• 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’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

You're confusing what your opinion is they have done, with intent and purpose. In the 200+ years yes the SCOTUS has sometimes given deference... however my point is that is NOT their purpose - not then, not now. It's very clear why the framers created the 3 distinct sections of government. On a side note, pretty much anything can be "rationalized"...

I'm not confusing anything. I'm just telling you how the Court has behaved over the course of its history.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

He was a professor of constitutional law at a top-five law school. That qualifies him as an expert.

What qualifies someone as an expert is proving they have the knowledge required to be considered an expert. I have not seen that.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Did I say that it was unanimous? No.

No you said "most", you have failed to prove your case....

How renowned is your expert? An associate professor at George Mason School of Law? :doh

A regular writer at "The Volohk Conspiracy"? "The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog which mostly covers United States legal and political issues, generally from a libertarian or conservative perspective." :doh




Like I said, I did a simple google search, I don't bow to so called "experts" like you do, you made the claim "most", I simply demonstrated you were wrong.


Can you explain to me how never in the history of the nation, has Congress adopted a law requiring people to buy a product or service simply because they exist and live in this country? and can you reconcile that the Supreme Court has never held that Congress can fine/tax/etc "doing nothing" in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

It is obscene to the Constitution, no matter which so called "expert" you bandy about.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Okay. Now address Amar, Tribe, and Chemerinsky, who are, I think most legal scholars would concede, the top three, or at least among the top five constitutional law scholars in the country. And Fried -- Reagan's Solicitor General.

Could you please provide this comprehensive list of top constitutional scholars? I don't deny all three, one of which in regards to Tribe is regarded as one of the top "liberal" constitutional experts and was a consultant for Obama's Justice Administration, are well respected opinions. That said, you've chosen at least two, if not three, Constitutional Scholars who are known to historically lean, with regards to the constitution, in a similar way that Ginsberg and Breyer lean. What you're essentially attempting to do is handpick the experts of your choosing to attempt to validate only one view point of constitutional philosophy as being valid.

Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law stated before the Judiciary committee that "the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power to mandate that persons must engage in economic activity". I find it interesting you immedietely discount Rivkin and Casey because they represent the plantiff, but have no issue quoting a person whose been on the payroll of the Obama Administration as a fair and objective individual. One of the people in your own links, James Blumstein, even suggest that the notion of its constitutionality only exists "given the expansion of federal power since 1937", which inherently suggests that it's simply due to precedent rather than any inherent constitutional notion that it should not be overturned. However, throughout America's history there's been examples, some lauded by Liberals (and some by both sides), where the Courts disregarded precedent for their own interpritation of the Constitution and those acts are not viewed as unconstitutional or judicial activism or "wrong".

You further discount the fact that while those you've named are legal experts, they are no more legal experts than those sitting on the Supreme Court and they are no more or less impartial because they're professors rather than judges. Furthermore, it puts all your stock in judging the constitutionality of this on legal experts, specifically in your case legal experts with a noted lean in terms of their style of constitutional interpritation, while ignoring that there are a plethora of legal experts throughout the country who have taken up the mantle of Judges rather than deciding to enter into acadamia. A group, by and large, that remains silent on such a thing. The notion that one can accuratley and fairly designate what the majority of legal expert or scholar's believes is a misguided one based on this notion. Perhaps a judgement can be made regarding the majority of legal professors, but those are hardly the only experts on the issue in this country.

Finally, I'll point out your baseline fallacy with appealing to authority. Not only are you proclaiming you're correct because some experts, hand picked by you and deemed the "top" in the country by you, happen to agree but you do so by discounting the experts sitting on the court that disagree with you, the experts making the arguments that are disagreeing with you, and other experts that have spoken out that disagree not to mention those that can't or choose not to speak out. So your argument that you're correct is generally based on a foundation of nothing but your own hand selected experts as some kind of unquestionable truth. It is not.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Apparently it only applies when its a decision that conservatives don't like. They get very prickly when the tables are turned on them.

Really? Because Obama's stated that if this is overturned its an example of Judicial Activism yet gets prickly and bitchy when it goes the other way....seems like it doesn't only apply to decisions conservatives don't like.

Actually, Obama and yourself are highlighting the very thing your prized professor was whining about. You bitch and whine and moan when people use the term "judicial activism" when its against a case you like, but when a case goes the way you dislike Obama and seemingly yourself have no issue using it.

Seems to me that for you and Obama it definitely is a label for the decision that you don't like.

Excuse me if I refuse to engage in your and the President's sad and pathetic little game of "two wrongs make a right".
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Perhaps Obama should take a lesson from Chemerinsky concerning complaints about the court acting on Judicial Activism.

"Judicial activism is the label for the decision that people don't like."

Or does that quote only apply when its a decision HE doesn't like? (And that Obama doesn't like)

Why would the president be any different? Everyone screams judicial activism when judges do something they don't like. Take, for example, every time a judge overturns a gay marriage ban. Every time it's "these judges are unelected! rarr will of the people! judicial activism! legislating from the bench! Rabble rabble!"

Turns out President Obama is a politician too. People seem surprised at this, for some reason. Besides, what else is a president supposed to say? "Yeah the supreme court will probably overturn this major policy thing of mine. Oops!"
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I'm not confusing anything. I'm just telling you how the Court has behaved over the course of its history.
And I think they may have occasionally behaved that way in 200+ yet that doesn't define their purpose, intent or function.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Okay, I thought he was talking about the mandate case that was decided under the commerce clause. What were you talking about?

This is why I hope you're being paid to say these things. You know damn well his statement that no law passed by a strong majority of Congress has been overturned wasn't limited to any clause.

If you're not being paid, why are you so motivated to carry his water all the way into hell? The contortions and twists you come up with to try to "explain" what he "really meant" are Olympic-caliber.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

He's a Constitutional scholar and like many of them he doesn't believe the bill is unconstitutional. He has a right to his opinions.

But not his own facts, like "strong majority" and "unprecedented."
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Could you please provide this comprehensive list of top constitutional scholars? I don't deny all three, one of which in regards to Tribe is regarded as one of the top "liberal" constitutional experts and was a consultant for Obama's Justice Administration, are well respected opinions. That said, you've chosen at least two, if not three, Constitutional Scholars who are known to historically lean, with regards to the constitution, in a similar way that Ginsberg and Breyer lean. What you're essentially attempting to do is handpick the experts of your choosing to attempt to validate only one view point of constitutional philosophy as being valid.

Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law stated before the Judiciary committee that "the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power to mandate that persons must engage in economic activity". I find it interesting you immedietely discount Rivkin and Casey because they represent the plantiff, but have no issue quoting a person whose been on the payroll of the Obama Administration as a fair and objective individual. One of the people in your own links, James Blumstein, even suggest that the notion of its constitutionality only exists "given the expansion of federal power since 1937", which inherently suggests that it's simply due to precedent rather than any inherent constitutional notion that it should not be overturned. However, throughout America's history there's been examples, some lauded by Liberals (and some by both sides), where the Courts disregarded precedent for their own interpritation of the Constitution and those acts are not viewed as unconstitutional or judicial activism or "wrong".

You further discount the fact that while those you've named are legal experts, they are no more legal experts than those sitting on the Supreme Court and they are no more or less impartial because they're professors rather than judges. Furthermore, it puts all your stock in judging the constitutionality of this on legal experts, specifically in your case legal experts with a noted lean in terms of their style of constitutional interpritation, while ignoring that there are a plethora of legal experts throughout the country who have taken up the mantle of Judges rather than deciding to enter into acadamia. A group, by and large, that remains silent on such a thing. The notion that one can accuratley and fairly designate what the majority of legal expert or scholar's believes is a misguided one based on this notion. Perhaps a judgement can be made regarding the majority of legal professors, but those are hardly the only experts on the issue in this country.

Finally, I'll point out your baseline fallacy with appealing to authority. Not only are you proclaiming you're correct because some experts, hand picked by you and deemed the "top" in the country by you, happen to agree but you do so by discounting the experts sitting on the court that disagree with you, the experts making the arguments that are disagreeing with you, and other experts that have spoken out that disagree not to mention those that can't or choose not to speak out. So your argument that you're correct is generally based on a foundation of nothing but your own hand selected experts as some kind of unquestionable truth. It is not.

Unfortunately I don't know of any list of "top constitutional scholars". I just know the the most prominent ones, which are the ones I listed. I do remember a wider survey when the mandate was first proposed, but I can't seem to find it now. As for Tribe, he isn't presently working for Obama. I also cited Fried who isn't presently working for Reagan. Funny you haven't mentioned that one. In any case, these are clearly several orders of magnitude different from a guy who is actively representing a plaintiff in the case. That attorney has an affirmative duty to argue on behalf of his client. He could be sanctioned or worse if he took the other side.

Of course you are free to list your own counterveiling experts and I'd be happy to address their opinions and qualifications. Right now all I hear from you is the sound of crickets chirping.

The question here was, "what do independent constitutional scholars think," so it's a bit asinine to argue that I'm discounting what the justices have said. In any case, you seem to be unaware of the fact that the justices haven't given their opinions yet. While oral arguments can give a general idea how a judge is leaning, they don't always, and you never know what a particular question on a particular point means. Is the judge really skeptical, or is he just playing devil's advocate? Is he dubious about the law, or is he just trying to tie up any loose ends he might have before finding it constitutional? We don't know. As far as other sitting judges go, they generally will not, and should not comment on a case that's before the Supreme Court, as there's a chance they will have to rule on some aspect of the case or interpret the decision.

Finally, appealing to authority is not a fallacy unless the person(s) cited is not actually an authority.

So you seem to be proclaiming you're correct based on ... what? The opinion of the counsel representing your side? The questions of the judges? Strong argument.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

He was a professor of constitutional law at a top-five law school. That qualifies him as an expert.

No. He was a "lecturer". And often on leave from teaching.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

No. He was a "lecturer". And often on leave from teaching.

As the law school has said, they consider a senior lecturer to be a professor.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Really? Because Obama's stated that if this is overturned its an example of Judicial Activism yet gets prickly and bitchy when it goes the other way....seems like it doesn't only apply to decisions conservatives don't like.

Actually, Obama and yourself are highlighting the very thing your prized professor was whining about. You bitch and whine and moan when people use the term "judicial activism" when its against a case you like, but when a case goes the way you dislike Obama and seemingly yourself have no issue using it.

Seems to me that for you and Obama it definitely is a label for the decision that you don't like.

Excuse me if I refuse to engage in your and the President's sad and pathetic little game of "two wrongs make a right".

Is it two wrongs make a right, or is it turnabout is fair play? In this case I would say it's the latter.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

As the law school has said, they consider a senior lecturer to be a professor.

Yeah. They said that after the DNC and all its affiliates started to refer to Obama as a "Professor" in the run up to 2008, and then it became apparent he had never been one.

Fact is, he was never a "professor". He was a Community Organizer though.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

This is why I hope you're being paid to say these things. You know damn well his statement that no law passed by a strong majority of Congress has been overturned wasn't limited to any clause.

If you're not being paid, why are you so motivated to carry his water all the way into hell? The contortions and twists you come up with to try to "explain" what he "really meant" are Olympic-caliber.

I agree that's what his words literally said. I thing I've said that before. My point is that I don't think that's what he meant, and he has since clarified what he meant.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I agree that's what his words literally said. I thing I've said that before. My point is that I don't think that's what he meant, and he has since clarified what he meant.

Yes, in a way which does not at ALL suggest what YOU say he meant ("commerce clause case law").

So, I ask again, why do you carry his water so faithfully? You even appear to the be last one here with a bucket.

Edit: Nope, I'm wrong; there's still a small brigade left.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

But not his own facts, like "strong majority" and "unprecedented."

A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Yes, in a way which does not at ALL suggest what YOU say he meant ("commerce clause case law").

So, I ask again, why do you carry his water so faithfully? You even appear to the be last one here with a bucket.

Actually in a way that is EXACTLY what I said he meant.

Maybe you missed it?

We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned, at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going to back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal. And 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.

Now, as I said, I expect -- I expect the Supreme Court actually to -- to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents 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.

As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. What I did emphasize yesterday is, there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. This is not an abstract exercise.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much.

He said a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. 18 votes out of 535 is no one's definition of "strong." Quite a few liberal commentators have conceded this; why can't you?


If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.

Nope, United States v. Lopez. Funny, proponents there said it "clearly" regulated commerce, too.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Actually in a way that is EXACTLY what I said he meant.

Maybe you missed it?

Actually, yes, I did miss that particular one . . . but he's tying it to health care moreso than "commerce." And he's still wrong.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.


LOL ..... there is nothing strong in a vote that is along party lines. Nothing. In fact, that makes it weak.

This is one logic fallacy after another. Or deliberate BS. :doh
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

He said a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. 18 votes out of 535 is no one's definition of "strong." Quite a few liberal commentators have conceded this; why can't you?




Nope, United States v. Lopez. Funny, proponents there said it "clearly" regulated commerce, too.

You don't add up the Senate and the House to get a final tally. It doesn't work that way. :lol: I said it passed by a supermajority in the Senate and not so much in the House. Why can't you acknowledge that reality?

Re: Lopez, you are incorrect. The argument there was that the state law had an indirect effect on interstate commerce -- not that Congress was directly regulating Congress.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

LOL ..... there is nothing strong in a vote that is along party lines. Nothing. In fact, that makes it weak.

This is one logic fallacy after another. Or deliberate BS. :doh

Last time I checked they counted the votes the same way whether or not they were all cast by the same party. Are you saying it wouldn't be a strong majority if the Senate was 95% Republican and a bill passed 95 to 5?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.

Except this isn't clearly an example of regulating interstate commerce, which is why this thing has found its way all the way to the SCOTUS and has a decent possibility of being overturned. There's nothing "Clear" about its relationship to regulating interstate commerce, on the contrary its ambiguous due to the extreme unique nature regarding the mandate. It is only "Clear" due to your hyper partisan need to make it out as if your side is unquestionably correct so you can act like those you so often enjoy casting dispersions on by whining about judicial activism or something akin to it if the court doesn’t happen to agree with your conclusion.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So you seem to be proclaiming you're correct based on ... what? The opinion of the counsel representing your side? The questions of the judges? Strong argument.

Where have I been proclaiming that I'm correct? Where have I made an affirmative statement about what the court will rule, or what is absolutely clear regarding constitutionality? I absolutely have done no such thing. I know full well my OPINION is that it's unconstitutional, however I'm not going to sit here and proclaim my opinion is absolute or that if it doesn't follow with my opinion that it MUST be for politically motivated reasons or "judicial activism" or such. In this case, if the court finds in favor of this administration, it would not fit how I personally define judicial activism as they are setting a clear portion of the constitution to base their judgment on. An interpretation of that portion that I strongly disagree with, but one that is at least clearly rooted in the constitution rather than in the creation of words and rights that are in no way or form stated in the document.

My only comment on it is that it is not a clear open and cut situation, where only one side is unquestionably correct and the other side to say otherwise is unconstitutional politically motivated activism, as the President and seemingly you are want to do. It's a case with significant constitutional questions and ambiguity that has the capacity to easily go either way and where the ideologues, if we're going to consider them as such, on the court have unquestionably moved to their ideological sides and that suggesting somehow that one side is doing so because of principle and the other doing so simply due to politics is foolish sophistry at its worst.

The fact that this issue has received differing rulings throughout multiple lower courts, has legal scholars in agreement on both sides of the issues, and has the potential for a 5-4 decision either direction is clear and undisputable evidence that the question regarding its constitutionality is NOT clear, is NOT unquestionable, and does NOT have only one plausible legitimate answer that is obvious. To suggest that an entire scope of judges, justices, legal scholars, lawyers, and other individuals are all orchestrating an elaborate gambit that is based purely on politics with no regard or notion for the constitution and that an overturning of the law is a sign of judicial activism by individuals seeking to push a political agenda is pure politically motivated ignorance in and of itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom