• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

Kal'Stang said:
OH! IN THE "MODERN ERA"! Ok! Its ALL cleared up now. :roll: Sorry Mr. Obama, I don't believe you.
Click to expand...

yep the modern era.

three equal branches of government, but some branches are now "more equal" then others and the process of amending the constitution can be thrown in the dust heap of history along with powdered wigs and declarations of war.
 
Obama fired one across the court's bow and they sent a salvo right back

Obama was asked what he would do if the SC quashed the mandate provision
if he had commented about that contingency, his critics would have screamed and hollered that he threw his solicitor under the bus
so, he noted that it would be unprecedented (wrong, but it would be rare, especially in 'modern' times) for the court to unravel legislation the congress had cobbled together
it had to piss off the court that Obama spoke in terms of politicization of the court and inferring that any ruling against the law would be viewed as judicial activism
Obama is a havard educated legal scholar, who taught Constitutional law. he has to know that the precedent of a public mandate is going to be in the judicial crosshairs
he was trying to use the political equivalent of 'trash talk' to move the game in his direction
my speculation is that it did not work
 
Kal'Stang said:
You might be only talking about one sentence, but I like things in context. Again, its a prepared speech. He meant every word.
Click to expand...
See bottom.



It is only a "first impression" because it has never happened before. But Obama was using "unprecedented" in a negative tone. Combine with the fact that he talks about "judical activisim" and "lack of restraint" you know that he was talking, as you also assumed going by your previous post, that by striking down the mandate SCOTUS was breaking past precedent. (which btw is also not "unprecedented"). They've "changed" their minds before.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with most of this paragraph. Perhaps a wiser choice than "unprecedented" would have been "against precedent."

Conjecture. But even if he was talking about it so what? That IS dealing with interstate commerce which the government is allowed to do. Getting healthcare insurance or healthcare itself is not always an interstate deal. It is not uncommon for a person to live in the same neighborhood their entire lives and as such, no interstate commerce is involved.
Click to expand...
Well now you are crossing into arguing the merits of what he meant to say. I disagree with you, but right now I'm only arguing that Obama didn't mean what he technically said.

So? Just because they haven't before does not mean that they can't now. Combine that fact to the fact that every other law that was passed was obviously about interstate commerce and this is the first one that deals with the individual directly by forcing them to buy something just because they are alive and yeah...whole different ball game.
Click to expand...
Of course SCOTUS can always change its mind. I believe Obama was expressing his confidence that they wouldn't. And got a little mixed up....few people, least of all conservatives, make the argument that Obama speaks well off the cuff. He's a gifted orator, when he has a teleprompter or is very well-prepared. Better than Bush, of course. ;)

Oh so its just a mistake now is it? Not a "gaff"?
Click to expand...
Isn't a gaffe a mistake that causes embarrassment? I think it is both a mistake and a gaffe.

Google

Obama seems to be denying that he even made a mistake, which is silly of him.

I don't see how this is changing the goalposts.

Again, a prepared speech is not something that a mistake can happen with.
Click to expand...
Of course a mistake can happen in a prepared speech. Preparation does not prevent mistakes in 100% of all cases. But that is besides the point because, as I pointed out, this was not to my knowledge a prepared speech.

But I will be fair and honest with you....Did Obama say this in response to a question by the reporters? Or did he say it during his speech? If it was in response to a reporter then I might concieveably believe that it was a mistake. If it was during his speech then there is no way that it was a mistake. Speeches are normally prepared and checked over a few times to make sure that no mistakes happen.
Click to expand...
Thank you for being fair and honest.

Obama: Supreme Court overturning health care would be "unprecedented" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Ummm . . . I did. The judge asked whether or not the President believes a court has the power to strike down a law.

This:



Doesn't answer that question.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. The judge had ordered Holder to answer a question that had absolutely nothing to do with the case that was sitting in front of him. THAT is a huge no no. Holder replied in a way that was sure to really piss off that judge. LMAO.

Again, context is everything, and since you couldn't see or understand the context, I just gave it to you. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Of course they do, which is why Holder's reply to them is so hilarious. That judge should have known what he was doing when he gave that order to the administration, which had nothing at all to do with the case that the order came from. Holder was merely instructing the judge, in a very hilarious way, to abide by legal precedent which the judge should have already known was set in stone. Was it a slap in the face by Holder? Absolutely. Or, better yet, let's call it a legal Soupy Sales letter with egg instead of a pie that Holder threw in his face. LMAO.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then I don't think anyone other than you, Holder, and the judge, gets the joke. By this one simple ruling, Holder was publically embarressed and made into a high school boy, who didn't even do all of his homework(only 2 and a half pages). I think that's the greater point to everyone else in the future, be careful about when you hit judges, they can hit you right back.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
who didn't even do all of his homework(only 2 and a half pages).
Click to expand...
In the legal community "no less than 3 pages" is not the same as "at least three full pages."
 
Krhazy said:
In the legal community "no less than 3 pages" is not the same as "at least three full pages."
Click to expand...

And that would be legally stupid. Just write 1 word on 3 different sheets of paper. There, "3 pages", and smile, smile, smile. Hey, law works off technicality, right?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
And that would be legally stupid. Just write 1 word on 3 different sheets of paper. There, "3 pages", and smile, smile, smile. Hey, law works off technicality, right?
Click to expand...
I'm just telling you as a person who has been through law school and worked for a federal judge, that is what that requirement means. I think you are the one being overly technical here. Holder complied with what was requested of him. And given that the judge had no place asking for a brief in the first place on this issue, I think he was accommodating in what he did write.

You are making a pretty petty point.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
I'm just telling you as a person who has been through law school and worked for a federal judge, that is what that requirement means. I think you are the one being overly technical here. Holder complied with what was requested of him. And given that the judge had no place asking for a brief in the first place on this issue, I think he was accommodating in what he did write.

You are making a pretty petty point.
Click to expand...
what causes you to say the judge had no place to insist on the DOJ brief
 
justabubba said:
what causes you to say the judge had no place to insist on the DOJ brief
Click to expand...
It wasn't an issue that had been raised in the case being heard.
 
Krhazy said:
It wasn't an issue that had been raised in the case being heard.
Click to expand...

but it certainly had bearing in that case
it involved the challenge to expanded restrictions on physician-owned hospitals, which restrictions were found in the Obamacare (ACA) law
was it unusual for the court to respond to statements not in the record before it? absolutely. but President Obama could be viewed as undermining the court's authority by his statements that it would be “unprecedented” and an example of “judicial activism” by “an unelected group of people” for the court to find the mandate provision of Obamacare (ACA) to be unConstitutional. such questioning of the court's motivations by a president, who is also known to be a scholar of the Constitution, deserved a public rebuke by the court
 
Krhazy said:
It wasn't an issue that had been raised in the case being heard.
Click to expand...



I like that the judge did it, but I do agree with you. It seemed rather unecessary and not a proper place to have it occur.
 
justabubba said:
but it certainly had bearing in that case
it involved the challenge to expanded restrictions on physician-owned hospitals, which restrictions were found in the Obamacare (ACA) law
was it unusual for the court to respond to statements not in the record before it? absolutely. but President Obama could be viewed as undermining the court's authority by his statements that it would be “unprecedented” and an example of “judicial activism” by “an unelected group of people” for the court to find the mandate provision of Obamacare (ACA) to be unConstitutional. such questioning of the court's motivations by a president, who is also known to be a scholar of the Constitution, deserved a public rebuke by the court
Click to expand...
I disagree.

In limited circumstances, a court can request input on an ambiguous issue of law from state courts, congress, etc. But the issue must be necessary to decide the case. In this case, the issue is not ambiguous, the government hadn't raised the issue in the case, and the appeals court is bound by SCOTUS precedent anyway, so it is irrelevant what the President thinks.

If SCOTUS itself had sent Obama a demand regarding the case they are actually considering, I probably would feel differently, although I would still consider such a demand petty. But apart from these unusual circumstances, the judiciary doesn't have any authority to demand the executive branch to answer inquiries any more than the executive branch has the authority to demand SCOTUS to state how it would rule on a particular issue out of context.

Obama's comments are absolutely embarrassing, especially given that he is a constitutional law scholar. But I think it is the Republicans' job to ridicule him, when warranted, not the judiciary.

Anyway, I don't have that big of an issue with it, in any event. It's not like it hurt anybody. I just think it was unprofessional.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom