• 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

Eighty Deuce said:
I would submit that the point is that a sitting President is commenting on a decision while the decision is pending, in a "they better not" way.

This is not as conservative politicians decrying past decisions, such as Roe v Wade, or liberals with Citizen's United, that they disagree with. This is about the sitting POTUS playing politics, lying, and basically besmirching, what is supposed to be a co-equal part of our checks and balances, while a decision is pending.

Its BS from the dictator wannabee.
Click to expand...

So I'll put you on the list of people who expect a president to publicly say "Yeah, this major policy item of mine will probably be ruled unconstitutional."

Seriously, people. It's politics. In a major court case, everyone will publicly say that they expect to win. Even in a high-profile murder case with a hundred witnesses, the dude's lawyer is going to say on camera "My client is innocent, the jury will do the right thing, yadda yadda." But nobody accuses them of trying to influence the jury. Now, when a president of the opposing party says the same thing, on the other hand...
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if ALL the courts were unbiased. There is little wonder why every wingnut with a cause goes to the federal 9th court.
 
Deuce said:
That's not arrogance, that's politics. What do you freaking expect, the president of the United States to say about one of his landmark issues: "Yeah, probably going to get overturned as unconstitutional. Whoopsie!"

And he's right about cries of "judicial activism." Judicial activism translates roughly as "judge decided in a manner I disagree with."
Click to expand...

No, I could have expected a true statesman to say:

The Executive Branch and a majority of Congress believe this law is Constitutional...believe we are acting in the best interests of the people of the United States of America, and are confident that SCOTUS will agree.
Click to expand...
 
patrickbwayne said:
Why is it the GOP is willing to accept the Supreme Court decision to strike down the Health Care law should it decide to do it as a "just ruling", but continue for decades to force the Court to back away from their abortion "just ruling"? I guess it just depends on which side of the political fence you happen to be sitting on eh?
Click to expand...

Or it could be that humans sit on the supreme court and sometimes they get it right and other times they don't. Let's not forget they also upheld slavery.
 
patrickbwayne said:
Why is it the GOP is willing to accept the Supreme Court decision to strike down the Health Care law should it decide to do it as a "just ruling", but continue for decades to force the Court to back away from their abortion "just ruling"? I guess it just depends on which side of the political fence you happen to be sitting on eh?
Click to expand...

How have Repubs "force" the Supremes to change Roe v Wade? It's still considered constitutional, yes? Hasn't even been close to change that ruling.

Those that believe life begins a conception have voiced their opinion, and thus far, folks still have freedom of speech.
 
Mycroft said:
It's because the Supreme Court is unelected that I trust in their judgment.

But, you know, Obama has a history of ignoring courts...I wonder if he'll ignore the Supremes if they don't rule his way.
Click to expand...

History of ignoring the courts. lol

You keep saying that as if it were true. I'd love for you to show this rather than propagate it without sources.
 
So basically, President Obama is going to lead and pass his agenda...by declaring war on the supreme court....

Historically, that's never worked.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
So basically, President Obama is going to lead and pass his agenda...by declaring war on the supreme court....

Historically, that's never worked.
Click to expand...

Actually is has. Look up Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New ST er uh Deal.
 
Deuce said:
So I'll put you on the list of people who expect a president to publicly say "Yeah, this major policy item of mine will probably be ruled unconstitutional."

Seriously, people. It's politics. In a major court case, everyone will publicly say that they expect to win. Even in a high-profile murder case with a hundred witnesses, the dude's lawyer is going to say on camera "My client is innocent, the jury will do the right thing, yadda yadda." But nobody accuses them of trying to influence the jury. Now, when a president of the opposing party says the same thing, on the other hand...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't care if he said he believed the law to be constitutional, especially if he could back it up with a better argument than that numerous nameless, faceless people say that it is. His current appeal to emotion, though, is absolutely irrelevant to the question of constitutionality. You'd think he should know that. I mean, supposedly he's a constitutional scholar but him saying that striking down a "duly constituted" law would be "unprecedented" made it look like he had no clue what judicial review is even all about. As much as I disagree with him, I don't believe him to be stupid, but he's sounding absolutely clueless on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Billy the Kid said:
Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

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

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

I guess he for got the Constitution establishes one federal court: the Supreme Court.

Redress edit: Link to story is here: Obama Warns 'unelected' Supreme Court Against Striking Down Health Law | Fox News
Click to expand...
I'm curious to know what the President plans to do to the SC if it strikes down the Bill.
 
lunchbox said:
I'm curious to know what the President plans to do to the SC if it strikes down the Bill.
Click to expand...

What do you think he's going to do to them? :lol:
 
lunchbox said:
I'm curious to know what the President plans to do to the SC if it strikes down the Bill.
Click to expand...

What can he do? He'll have to accept their ruling is my guess. Maybe some of the legel eagles on the board can tell you if he has any recourse.

I think his current comments about the SCOTUS, is setting the stage for him to rant on their failure, if the Supremes give his HC bill the smack down. Then he'll use that during his re-election campaign. All JMO.
 
Last edited:
Billy the Kid said:
What can he do? He'll have to accept their ruling is my guess. Maybe some of the legel eagles on the board can tell you if he has any recourse.

I think his current comments about the SCOTUS, is setting the stage for him to rant on their failure, if the Supremes give his HC bill the smack down. Then he'll use that during his re-election campaign. All JMO.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly right. There is nothing he can do if they strike it down. Well, technically he could file a motion for rehearing, but the chances of success there are slim and none.

So his statement did the following:

1. Established that he thinks he will prevail (duh); and

2. Attempted to innoculate himself in case he doesn't prevail, by casting the Court as the bad guy and by turning a bog-standard conservative argument to his side.
 
AdamT said:
I think that's exactly right. There is nothing he can do if they strike it down. Well, technically he could file a motion for rehearing, but the chances of success there are slim and none.

So his statement did the following:

1. Established that he thinks he will prevail (duh); and

2. Attempted to innoculate himself in case he doesn't prevail, by casting the Court as the bad guy and by turning a bog-standard conservative argument to his side.
Click to expand...
A rehearing in SCOTUS?! Seriously?
 
AdamT said:
Erm, you know that they aren't elected officials, right?

The hypocrisy in this thread is absolutely astonishing. For how many decades have conservatives been whining about unelected judges trying to legislate from the bench?
Click to expand...

What was Obama's purpose by reminding us the USSC justices are "unelected officials"?
 
AdamT said:
I think that's exactly right. There is nothing he can do if they strike it down. Well, technically he could file a motion for rehearing, but the chances of success there are slim and none.

So his statement did the following:

1. Established that he thinks he will prevail (duh); and

2. Attempted to innoculate himself in case he doesn't prevail, by casting the Court as the bad guy and by turning a bog-standard conservative argument to his side.
Click to expand...

3. Playing politics with an issue (especially during an election year) (others have done this)
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
What was Obama's purpose by reminding us the USSC justices are "unelected officials"?
Click to expand...

The purpose is to highlight the fact that we have a representative democracy where laws should not be overturned by the courts if at all possible.
 
mike2810 said:
3. Playing politics with an issue (especially during an election year) (others have done this)
Click to expand...

Right -- that's the point of No. 2.
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
What was Obama's purpose by reminding us the USSC justices are "unelected officials"?
Click to expand...

He wanted to preempt the political activism of those unelected hacks housed in the shed behind the Capital.
 
AdamT said:
The purpose is to highlight the fact that we have a representative democracy where laws should not be overturned by the courts if at all possible.
Click to expand...

and that is why Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. States passed (illegal immigration) laws that he doesn't like, DOJ goes after them. Yet the laws were passed by elected representatives of the people.

It is pretty condensending for our President to come out with his statement before the decision on health care.
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
What was Obama's purpose by reminding us the USSC justices are "unelected officials"?
Click to expand...

I know, I know . . . . to give Romney a great sound bite during the campaign. Romney, if he's smart, will use these comments to beat President Obama like a rented mule. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom