• 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!

Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

So what if it's from Fox News? What's your point?

Dude. you are 11 pages late.

He claimed
"it's funny when one can guess the article source before even clicking the thread.

if funny = sad."

As if he was having some great revelation because of the subject matter. However the link in the OP has FOX NEWS- right in the link no guessing needed.
 
I love socialists who have such faith in Congress being infallible

I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
 
I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.

I have more faith in the checks and balances that the lifetime appointments give.
 
I have more faith in a congress that is elected and can be removed simply by not voting for them, than I do with a group of supreme court judges who are there for life that are appointed by a president.
Not everyone is that fond of brown nosers.
 
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.

The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.



I would suggest you wait and read the 3 page answer AG Holder has to give the 3 Federal judges on this issue. I do believe you'll have a better grasp as to how the president and his AG really see issue.

I think the President and AG Holder both are going to agree with the posters on this site, President Obama stepped on his crank with the "unelected" comment. The President forgot the golden rule of: "Don't crap in your own nest".
 
Bad comparison. The argument against the state law is that it's preempted by federal law. Both laws were passed by elected representatives. Only the federal laws were passed by national representatives.

I disagree on the comparison. Both laws may or may not be legal. Hence the court cases.

So you think it ok for the President and Congress to make laws that goes against the Constitution, but States can't make laws that may go against Federal law?
The problem is we don't know for sure if the Health Care bill is legal. As we don't know for sure if State illegal immigratiion laws are legal.
Your like Obama. You think the Health Care bill is legal. You think the State illegal immigration law isn't and anyone who disagrees with you are wrong. Yet, time will tell. That is why we have court challenges to legislation.
 
Last edited:
I disagree on the comparison. Both laws may or may not be legal. Hence the court cases.

So you think it ok for the President and Congress to make laws that goes against the Constitution, but States can't make laws that may go against Federal law?
The problem is we don't know for sure if the Health Care bill is legal. As we don't know for sure if State illegal immigratiion laws are legal.
Your like Obama. You think the Health Care bill is legal. You think the State illegal immigration law isn't and anyone who disagrees with you are wrong. Yet, time will tell. That is why we have court challenges to legislation.

Well, I thought your point was that it was hypocritical to claim that courts should give deference to laws created by elected officials while seeking to have the AZ law invalidated, because that law was created by elected officials. Courts substituting their judgment for the legislature? But that's not what the AZ case is about. It's about the Court deciding WHICH elected officials' law should hold sway.
 
Not to go off on a tangent, but judicial activism could be defined as both expansion of rights as well as striking down laws. The Warren Court being an example of the first and the Hughes Court(four horsemen) being a good example of the second.

Part of the problem with having both houses of Congress being directly elected by the people is that the SC ends up being the body to determine the balance between the Tenth Amendment and broad interpretation of the Commerce,Necessary/Proper Clause, and the Welfare Clause. Prior to 1913, the state governments chose the senate to represent their interests in the federal government, allowing more latitude(imo) for the SC to follow judicial restraint.

Regarding PPACA. With 26 states filing suit, you wonder if this bill would have come to fruition if the states still chose senators. Something to consider.
 
The hypocrisy and partisan immaturity of Obama's comments really show that he isn't fit to be president. So he's concerned about a "non elected" set of Supreme court judges... does he forget that they are confirmed by the same Senate that passed his bill? And where does he get off crying about Senate bills, the law was unpopular and was not approved of by the majority of people in the US. Voters reacted by voting GOP in the midterms and largely due to this bill, and Scott Brown was elected largely over this bill to be a vote that could kill the bill.

Judicial activism does exist and unlawful rulings are made, but Obama is way out of line with his comments. He is arrogant and forgets the checks and balances in the government and is essentially trying to apply the same criteria to the Supreme Court that the Congress and Executive branch have. They operate differently. They have to rule on things based on the law, not democratic opinion. If a law was passed that established a state religion or ideology and was supported by Congress the court would rightfully strike it down due to what is in the Constitution. They Court exists to prevent tyranny of the majority and to ensure that the law, which protects our rights, is not violated.
 
Last edited:
Hey, did y'all hear Obama's latest comment?

"We liberals stand for causes that are too important to allow unelected judges to force their own biases on an unwilling nation."
What do you think about that?!












Now what do you think when I tell you that it was actually Mitt Romney who said it -- except of course using "conservatives" in place of "liberals"?

Got a link?
 
He's addicted to tingle... can't get to sleep without it. His sleep literally depends upon Obama staying President ... :lamo
I was being sarcastic, as was the post I replied to. I assumed that everybody thought that Chris Matthews's comment made him look ridiculous.
 
Got a link?



Go to the 5:50 mark.

Obviously if Obama said something like that conservatives would be bouncing off the walls.
 
Last edited:
The supreme court was never intended or granted powers to strike down laws made by ELECTED officials. Conservatives always want to rant and rave about our founding fathers and the powers they intended for our gov't yet when there are clear deviations from those intended powers that benefit them, they always make excuses for it. It wasn't until under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution.

The supreme court is only intended to be the highest court of law in cases that involve state and federal law. It was never intended to warp and manipulate and ultimately decide what the constitution means.
I also bring that up whenever a Conservative law is being overruled by the unConstitutional power of judicial review. In a predatory power grab, Marshall and his court interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. That is as illogical as, "God wouldn't let people believe in Him if He didn't exist," cheating by using the desired conclusion as part of the proof.
 
I also bring that up whenever a Conservative law is being overruled by the unConstitutional power of judicial review. In a predatory power grab, Marshall and his court interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. That is as illogical as, "God wouldn't let people believe in Him if He didn't exist," cheating by using the desired conclusion as part of the proof.

I don't think its the type of petitio principii you're suggesting. Our Constitution has to give something the power to interpret laws and whether real world events and issues are within them or violate them. You're saying the social contract can't delegate a power to interpret the social contract.

"Interpret" should not have come to suggest "power over," or "power to change as it sees fit," but that's what we have--a Court that won't go so far as to admit anything is necessarily unconstitutional. The problem is that some SCOTUS interpretations have effectively changed the Constitution without going through an amendment process. They have a real opportunity here to once again check and balance the other branches as they were meant to.
 


Go to the 5:50 mark.

Obviously if Obama said something like that conservatives would be bouncing off the walls.



I have not seen this before. Thank you.

So now we all know that both candidates are capable of making ridiculous statements that go against the Constitution and the checks and balances set therein.
 
I don't think its the type of petitio principii you're suggesting. Our Constitution has to give something the power to interpret laws and whether real world events and issues are within them or violate them. You're saying the social contract can't delegate a power to interpret the social contract.

"Interpret" should not have come to suggest "power over," or "power to change as it sees fit," but that's what we have--a Court that won't go so far as to admit anything is necessarily unconstitutional. The problem is that some SCOTUS interpretations have effectively changed the Constitution without going through an amendment process. They have a real opportunity here to once again check and balance the other branches as they were meant to.
It is enough to give the people, the Congress, and the President the right to interpret the Constitution. It is even better for them to give actual reasons rather than just referring to this vague and shallow document, e.g., that Obamacare will bankrupt us or make us too dependent on the government, etc. Constitutionalists are trying to repeat the medieval mistake of letting the Vatican have the power to interpret the Bible rather than allowing the self-government of believers to commune directly with God through their own sacred document, which was first proposed in the Reformation. Obviously, the Constitution did not delegate the Supreme Court or else that body would have been appealed to starting 12 years before it appointed itself to be the Vatican of America. This usurpation is not a balancing check; it is really just another outside power grab over us, the people. "The Supreme Court lets us govern ourselves correctly by telling us which of our laws they won't let us enforce."

Just because shallow logician servants of power don't dare give "interpreting the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution" as an example of Begging the Question doesn't mean it's logical. These are the same ilk of acadummies who would believe that Begging the Question means "which brings up the question" if they hadn't specialized in Logic.
 
I would be nice if our all powerful SCOTUS were truly non-partisan. Unfortunately, this is not at all the case. 4 right-winger, 4 left-wingers and only one, slightly right judge making all the decisions. I must say that this court truly should have been Meritocracy based. We're lucky that it's even closed to balanced.

This is the real problem with the SCOTUS currently. It's become a partisan hackfest.
 
Back
Top Bottom