Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

  1. #41
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,850
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    OK, dude. I've explained what I said in simple terms several times now, and you're still claiming I said something I didn't, while quoting that very simple explanation.

    So, you either don't understand plain English with little more than a third-grade level vocabulary, or you're being deliberately dishonest.

    I really don't care which, but I'm not wasting another second on it. Blather away about whatever you want.
    Have a nice day. I encourage you to reread our conversation at a later time with some impartiality.
    Last edited by Cameron; 04-05-12 at 04:40 PM.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  2. #42
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,751

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Oddly enough, that wasn't the question the judge asked.
    Context is everything. Read it again.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  3. #43
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,850
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Here is Obama's own clarification of what he meant:

    UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but thepresident today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."
    Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care."The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said."Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  4. #44

  5. #45
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    I think the court of appeals was out of line. What is a Judge doing ordering a letter based on what that Judge heard on TV? This is not how it is supposed to work regardless of what anyone thinks of Obama's statements. It was not something before the Court.

  6. #46
    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
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    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.
    You might be only talking about one sentence, but I like things in context. Again, its a prepared speech. He meant every word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    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."
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    But here is the actual line of precedent Obama was referring to (from Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.):
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Add that to the fact that SCOTUS has not overturned a law based on the commerce clause since the Great Depression.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    No, the hackery is a deliberate attempt to make an obvious mistake into something conniving or demonstrating extreme ignorance.
    Oh so its just a mistake now is it? Not a "gaff"? Changeing the goal posts much? Again, a prepared speech is not something that a mistake can happen with. 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.
    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

  7. #47
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Context is everything. Read it again.
    Ummm . . . I did. The judge asked whether or not the President believes a court has the power to strike down a law.

    This:

    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.
    Doesn't answer that question.
    “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

  8. #48
    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
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Not really. According to that link they are now trying to argue that SCOTUS shouldn't even be trying to decide on the ACA because they do not hold jurisdiction over the case, at least thats what I got from it. Considering they are trying to keep it upheld based on the commerce clause which SCOTUS has deliberated about before, multiple times I don't see how they can claim this.

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    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.
    Reagan said that 10 years after the case was decided, not while the case was being discussed. Apples and oranges.
    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

  9. #49
    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
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    Here is Obama's own clarification of what he meant:

    [/FONT][/LEFT]
    OH! IN THE "MODERN ERA"! Ok! Its ALL cleared up now. Sorry Mr. Obama, I don't believe you.
    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

  10. #50
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Appeals Court Fires Back At Obama's Comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Reagan said that 10 years after the case was decided, not while the case was being discussed. Apples and oranges.
    Apples and Oranges are at least fruits.

    This example was more like a comparison of apples and ridiculous straw men.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •