with what he really meant. You should read the response the Justice Dep't submitted to the court.

    No it would not reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. For the simple fact that the mandate sets a new precedent. That of allowing the government to force people to buy from private companies. At no other time in our history has the legislative and executive branches ever tried to do that.
    Even if the mandate does sets a new precedent (an arguable point), that makes the SCOTUS decision on the matter unprecedented as well. Or as SCOTUS will likely say, an issue of "first impression."

    But here is the actual line of precedent Obama was referring to (from Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.):

    We, therefore, conclude that the action of the Congress in the adoption of the Act as applied here to a motel which concededly serves interstate travelers is within the power granted it by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court for 140 years.

    It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination. But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce *262 may be removed-what means are to be employed-is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress. It is subject only to one caveat-that the means chosen by it must be reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution.
    Add that to the fact that SCOTUS has not overturned a law based on the commerce clause since the Great Depression.

    Yes, it would be unprecedented.



    No, the hackery is in trying to dismiss a whole paragraph as a "gaff".
    No, the hackery is a deliberate attempt to make an obvious mistake into something conniving or demonstrating extreme ignorance.

    I don't know about snilloctjc but I for one don't watch FoxNews. In fact I don't watch the news on TV period.
    Good.

    Edit: You should also note that this was stated during a State of the Union address. Everything he said he had thought about before the address and was put down into his notes. (or teleprompter as the case may be) So its not like he didn't have time before hand to think of what he was going to say. Which shows another part of how gaffs happen...when a person doesn't have forethought....it doesn't happen in prepared speeches.
    I think we are talking about different things. I'm talking about the comment he made to reporters a few days ago. That's what the court of appeals is talking about as well.
    Last edited by Cameron; 04-05-12 at 03:37 PM.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  4. #24
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    It is neither. He is a constitutional scholar who was inarticulate for a moment. Even informed people every once and a while say things they don't mean. The one difference is most scholars don't have every word they utter in public recorded. Enough with the hackery.

    What Obama said:

    "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

    The law was passed by a majority of a democractically elected Congress. Overturning the law would be an unprecedented and an extraordinary step, because it would reverse 100 years of SCOTUS precedent. The mistake was in connecting the two points to make it seem as if overturning the law would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of Congress.


    It's not a mistake, because it's what he said. There weren't two points; you're just pulling that out of thin air.

    Taking this remark seriously is just as bad as taking Romney's remark that he doesn't care about poor people seriously. It's stupid hackery. End of story.
    The "hackery" comes in because Romney didn't say that. This is what he said:

    [“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. “I’m not concerned about the very poor.We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”“I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”
    “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. #25
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,756
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  6. #26
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments



    No, he didn't. He didn't tell the judge anything the judge didn't know, and his last sentence: "The President's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein" is just plain false.

    What, exactly, do YOU think the "lesson" was?
    “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

  7. #27
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,851
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    It's not a mistake, because it's what he said.
    This doesn't make any sense. A spoken sentence can never be a mistake?

    Did you not just commit the exact same type of error Obama did?

    Continue hacking.
    Last edited by Cameron; 04-05-12 at 03:57 PM.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  8. #28
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Looks like Holder not only did his homework, but gave a lesson on the Constitution to the judge who fired the shot. LMAO.

    And speaking of making remarks about the Supreme Court, here's a blast from the past.



    Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
    This was ten years after the decision.
    "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.

  9. #29
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    This doesn't make any sense. A spoken sentence can never be a mistake?


    Speaking of "hacking," did you purposely misconstrue what I said? I mean, I quoted you, and bolded exactly what I was responding to, and everything.

    It's not a mistake to confuse two thoughts as one, because the sentence contained only one thought, and not the second one you read into it.

    Did you not just commit the exact same type of error Obama did?
    Combine two factual misstatements with incorrect statement of judicial review? No, can't say I did.
    “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. #30
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    No, he didn't. He didn't tell the judge anything the judge didn't know, and his last sentence: "The President's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein" is just plain false.

    What, exactly, do YOU think the "lesson" was?
    It appears to me that 90% of the letter did not discuss the President's remarks at all, and only at the end did he address was the 5th Circuit requested.
    "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.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •